MFA Expansion

Status
Not open for further replies.
cden4 said:
Why don't architects do anything classical anymore?
Click to expand...

czsz said:
You do know many Brutalist and International Style buildings were highly informed by a recognizably classicist instrumentality, right?
Click to expand...

Right on, czsz. What could Edward Durrell Stone or Eero Saarinen have done here?

I like the glass, but the De Stijl windows are really off-putting. I love Foster, but this is a bummer. Having recently visited Piano's new wing at the Art Institute of Chicago, my disappointment is amplified. The interiors are gonna have to sell this to me.
 
^Eh, it's a shame they blocked the street view of Piano's addition with the unnecessary pedestrian bridge. Piano's addition is safe; Fosters, not so much.

The more people start hating on this building (like City Hall), the more I like it.
 
I don't dislike this design but it is entirely without character. Nothing suggests that it could be a museum. If Genzyme or Harvard University constructed this; I would say it's great; but not as an extension of the classical elegance of the Museum of Fine Arts proper.

Though I will say it is consistent in that while other modern museums and wings try to interact maybe too much with the outside; this structure appears to be entirely centered inside. Which is a characteristic of classical museums.

So basically if the wing is great for the person who purchases tickets and walks through the halls...it's a win. If not....FAIL.
 
I was in the museum two weeks ago to see that new Egyptian Exhibit and saw a few glimpses of the inside of the new building. First of all, one of the lobbies is done and paying customers can now walk into it and lounge around. I didn't think about taking pictures at the time, but it is artsy fartsy and very pretty. Also, you can peek through one of the windows in the lobby to see the main building which is also very pretty.

Fun Fact: don't ever pay full price at the MFA, just buy a ticket to see an independent film and nobody will check your ticket again after you get through the first security checkpoint.
 
Bubbybu - well said!

I initially reacted negatively to the fact that Foster's addition doesn't move or inspire me, but after some consideration, I've rethunk my opinion.

What it does extremely well, because of this aesthetic ambivalence, is to be deferential to the original structure. It redirects the attention to where it should be focused ? on the original building entry ? which is a beautiful structure! This is an utter anathema to the ethos of the current list of starchitects, and I find it remarkably refreshing. Let the thing fade to the background ? but before you do, check out the detailing ? it?s impeccable.
 
Like the materials and execution, dislike the design, which looks like the neighboring Northeastern tower adapted to a horizontal plan. Add in today's uber kewl cliche of irregularly spaced windows and voila -- we can haz starchitecture!

The irregular window thing occasionally looks sharp and artistic, but not here. Something about the window proportions leave me feeling stupefied more than enlightened. Maybe that plays into what ledges said above about it purposely deferring to the Lowell buildings, but IMO it doesn't seem befit of such a cultivated institution.
 
The only thing the MFA expansion and the Northeastern tower have in common is the use of a glass curtain wall. One should look no further than the classical MFA museum building and the Pei addition to see where Foster conjured up his modern wing. Perhaps it is not so "understated" as some have claimed, but rather, contextual and just right. It fits right in -- we should be proud of this.
 
bdurden said:
The only thing the MFA expansion and the Northeastern tower have in common is the use of a glass curtain wall. One should look no further than the classical MFA museum building and the Pei addition to see where Foster conjured up his modern wing. Perhaps it is not so "understated" as some have claimed, but rather, contextual and just right. It fits right in -- we should be proud of this.
Click to expand...

If we are at a point where we are proud of 3 nondescript 'U-store-it-all' inspired boxes, then all hope is lost.

Boston is a void of design and imagination. The extension to the MFA illustrates that in the starkest terms.
 
Sure thing, but just so you have a frame of reference, I've never studied architecture, design, city planning (does simcity 2000 count?), or the design process, so this is all from my gut feeling.

This is a prominent project. An addition to a Major US Cities Fine Arts museum should be considered a premier project that many different firms should want to work on. Without knowing how the process truly works (in Boston, I suspect it's laced with cash), I suspect there were hundreds of designs submitted for this. Again, please do correct me if I'm wrong on this assumption about the process. I'd like to understand it better.

So assuming a premier spot attracted the premier design firms, and this is the result, I think it provides an overall commentary on 1) the people choosing the design 2) the quality of designs submitted 3) the sheer lack of courage all involved in the process displayed, evidenced by the 3 bland boxes on huntington we are now stuck with and 4) what passes for good design in Boston.

Big projects should result in big ideas and big results.

This is a Big project resulting in a small idea and even smaller results. No one will make a trip to Boston to see this, other than those who donated to it.

Looking around town, other than a few examples in the horrid Kendall Square area that no one but scientists will notice or visit anyways, I'd say the MFA addition is a prime example of how little imagination is on display in this town's newer projects. Other examples would include all of the seaport, the new NU dorm, the new BU dorm, the Greenway debacle, and pretty much all of Kenmore's 'renewal'.

So I submit that the new MFA addition gives us a good look at what is lacking in this town: imagination and design.
 
Weasel420 said:
Boston is a void of design and imagination. The extension to the MFA illustrates that in the starkest terms.
Click to expand...

Kind of a big blanket, no? On behalf of all designers that do their "imagining" locally but build most of their work outside of the city, I say: Get Bent.
 
Pierce said:
I say: Get Bent.
Click to expand...
Thanks. As your quote of my post indicates, you work in Boston, but design outside of it. Kudos, but my post said Boston is lacking imagination. Bring some of that design here and we have no qualms : )
 
Weasel420 said:
This is a Big project resulting in a small idea and even smaller results. No one will make a trip to Boston to see this, other than those who donated to it.
Click to expand...

Isn't the point of an art gallery the interior? I wouldn't make a trip to anywhere, just to see the exterior of a gallery...Bilbao included.

Plus - just to play devil's advocate: an art gallery is a type of storage facility.
 
Weasel420 said:
Sure thing, but just so you have a frame of reference, I've never studied architecture, design, city planning (does simcity 2000 count?), or the design process, so this is all from my gut feeling.

This is a prominent project. An addition to a Major US Cities Fine Arts museum should be considered a premier project that many different firms should want to work on. Without knowing how the process truly works (in Boston, I suspect it's laced with cash), I suspect there were hundreds of designs submitted for this. Again, please do correct me if I'm wrong on this assumption about the process. I'd like to understand it better.

So assuming a premier spot attracted the premier design firms, and this is the result, I think it provides an overall commentary on 1) the people choosing the design 2) the quality of designs submitted 3) the sheer lack of courage all involved in the process displayed, evidenced by the 3 bland boxes on huntington we are now stuck with and 4) what passes for good design in Boston.

Big projects should result in big ideas and big results.

This is a Big project resulting in a small idea and even smaller results. No one will make a trip to Boston to see this, other than those who donated to it.

Looking around town, other than a few examples in the horrid Kendall Square area that no one but scientists will notice or visit anyways, I'd say the MFA addition is a prime example of how little imagination is on display in this town's newer projects. Other examples would include all of the seaport, the new NU dorm, the new BU dorm, the Greenway debacle, and pretty much all of Kenmore's 'renewal'.

So I submit that the new MFA addition gives us a good look at what is lacking in this town: imagination and design.
Click to expand...

Critics railed against an architectural movement where architects ignored context in favor of big flashy designs; when that movement shifted to toned down contextualism, the same critics made accusations that the same architects were uninspired and unimaginative.
 
ledjes said:
Isn't the point of an art gallery the interior? I wouldn't make a trip to anywhere, just to see the exterior of a gallery...Bilbao included.
Click to expand...

What if it was closer? Doesn't the fact that you even mention Bilbao imply (and perhaps this is obvious) that that a museum can be a beautiful work of art in addition to simply housing art?

I don't think anyone would venture to call this addition a masterpiece. Why would we prefer the drab to the exceptional?
 
I don't get the comparison....

The Spanish Goog is a stand alone museum...we are discussing this new wing like it is stand alone...while forgetting tne entirety of the MFA.

If a new museum was built in the style of our new wing...it would be a failure. Luckily that didnt occur and we have a wing that is probably more functional than stylish
 
Well, I think you're all a bunch of haters and I hope you all have a miserable Thanksgiving.

The museum busted its ass to raise the money to design and build this new wing and to fill it with new and interesting pieces of art. $500 million in private money. No other organization has come close.

So, if it cost $250 million to build something boring, I guess it would cost more to build something nice.

Or could you have done better?
 
So now the amount spent, and the effort put into raising the money, is how we should judge architecture? What a ridiculous comment.
 
J13B6ARo4olzn7ycLzSc7q6ho1_250.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top