apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

I agree that the design doesn't translate that well into a vase; but I think the bracelets that were part of his earlier jewelry line for Tiffany are stunning.

Neither Mr. Gehry's buildings nor his vases appeal to MrGreen.

Ugh... although I like, indeed love, much of Gehry's work, I really hate that new building in Chelsea. It feels very corporate to me.

It's hard to comment on the vases without touching/seeing them in person, but I agree that hard-to-clean is not good design. Visually they don't do much for me, except the glass crinkly vase which is gorgeous - it just figures I would like the one that costs $2700, not the one that costs $125...

Having never actually been in one of his buildings, I shouldn't comment, but... His buildings are interesting looking, but seem like a fad. I think he's filling an (popular) architecture vacuum. I think his vases are ugly.

It bad enough that most major cities feel they need one of his buildings to be cool. Now he wants to ruin my mantle, too?

his buildings are hideous.
his designs only inflate his ego rather than make the landscape a better place.
he should stick to designing toilet bowl brushes

But did you see the jewelry? Mmm baby, there are days when I wish I was a rich useless socialite just to have an excuse to wear that kind of thing. And be able to afford it. Vases etc. not so much, they're fine for your mansion, the butler doesn't mind cleaning out those tiny corners. I have to say I feel like we are not the target market for any of this stuff.

I hope all of the folks stating dislike for Gehry's buildings are doing so after having been in one of his buildings. I just returned from Chicago. The Gehry Bandshell in Millennium Park is beautiful especially at night during a performance when it is lighted at it's best. It is the perfect compliment to the, also stunning, Cloud Gate.

I was fortunate to have received one of those torqued ghery bracelets for my anniversary last year. And I have to say...he's a much better jewelry designer than he is an architect.

i have been in several gehry buildings. his interior detailing contradicts his "concept".
and you don't need to experience the inside of one of his buildings to see that he has no respect for context nor community.

Ghery was awarded the Pritzker Architecture Award. When Mrs. Pritzker offered to donate the money to build the bandshell in Mellennium Park, she agreed to do so on the condition that the building was designed by Ghery. I think that the award committee and Mrs. Pritzker are better judges of what is and is not good architecture than the folks here who seem to be unable to move beyond provincial concepts of what good architecture is.

None of the Mrs. Pritzkers have architectural or other special training that would anoint her opinion regarding Mr. Gehry.

MrGreen has been inside and around several of Mr. Gehry's structures and finds them cheap-looking, disorienting, and ridiculous. They are generally poorly-constructed, with poor attention to detail. The floorplans are incomprehensible. The building systems do not function properly. Mr. Gehry should stick to building things with cardboard instead of expensive, ugly, novel buildings.

However, MrGreen is willing to let time be the judge of bad taste.

MrGreen I have a crush on you! You remind me of the I love trash puppet on Sesame Street, who was also green.
However, I must defend Gehry, who was spot-on in the one building of his I have actually seen in the flesh (titanium): the Bilbao Guggenheim museum. Perfect landmark in a post-industrial landscape.

The building in Chelsea is awful, have been past it several times. Some of his other projects around the world are truly inspiring though. Gehry's jewelry collection for Tiffany was much better than the tableware collection. I think his more fliud "fish" forms in the jewelry line work. Makes me think the tableware designs came from another designer hired to "replicate his style", rather unsuccessfully.

I live near his west chelsea building, and I actually really like looking at it when running on the hudson river path or drinking at the brewery. true, it doesn't look great at night when it's lit from the inside, but I really like the way it looks on a overcast & grey day--- i know it's not popular opinion, but i really like having it there.... and, for people concerned about his respect for the context/community... what the hell else that far west in chelsea (literally on the highway and next to a series of flat-pak warehouses that hold the pier facilities) is there to respect or disrespect exactly?! .... it's surrounded by vacant lots and parking garages.

MrGreen, sorry. I didn't know that you knew Mrs. Pritzker so well that you know her background verifies that she knows nothing about architecture. Stupid of me to think that if she and her husband set up an award program she would be totally clueless about what consituted a 'winner' in the field. MrGreen, I still see your understanding and appreciation of contemporary architecture as being provincial....not to worry though, I am still in love with you.

Also not at all a fan of Gehry. The buildings are certainly dramatic from the outside, but (in my opinion) the insides are terrible. The Gehry-designed EMP (Experience Music Project) in Seattle, for example. The one performance space is probably the worst, the echo interferes with the music and the acoustics in general make it hard to enjoy shows there. The bar is always near-deserted and yet somehow the sound from it is projected all over the museum. The exhibition spaces are cramped and it's easy to miss whole sections because of the poor floor plan. Too much space is taken up with grand staircases and soaring ceilings.
I love modern architecture, but it seems to me like a good building should be functional and usable as well as beautiful.

PLEASE don't ruin Oscar the Grouch for me by comparing him to Mister Greeeeeeeeeeeeen.

Although they both have something up their @sses.

Since when does a vase have to be "practical"?

God, another tough room here on AT today. Maybe it's the humidity here in NYC.

And how can you deem a building a success or failure by "being by it"?

Not a fan of the vases.

However, I had the opportunity to work in one of his buidlings every day for 3 years, moved into it the day it was finished actually. ( http://vontz.uc.edu ) And it was a wonderful place to work (after the faculty finished fighting over office space, as all of them were different shapes and sizes). Floor-to-ceiling windows, skylights everywhere, warm wood detailing, lots of natural light, much better than working in one of the cinderblock bunkers that comprise most laboratory buildings. And innovations like the interstitial spaces, which kept the maintenence guys out of our lab space. He worked with Earl Walls to design the lab interiors, and it really was a great mix of form and function. Yeah, there were some quirks, like the one conference room with no right angles, which made it kinda difficult to mount a whiteboard. And the lack of space *without* natural light required some renovation before we moved in, because we needed darkrooms for certain kinds of experiments. But still, so much better than working in the glorified fallout shelter we moved from. I miss it there!

I'm a civil engineer, not an architect, but it's hard to experience a building ("space") from 2D photos, plan views, and elevations.

For example, Wright's houses: walking through one of his low-ceilinged passageways and emerging into a vast 1-1/2 story art-glass-lined dining room is mind-blowing (maybe bit strong). But everything hits you at once and you think "Wow!" It would take a well-trained eye to see this on a set of plans or in photographs. Even video wouldn't do it justice (maybe OmniMax).

Oh, for heaven's sake, Mason.

MrGreen supposes that you will next try to convince him to believe Alfred Nobel to have been an able judge of psychological theories and the practice of medicine just because he "set up an award program" in those fields?

Certainly not.

MrGreen a very stupid comparison. I will not bore the AT folks with this any longer. My apologies to all for exposing you to this exchange. It is not the forum or purpose of this site to combat MrGreen.

I'll say one thing, that multi-logo'd construction wall does *nothing* for how that building is perceived. Hoping it's temporary.

I like Gehry because he is pushing the envelope. Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings did always function, yet we idolize him for his break-through place in history.

And Gehry is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't... when he goes hog wild, cries of "impractical." When he works more conservatively, "too corporate."

Wow so much hate here for Frank Gehry. At least he is pushing the envelope. Sometimes the comments here really make me question the level of taste of the readers of this blog. Not the posters, just the commenters. Not everything has to be PRACTICAL. There is a lot to be said for beauty for beauty's sake. And whether you LIKE it or not, you have to admit that much of Gehry's work is sculpturally quite provocative.

I'll concur with Patrick (the other one) on his comments.

p(too), I think you meant "...did not always function, ..."

Mr Green, Nobel was a multilingual chemist, physicist, playwright, and social commentator with a phenomenally comprehensive grasp of all things technical. So he was in fact an able judge of all the fields in which Nobel Prizes are awarded. That's why he set it up. Duh.

Thanks tin_angel. A significant fact is that the Nobel awards were created in Nobel's will....it's a committee that awards the prizes.
The Priytzkers were alive and well when they set up their award program. Mrs. Pritzker remains alive and is very active in the art community of Chicago. Of course it is a committe that selects the winner of Prtizker prize too. Love Gehry or hate if you like. Just don't be stupid about the subject. Many of Wright's buildings are a success, some are not....think the Guggenheim Museum.

I have a piece of the Gehry jewelery from Tiffany's and I love it. And yes, I have to take better care of it than some of my other jewelery, but I don't mind.

As for the vase, I think that you really love Gehry and like his design, it doesn't really matter if the angles of the vase make it hard to clean! I would probably buy it and display it as art, not so much a flower holder.

That Mrs. Pritzker is "alive" and "active in the art community of Chicago" doesn not mean that she has any special training that would anoint her opinion. Mrs. Pritzker certainly is NOT "a better judge of what is and what isn't good architecture" than many of the posters here, some of whom have extensive architectural education. Having a rich husband does not make one's opinion valid.

No, MrGreen, it does not. But Mrs Pritzker has never been on the Pritzker Prize jury. So she chooses to fund Gehry, so what. That's her choice, and she may have financed it independently, for all you know. Women are not necessarily dependent on their husband's income, thank you very much! Its not fair to accuse her of manipulating her position. If you want to blame anyone for Gehry's success, blame the 1989 judges. I will now stop rising to your ill-researched bait!

im a fan of his furniture work...hmm wait am i being bias...crap i think i am. oh well..its still awesome to me. and eh the building is ok...we dont see it much from the showroom.