HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #241  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2009, 1:18 PM
hammersklavier's Avatar
hammersklavier hammersklavier is offline
Your 2016 AAC Champs!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Polis Philou Adelfou
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by philadelphiathrives View Post
I think you're mistaken about the term "gentrification". It is derived from the word "gentry", which refers to wealthy people who inherited their wealth from old family fortunes. Gentrification refers to the replacement of existing residents by this class of people, whose wealth increases property values so much that only wealthy people can live in these gentrified neighborhoods. Working class people and poor people are permanently shut out of gentrified neighborhoods, and many people dislike that scenario.

Revitalization is the term that you are probably thinking of. Revitalization implies more activity in a neighborhood. It is used to refer to physical improvements, mainly, that lead to increased economic activity and attracts new residents, tourists, and businesses to a neighborhood . It does not refer to the economic class of residents, so it is the less controversial term.
Perhaps, but "revitalization" calls to mind projects, and so that word too has negative connotations. So what are we left with? One word implies exclusionism and the other projectism--and it's because of the projectist implications that revitalization gained over the era of Big Housing that it's a word sine qua non grata in technical circles...I am aware that gentrification has its own problems and issues, but until somebody coins a better word I'm going to keep using it.

How about "frindle"?
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #242  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2009, 1:21 AM
hammersklavier's Avatar
hammersklavier hammersklavier is offline
Your 2016 AAC Champs!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Polis Philou Adelfou
Posts: 5,755
The Barnes Museum designs have (finally) been forced out!

http://www.philly.com/philly/enterta...r_parkway.html
Quote:

The Barnes Foundation's new Philadelphia home will be a gracious, golden-hued temple - modern in style, yet almost classical in its repose - set in a tree-shrouded enclave on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway, according to documents that officials submitted to the Philadelphia Art Commission on Friday, but were made public only today.

Acting on the instructions of the city Law Department, the art commission took the wraps off the Barnes’ 17-page presentation, which is scheduled to be reviewed at the commission’s Wednesday morning meeting.

When the Barnes submitted the renderings and site plan on Friday, it argued that the images of the new museum were “proprietary” and should not be released until the commission meets at 9:30 a.m. But after the city received several requests under the Freedom of Information Act, the law department concluded that the public had the right to review the documents before the commission convened.

While the pictures themselves don’t completely explain the logic that underpins the design, created by the New York architects Tod Williams and Billie Tsien, they do give viewers a good sense of what the Barnes’ new home will look like and how it will fit in with the parkway’s other cultural buildings.

It’s very clear, for instance, that the galleries containing the Barnes’ famous collection of Impressionist art will face the parkway. A separate L-shaped structure wrap around those galleries, completing a U shape. The middle section is topped by a long glass cap that extends well beyond those two structures, toward 21st Street and the neighboring Rodin Museum.
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #243  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2009, 9:33 AM
bucks native's Avatar
bucks native bucks native is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NEPA Valley
Posts: 1,300
Hammer: I respectfully believe that The Barnes warrants its own thread. No? Placed here as a "river" project, I suspect that it will be overlooked.

There are lots of folks outside our region who are interested in this project and wouldn't know to look here to learn what's planned. Why not give it prominence? Your post, above, would be a good start to the new thread.

Just my opinion. I could be mistaken.

Last edited by bucks native; Oct 18, 2009 at 7:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #244  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2009, 10:05 AM
bucks native's Avatar
bucks native bucks native is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NEPA Valley
Posts: 1,300
from here: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local...verfronts.html


Oct. 6, 2009

Citizens' group to boost Phila. riverfronts
By Michael Matza

Inquirer Staff Writer

Seeking clout in unity, the newly formed Coalition for Philadelphia's Riverfronts is an alliance of more than three dozen civic, neighborhood, governmental, faith-based, and business groups dedicated to revitalizing the city's waterfront areas through the creation of a comprehensive rivers' edge greenway.

"Riverfront groups generally have advocated for a local portion or a section" of the rivers, said coalition coordinator Rachel Vassar. What distinguishes the coalition, she said, is that it brings together diverse constituencies, from South Philadelphia's Passyunk Square Civic Association to Port Richmond's Friends of Pulaski Park. From the Jewish service organization Moishe House to the Philadelphia Anglers' Club.

The idea, she said, is to speak with "one voice for a citywide policy," grounded in the belief that the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

At a 5 p.m. gathering today at Schuylkill Banks Plaza next to the Philadelphia Museum of Art, representatives of the coalition plan to call on City Council and the City Planning Commission to adopt ordinances and regulations requiring that land along the Schuylkill and the Delaware River be reserved for a green swath that will contain trails for hiking, jogging, rowing, kayaking, bicycle commuting, and other recreational uses.

Besides contributing to the public's health by providing space for vigorous physical exercise, a unified greenway will improve water quality because "a good vegetated buffer can help filter pollutants," the organizers say.

The coalition, funded by a William Penn Foundation grant of about $25,000, envisions turning abandoned factory areas into parkland and connecting communities that otherwise have stood apart.

"When the coalition succeeds in its mission," the group said in a prepared statement, citizens in Bridesburg, Tacony, Holmesburg, and Fishtown, "who never thought of themselves as part of one whole" will work together.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact staff writer Michael Matza at 215-854-2541, or mmatza@phillynews.com.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #245  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2009, 12:50 PM
hammersklavier's Avatar
hammersklavier hammersklavier is offline
Your 2016 AAC Champs!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Polis Philou Adelfou
Posts: 5,755
nm
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)

Last edited by hammersklavier; Oct 6, 2009 at 1:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #246  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2009, 1:01 PM
hammersklavier's Avatar
hammersklavier hammersklavier is offline
Your 2016 AAC Champs!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Polis Philou Adelfou
Posts: 5,755
PHILADELPHIA | Barnes on the Parkway

NEW! Construction webcam! (courtesy apetrella802)
Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/ar...html?_r=1&8dpc

October 7, 2009
Architecture Review
Architects Reimagine the Barnes Collection
By NICOLAI OUROUSSOFF

Can a design convey an institution’s feelings of guilt?

That’s the question that came to mind when I saw the plans for the new Barnes Foundation in downtown Philadelphia, which are scheduled to be unveiled on Wednesday.

A few years back, the decision to move the Barnes, a revered American art institution, from its current location in the suburban town of Merion, Pa., to a site in Philadelphia’s museum district caused an uproar — not only because it brazenly went against the will of the founder, Albert C. Barnes, but also because it threatened to dismantle a relationship among art, architecture and landscape that was critical to the Barnes’s success as a museum.

For any architect taking on the challenge of the new space, the tangle of ethical and design questions might seem overwhelming. What is an architect’s responsibility to Barnes’s vision of a dazzling but quirky collection of early Modern artworks housed in a rambling 1920s Beaux-Arts pile? Is it possible to reproduce its spirit in such a changed setting? Or does trying to replicate the Barnes’s unique aura only doom you to failure?

The answers found in the drawings of Tod Williams and Billie Tsien, the New York architects who took the commission, are not reassuring.

The new Barnes will include many of the features that have become virtually mandatory in the museum world today — conservation and education departments, temporary exhibition space, auditorium, bookstore, cafe — making it four times the size of the old Barnes. The architects have tried to compensate for this by laying out these spaces in an elaborate architectural procession that is clearly intended to replicate the serenity, if not the eccentric charm, of the old museum.

But the result is a convoluted design. Almost every detail seems to ache from the strain of trying to preserve the spirit of the original building in a very different context. The failure to do so, despite such an earnest effort, is the strongest argument yet for why the Barnes should not be moved in the first place.

The old Barnes is by no means an obvious model for a great museum. Its unlikely suburban setting was partly intended as a tweak to the city’s wealthy downtown art establishment. Inside the lighting is far from perfect, and the collection itself, mixing masterpieces by Cézanne, Picasso and Soutine with second-rate paintings by lesser-known artists, has a distinctly oddball flavor.

But these apparent flaws are also what has made the Barnes one of the country’s most enchanting exhibition spaces. The creaky floors and cluttered rooms are light years away from the bigger, more blockbuster-oriented museums of Philadelphia, Washington and New York — a difference that has only grown more extreme in recent years, as museums have poured money into increasingly slick expansion projects. There are no distracting, superfluous spaces in the old Barnes — no education centers or contemplation zones. The homey atmosphere of the place reinforces a feeling of being engaged in an intimate dialogue with Barnes himself, not with an anonymous curatorial staff.

And the juxtaposition of magnificent and lesser works offers a to-the-point lesson in what makes great art and forces you to consider why your eye is immediately drawn to one work and not another. It makes art personal.

The artworks and galleries in the new Barnes will be displayed in exactly the same arrangements, but their surroundings will be grander and far more polished. The museum, composed of two buildings facing each other across a glassed-in court, will stand on Benjamin Franklin Parkway — the Beaux-Arts axis that runs from the foot of the Philadelphia Museum of Art past the Rodin Museum and the Free Library.

Visitors arriving from the parkway will follow a drawn-out path that begins on one side of the museum and then will turn to run along the front of the building before arriving at the main entry.

From there they will be able to peer across the court through a big floor-to-ceiling window at the building that houses the galleries.

It’s a perverse tease. Instead of heading directly to the art, they will turn into another room to pick up their tickets, and then turn back before entering the courtyard. From there they will make their way to the gallery building and another lobby. By then I’d be surprised if they had any energy left for the art. What they’ll need is a drink.

The desire to draw out the experience — which is meant to intensify it, but paradoxically ends up sapping it of life — continues inside the gallery building.

While the floor plan here is basically the same as in the original, Mr. Williams and Ms. Tsien have inserted new spaces into the sequence of rooms: a reading room, a classroom and a sunken garden court to allow visitors to take a break from the art. This has become a fashionable strategy in contemporary museum buildings. It was originally intended to combat “museum fatigue” and follows the notion that viewing room after room of paintings makes it harder to experience them fully.

But these added spaces also interrupt the sense of immersion that is so critical to enjoying art. The reading room feels especially out of place. In a model of the design, it is flanked by narrow corridors and looks a bit like leftover storage space. (The architects acknowledge that they have not fully resolved the room’s design.) And the Barnes’s intimate scale — it has only 24 gallery rooms — makes the point of such a space questionable.

To be sure, not all of the architecture here is so tortured. Mr. Williams and Ms. Tsien are known for their deft use of materials and they have invested a great deal of time in the feel of the individual spaces. The exterior of the building will be clad in gorgeous limestone from the Negev Desert, with a rough texture and creamy color that seem imbued with the weight of human history. Some of the panels will project out slightly, evoking the haunting forms of a Rachel Whiteread sculpture.

The main court, conceived as the museum’s social heart, will be paved in dark hardwood and look out onto a garden terrace. The architects hope eventually to connect the terrace to the Rodin Museum a short walk to the east, a nice idea that would strengthen the relationship between the museum and the park that surrounds it.

But even here the design seems somewhat strained. The stone panels are set in stainless-steel frames with occasional bronze accents, a system similar to the one that Richard Meier used at the Getty and that looks more and more fussy each time I go back to see it.

And a gigantic light bar that hovers over the main courtyard and projects from the end of the building feels like overkill: its translucent form, which will be lighted up at night, is nearly as big as the gallery building itself.

Still, the biggest problem with the design is not the fault of the architects: it has to do with the public the museum will serve. Part of the beauty of the Barnes Foundation is that it is so far removed from the tourist economy that drives major cities today. To get to it, visitors have to make an appointment, then take a train or a car to Merion, a half-hour from Philadelphia. These steps put you in a certain frame of mind by the time you arrive: they build anticipation and demand a certain commitment. They also serve as a kind of screening system, discouraging the kind of visitors who are just looking for a way to kill time.

The new Barnes is after a different kind of audience. Although museum officials say that the existing limits on crowd size will be kept (albeit with extended hours), it is clearly meant to draw bigger numbers and more tourist dollars. For most visitors the relationship to the art will feel less immediate.

And this, alas, is a problem no architect could have solved.













What's there now:


Own Photo
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)

Last edited by hammersklavier; Feb 26, 2010 at 4:12 AM. Reason: added article and renders
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #247  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2009, 2:15 PM
Eigenwelt's Avatar
Eigenwelt Eigenwelt is offline
OG from the L.B.C.
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 3,055
If the PMA is the great Greek Garage, this is the Impressionist Slots Barn.

I've seen Walmarts with a greater sense of class and stripmalls with better perdestrian routing.

It has a vehicular roundabout facing the parkway (which discharges passengers onto a blank wall) and the main entrace is ON THE BACK, FACING THE PARKING LOT.
__________________
Jonesing for a real cheesesteak.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #248  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2009, 2:38 PM
theWatusi's Avatar
theWatusi theWatusi is offline
Resident Jackass
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Your Mom's House
Posts: 11,702
This is what we've been waiting for?
__________________
"...remember first on me than these balls in airports" - MK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #249  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2009, 7:14 PM
hammersklavier's Avatar
hammersklavier hammersklavier is offline
Your 2016 AAC Champs!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Polis Philou Adelfou
Posts: 5,755
I am highly underwhelmed!
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #250  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2009, 7:31 PM
Swinefeld's Avatar
Swinefeld Swinefeld is offline
Corporate logo
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Big Scrapple
Posts: 5,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
I am highly underwhelmed!
Ditto.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #251  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2009, 8:05 PM
McBane McBane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,279
as i noted on philly.com (why do i even bother posting there, idk...) this is just another in a long line of underwhelming civic projects that have included the kimmel center, the convention center, and now this. don't forget the banal structures at independence hall, the criminal justice building (13th and filbert), and the abysmal federal courthouse (7th-ish and market) too. the jewish-american museum is actually somewhat decent though so kudos to them. oh, let's not forget that we commissioned frank gehry for an underground design!

the only good thing that comes out of this is the LEED cert and rooftop forest. but otherwise this is so plain; and the fact that it is hidden from the parkway does nothing to improve the overall streetscape (the dull design, not withstanding)

two other points:

1) why are they making such a big deal over the review process? nobody is going there to discuss design - as the article notes, most people who are going to be in attendance will only come out and speak as to why it shouldn't have moved from LM; get over it people! how about instead of bitching about what can't be changed, we try and work towards a better looking building that is more exciting and embraces the parkway.

2) i'm surprised at inga - but for someone who holds developers to high standards of design, it would surprising to see her silence. perhaps she is waiting for more concrete, final design? i don't want to get into a thing about her...i was just a little surprised. but i'm positive these architects will get her wrath (and deservedly so!)

on a totally unrelated note.......GO FLYERS!!!!!!!! (it's opening night - and i never post off-topic so give me a mulligan)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #252  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2009, 11:46 PM
Johnland Johnland is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 711
Oh yeah....this is waaay too understated. For the art collection it will house, this museum should be right on the Parkway, highly visible and contribute significantly to the street and city scapes. This design has all the umph of a suburban branch bank office.

Come on Philly, go for the gold on this one!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #253  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2009, 2:12 AM
PhillyVegan PhillyVegan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
1) Why do you care?
Because I am a resident of Chinatown, wondering how long I have until I'm priced out of my tiny apartment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post

2) Gentrification is a dirty word only among the ignorant.
Right there, you've once again insulted the people who view gentrification as a negative force. If you want to be a "professional in this field," then I suggest you gain some experience with the people who live in communities that are eliminated through gentrification, rather than insult them.

Philadelphiathrives is right about you equating community revitalization (either through outward influence of coming from within the community) with gentrification. Northern Liberties is an example of gentrification. Norris Square is an example of revitalization.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
Fallaciously confusing a term's technical meaning with its colloquial one is not something that'll make me get along with you...see minor for why.
I don't really care what your minor is in; I don't have a college degree and so far, you don't either. I've worked in lower-income communities for several years, and if your goal is to gentrify these neighborhoods and uproot communities so that wealthier individuals can have their shops and lofts and hip urban lifestyles, then I don't think we'll get along.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #254  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2009, 2:19 AM
hammersklavier's Avatar
hammersklavier hammersklavier is offline
Your 2016 AAC Champs!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Polis Philou Adelfou
Posts: 5,755
...McBane, my opinion on Gehry is that underground's the only place fit for his blobitecture. The earliest Gehries are already dated...

Williams/Tsien could've done better. They do have flashes of genius...sometimes. The problem is that they're stylistic idiots.

Also, Johnland, (my edit atop your edit) Inga has a minor love affair with W.T. re: Skirkanich. They're the only architects I've ever seen her have a heavy bias for; usually, it's against. So I'm not surprised she's been silent on this junk design.
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #255  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2009, 2:41 AM
hammersklavier's Avatar
hammersklavier hammersklavier is offline
Your 2016 AAC Champs!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Polis Philou Adelfou
Posts: 5,755
Not. Worth. My. Time.
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #256  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2009, 3:13 AM
Don098 Don098 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Rosslyn, VA
Posts: 1,179
Here's a better article from the NYTimes, front page on the website tonight. You guys might want to chill out after seeing the REAL renders...so sad that NY's newspaper had a better spread on this museum than anything in Philadelphia...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/ar...html?_r=1&8dpc

October 7, 2009
Architecture Review
Architects Reimagine the Barnes Collection
By NICOLAI OUROUSSOFF

Can a design convey an institution’s feelings of guilt?

That’s the question that came to mind when I saw the plans for the new Barnes Foundation in downtown Philadelphia, which are scheduled to be unveiled on Wednesday.

A few years back, the decision to move the Barnes, a revered American art institution, from its current location in the suburban town of Merion, Pa., to a site in Philadelphia’s museum district caused an uproar — not only because it brazenly went against the will of the founder, Albert C. Barnes, but also because it threatened to dismantle a relationship among art, architecture and landscape that was critical to the Barnes’s success as a museum.

For any architect taking on the challenge of the new space, the tangle of ethical and design questions might seem overwhelming. What is an architect’s responsibility to Barnes’s vision of a dazzling but quirky collection of early Modern artworks housed in a rambling 1920s Beaux-Arts pile? Is it possible to reproduce its spirit in such a changed setting? Or does trying to replicate the Barnes’s unique aura only doom you to failure?

The answers found in the drawings of Tod Williams and Billie Tsien, the New York architects who took the commission, are not reassuring.

The new Barnes will include many of the features that have become virtually mandatory in the museum world today — conservation and education departments, temporary exhibition space, auditorium, bookstore, cafe — making it four times the size of the old Barnes. The architects have tried to compensate for this by laying out these spaces in an elaborate architectural procession that is clearly intended to replicate the serenity, if not the eccentric charm, of the old museum.

But the result is a convoluted design. Almost every detail seems to ache from the strain of trying to preserve the spirit of the original building in a very different context. The failure to do so, despite such an earnest effort, is the strongest argument yet for why the Barnes should not be moved in the first place.

The old Barnes is by no means an obvious model for a great museum. Its unlikely suburban setting was partly intended as a tweak to the city’s wealthy downtown art establishment. Inside the lighting is far from perfect, and the collection itself, mixing masterpieces by Cézanne, Picasso and Soutine with second-rate paintings by lesser-known artists, has a distinctly oddball flavor.

But these apparent flaws are also what has made the Barnes one of the country’s most enchanting exhibition spaces. The creaky floors and cluttered rooms are light years away from the bigger, more blockbuster-oriented museums of Philadelphia, Washington and New York — a difference that has only grown more extreme in recent years, as museums have poured money into increasingly slick expansion projects. There are no distracting, superfluous spaces in the old Barnes — no education centers or contemplation zones. The homey atmosphere of the place reinforces a feeling of being engaged in an intimate dialogue with Barnes himself, not with an anonymous curatorial staff.

And the juxtaposition of magnificent and lesser works offers a to-the-point lesson in what makes great art and forces you to consider why your eye is immediately drawn to one work and not another. It makes art personal.

The artworks and galleries in the new Barnes will be displayed in exactly the same arrangements, but their surroundings will be grander and far more polished. The museum, composed of two buildings facing each other across a glassed-in court, will stand on Benjamin Franklin Parkway — the Beaux-Arts axis that runs from the foot of the Philadelphia Museum of Art past the Rodin Museum and the Free Library.

Visitors arriving from the parkway will follow a drawn-out path that begins on one side of the museum and then will turn to run along the front of the building before arriving at the main entry.

From there they will be able to peer across the court through a big floor-to-ceiling window at the building that houses the galleries.

It’s a perverse tease. Instead of heading directly to the art, they will turn into another room to pick up their tickets, and then turn back before entering the courtyard. From there they will make their way to the gallery building and another lobby. By then I’d be surprised if they had any energy left for the art. What they’ll need is a drink.

The desire to draw out the experience — which is meant to intensify it, but paradoxically ends up sapping it of life — continues inside the gallery building.

While the floor plan here is basically the same as in the original, Mr. Williams and Ms. Tsien have inserted new spaces into the sequence of rooms: a reading room, a classroom and a sunken garden court to allow visitors to take a break from the art. This has become a fashionable strategy in contemporary museum buildings. It was originally intended to combat “museum fatigue” and follows the notion that viewing room after room of paintings makes it harder to experience them fully.

But these added spaces also interrupt the sense of immersion that is so critical to enjoying art. The reading room feels especially out of place. In a model of the design, it is flanked by narrow corridors and looks a bit like leftover storage space. (The architects acknowledge that they have not fully resolved the room’s design.) And the Barnes’s intimate scale — it has only 24 gallery rooms — makes the point of such a space questionable.

To be sure, not all of the architecture here is so tortured. Mr. Williams and Ms. Tsien are known for their deft use of materials and they have invested a great deal of time in the feel of the individual spaces. The exterior of the building will be clad in gorgeous limestone from the Negev Desert, with a rough texture and creamy color that seem imbued with the weight of human history. Some of the panels will project out slightly, evoking the haunting forms of a Rachel Whiteread sculpture.

The main court, conceived as the museum’s social heart, will be paved in dark hardwood and look out onto a garden terrace. The architects hope eventually to connect the terrace to the Rodin Museum a short walk to the east, a nice idea that would strengthen the relationship between the museum and the park that surrounds it.

But even here the design seems somewhat strained. The stone panels are set in stainless-steel frames with occasional bronze accents, a system similar to the one that Richard Meier used at the Getty and that looks more and more fussy each time I go back to see it.

And a gigantic light bar that hovers over the main courtyard and projects from the end of the building feels like overkill: its translucent form, which will be lighted up at night, is nearly as big as the gallery building itself.

Still, the biggest problem with the design is not the fault of the architects: it has to do with the public the museum will serve. Part of the beauty of the Barnes Foundation is that it is so far removed from the tourist economy that drives major cities today. To get to it, visitors have to make an appointment, then take a train or a car to Merion, a half-hour from Philadelphia. These steps put you in a certain frame of mind by the time you arrive: they build anticipation and demand a certain commitment. They also serve as a kind of screening system, discouraging the kind of visitors who are just looking for a way to kill time.

The new Barnes is after a different kind of audience. Although museum officials say that the existing limits on crowd size will be kept (albeit with extended hours), it is clearly meant to draw bigger numbers and more tourist dollars. For most visitors the relationship to the art will feel less immediate.

And this, alas, is a problem no architect could have solved.













Reply With Quote
     
     
  #257  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2009, 4:33 AM
volguus zildrohar's Avatar
volguus zildrohar volguus zildrohar is offline
Are You OK?
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The City Of Philadelphia
Posts: 15,973
Kind of outrageous that NYT has better renders than The Inqy does...

Any institution that is located along The Parkway yet fails to prominently present itself along this grand avenue doesn't need to be there. Shy architecture belongs on Ludlow Street...or 202. That was my first reaction to these images...not even the design, the orientation, the ghastly surface parking lot. It was the fact that it doesn't announce itself proudly among the venerable institutions along The Parkway and I genuinely do not care about efforts to recreate the museum's pastoral Merion setting.

The Foundation is not moving to Merion. It is moving to the heart of the city.

I'm having difficulty picturing any such institution hiding in plain sight in other cities. If the idea was to preserve the grove of London Pines along that block, I can understand. I'd still disapprove. The Rodin seems to work quite nicely both being a factor along The Parkway streetscape and as an object amidst a surprisingly tranquil background - particularly once inside the gate.

This project has already duplicated one of the worst aspects of another heartachingly underachieving venue, the Kimmel Center - it's bereft of a grand street entrance. The building is oriented almost exactly like the YSC was - even down to having the main entrance face away from The Parkway which was what I hated most about that building. That block is the gateway to the pastoral, green BFP and Fairmount Park. It's bad enough that the intersection there is totally hostile to pedestrians, is cleft by highway underpasses, is woefully undermanicured and, until earlier this year, bookended by a museum and a prison...an ironic commentary on two things this great city does well.

Why do we as a city keep doing this? Why do we keep accepting such unassuming designs? I know the process is just beginning and what we see here may not - hopefully will not - be the exact final product but we have a long history of understated, unassuming, demure, deferential architecture. It seems to be in our civic DNA. Perhaps it's a product of this city's Quaker roots. Buildings don't need to look like glass abortions to be great or exciting architecture. Not everything has to look like a Greek temple and not everything needs to be built of brick. Philadelphia has great architecture by the ton but, in my honest opinion, few exciting, stirring buildings considering the history and stature of this city. Much of what once was was torn down in the name of modernity which turned out to be soulless shoeboxes more often than not. Other cities have expanded their great art institutions - how many large cities have had the opportunity to build completely new art museums? How often does the opportunity to create a project of legacy such as this come about? This city's two current major art museums are timeless, stunning buildings that, each in their own way, speak of the era in which they were built and were then and remain to this day unmistakably and beautifully Philadelphian - one so much that it's as closely identified with this city as the Liberty Bell.

I've spoken very little about the project here but have heard good things about Williams/Tsien when their names first came up. I've anticipated this building more than any other that has come down the pipeline since I've been following this sort of thing because this is the sort of project that can say a lot about the city that it is in. I wanted to see a building embraces its unique location. I wanted to see a building that adds to the feeling of the street, that becomes part of our collective image and doesn't retreat from hints of grandeur or novelty the way Philadelphia projects so often seem to. A lovely fountain plaza is not enough penance for this iteration of the project to pay for the sin of its existence. Almost every other choice made the architects confounds me and unless I'm missing some larger theme I don't see how Philadelphia should accept this building without starting from scratch.
__________________
je suis phillytrax sur FLICKR, y'all
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #258  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2009, 4:59 AM
acenturi acenturi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 351
If I didn't know what it was, I'd have guessed it was a mausoleum or a new city prison. Really, really bad to sacrifice one of the cities premier locations for that monstrosity. Maybe that type of bland design was the price necessary to win agreement for the move. The planning commission may now be forced into a fast approval in order to avoid further legal challenges to the move.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #259  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2009, 1:27 PM
hammersklavier's Avatar
hammersklavier hammersklavier is offline
Your 2016 AAC Champs!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Polis Philou Adelfou
Posts: 5,755
My last two blog posts have been about this atrocity...and let's be frank, that's what it is, an atrocity...
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #260  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2009, 4:31 PM
Londonee Londonee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Fitler Square (via London)
Posts: 1,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyVegan View Post
I don't really care what your minor is in; I don't have a college degree and so far, you don't either. I've worked in lower-income communities for several years, and if your goal is to gentrify these neighborhoods and uproot communities so that wealthier individuals can have their shops and lofts and hip urban lifestyles, then I don't think we'll get along.
I'm trying to understand your overall point and what you're contributing in terms of the context of this thread?

Are you suggesting that other residents of the city, region, and world should not get to enjoy the unique and wonderful benefits of an urban highline park like this because it may increase your property taxes?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:38 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.