matthew said,

March 30, 2008 @ 7:15 pm

LOVE IT! Clever idea with the “on my way to work” business. Good work. I’ve always liked the concert hall, but I can see why people wouldn’t. How I long to be in LA right now!

SanderO said,

March 30, 2008 @ 10:41 pm

As an architect, but one not of Mr Gehry’s stature I can say that his work is usually lovely as sculpture but not necessarily as architecture. Architecture is not only meant to thrill, shock and make you see space differently, it’s also meant to define spaces where people can live and work comfortably. This means it has to have human scale, for one, something that some of FG’s work is missing.

And frankly I find that many spaces require orthographic structures which become forced inside of his curvilinear forms. This like doors and shelves and wall for art or a stage with a proscenium.

Exciting spaces they are… like living inside a Richard Serra, but I don’t think he will be rise about someone like Wright. But what do I know?

Great photos!

tonya said,

March 31, 2008 @ 12:00 am

I think it’s extremely cool-looking from the outside, but I know nothing about architecture… I agree with SanderO that your pictures are excellent. Thanks for posting, David

AEB said,

March 31, 2008 @ 2:52 am

I think the building is certainly interesting and clever, but it just isn’t my style. There’s nothing wrong with it, but I tend to prefer more traditional halls with gargoyles and elaborate rooflines. I think both types (along with all the others) of architecture certainly have significant places in society, though.

Meg said,

March 31, 2008 @ 3:42 am

Oops, my comment was unclear. I meant to say that I’ve never been inside one of Gehry’s buildings (which makes them impossible for me to judge, I think). I have been inside a few Frank Lloyd Wright buildings.

And I agree with everyone who has said the photos are lovely.

Art said,

March 31, 2008 @ 4:34 am

It’s such a beautiful building to look at and photograph… for me the hall is so amazingly warm and wonderful to listen to music in that my impression of the outside is biased towards positive, just because I love going to concerts there. Classical music in particular sounds so bright and immediate in that space, and the way the auditorium is laid out makes the concerts feel very democratic: no visual separation between seat sections, and the audience seated all around the stage, so it feels very communal inside.

But it’s a bummer that the outside of the building only really looks good from the Grand Avenue and 1st Street sides - I’m sure you noticed walking up from the South towards the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion that the administrative offices on the backside of the building make a giant biege wall with a few square windows on the surface. And the wall is built so high that you only see the peaks of the metal if you’re looking up at the building from the south. It’s such a jarring contrast to the free flowing metal everywhere else, an opportunity lost in my opinion.

Still, the auditorium is so great that the function overwhelms any shortcomings outside.

So nice that you all were here in this neck of the woods for half a week.

softservegirl said,

March 31, 2008 @ 4:21 pm

it’s pure genius. and a building that is designed as this one is flawless from every angle - you can’t take a bad picture of it!

Bernard Profitendieu said,

March 31, 2008 @ 11:43 pm

A metal blob that has been repeated in every city insecure enough to pony up the cash for the latest fad in architecture … (but your pics are quite nice!)

Emily H. said,

April 1, 2008 @ 11:49 am

I love buildings that are also pieces of art. It takes a lot of talent to take something that must be functional and make it art as well. I find these types of buildings to be rare in America - Europe seems to have more. Thanks for taking the pictures. Love it!!

SanderO said,

April 1, 2008 @ 9:01 pm

Architecture is a practical art. It must function as an environment to live, work, assemble whatever. it should also work with its environment and be very much site specific.

There is nothing wrong with taking “modernist” approaches to the built environment and some of these efforts as sculpture and form can be and are stunning. Their very success at form may make them less successful as functioning buildings.

I mentioned art galleries which often are displaying orthogonal art - paintings. These often want spaces which do not compete visually, neither distract or alter the work of art. The Wright Guggenheim is a celebrated work of architecture, but not successful, in my opinion (and I am sure others) as a museum for displaying and viewing paintings. Simply hanging a flat painting on a curvilinear wall is “jarring” to the eye, let alone the problem of having a wall and ceiling frame it which are not level. The side galleries are “orthogonal” and work in the traditional manner.

The display of paintings is an example how what is touted as great architecture (for other reasons) can fail in some of its key mission. The Gugg is a wonderful fun space, but as a museum I much prefer the Whitney or the very traditional Metropolitan Museum of Art.

The new MOMA is also stunning and very well configured to display modern art in exciting spaces. It is a bit confusing to navigate, unlike the Gugg where you have but two choices - up the helix or down the helix.

Gehry is pushing boundaries of form, and he may have succeeded in a sculptural manner, but not entirely as an architect. My opinion.