Written on Monday, June 25th, 2007 at 7:15pm by Mark | 11 Comments

While others commission Gehry, we choose Wright


We can see the progress going on with the Frank Lloyd Wright boathouse on the waterfront. I don’t know about you but I find it a little eerie…surreal even..to see a Frank Lloyd Wright building…under construction…in 2007. The classic Wright design elements emerging on a day by day basis in a very different Buffalo from what Wright saw and worked with.

Its great that Buffalo has a solild FLW portfolio and its interesting that we have an emerging one (Blue Sky Masoleum 2002, West Side Row House, Gas Station) in the 21st century. It will make Buffalo a more interesting place to visit and will give Buffalonians a couple more things to be proud of but it raises some interesting issues (some I already addressed in a comment on BrO)…

The Blue Sky Masoleum was designed specifically for the Martin Family. Would Wright have designed it the same way if he knew it would not even hold one Martin family member but random people who have no affiliation with the family but good money to put down for a place for eternal rest?

The West Side Row Club row house was designed as a row house for the University of Wisconson. Wouldn’t Wright have designed a Buffalo row house differently?

Although modernists were known for building stuff that could be plopped on any land parcel regardless of history or location, I think Frank Lloyd Wright-being the perfectionist he was- would have taken the surroundings into serious consideration for how his final product looked.

Lets not forget how we mourn the loss of the Larkin Administration Building. It was almost as important as the Guaranty Building. Does that mean we should rebuild it?

Buffalo more and more is in love with its past and either terrified or doubtful about its’ future (see: Sabres new logo, Gates Circle, Elmwood Hotel, Inner Harbor project, etc) And if you don’t belive me, look no further than our obsession with Frank Lloyd Wright. These new Wright structures in a way admit that we can do no better than what we had and instead of evolving, we go back to the past to find new achievements. A rebuild of the Larkin building would make Buffalonians feel as if they went back in time and made up for their grave mistake and even erasing that mistake.

Buffalo is in the 21st century wether some like it or not, and although in one way I do think its pretty cool to see even more FLW buildings than we already have, I think it symbolizes our love and yearning for the past. By preserving what we have, we can show everyone from out of town that we once were great and have a unique built environment that is hard to find elsewhere in America. But by being afraid of new architecture we tell ourselves that the past is the best we’ll ever do.

Tagged with: ,

11 Comments

  1. STEEL says:
    June 25, 2007 at 7:34 pm

    The irony is that if the boat house was built in the early 1900’s Buffalo probably would have torn it down by now. We love fake old buildings we hate real old buildings. Even the preservationists get in on the act with their fight to the death to protect the fake canal side village scheme.

    I have to admit that it is interesting to see the boat house built but with these postmortems there is a lot of free wheeling interpretation. The boat house looks like it is being built with precast concrete panels. I am quite sure that Wright intended the walls to be of cast in place concrete. Likewise with the mausoleum the designers took many liberties with its final appearance. That piece only existed in rough sketched by Wight with many variations. Much interpretation was needed to make it real. That same will be true of the gas station.

    Reconstruction of the MArtin House lost buildings is quite different because the actual building was once built and there are extensive records showing what was actually there. I have to admit I would not mind seeing the Larkin rebuilt. That would be a monumental task.

  2. ProGehry says:
    June 26, 2007 at 2:03 pm

    There must be some wealthy folks around that admire modern architecture. I wonder if we can assemble some sort of effort to advocate for architecture by living architects like gehry.

  3. Fabio Escobar says:
    June 26, 2007 at 3:58 pm

    Wright is terrible. Pretty lines, but what is so cool about a ranch house these days? Buffalo should be moving towards functional living, not hearkening back to a day when “art for art’s sake” was the governing mantra of architecture (a dark time for a discipline that is supposed to be functional first, and artistic second).

    I suppose if idiots are willing to come from across the world to gawk at uninhabitable buildings, it’s not so dumb to exploit their idiocy.

  4. where are all the architects? says:
    June 26, 2007 at 11:42 pm

    Are there any architecture critics in the local media? Maybe that would be a start in educating the public about modern architecture.

  5. Phrank says:
    June 27, 2007 at 6:35 pm

    I agree that Buffalo needs an architecture critic. It amazes me how Buffalonians seem to automatically hate all modern architecture. Just because some modern projects haven’t worked (Main Place Tower, the Convention Center) doesn’t mean all buildings from that era should be labeled ugly (Tishman Building, Dulski Building). The debate at Albright Knox over the classical vs. modern art is mirrored in how no one in Buffalo appreciates how beautiful the ‘modern’ (45 years old) wing is at the gallery. Though I know the gallery appreciates it, I wonder how many would rally behind it if the Knox wing was ever threatened. It sounds insulting, but Buffalo is uneducated about architecture. I’ve actually heard people who say they hate City Hall for being so ugly. And it’s 75 years old. But it’s unique version of art deco is not traditional civic architecture.

  6. STEEL says:
    June 27, 2007 at 7:44 pm

    Phrank,

    I thnk you are wrong about Buffalo and modernism. The city has quite substantially embraced several modernist projects recently, the Gates Circle tower most recently. A few people complaining should not be ascribed to the whole city. The fact that the developers propose a modern tower on the circle says that they believe that is what will sell – what people want. Don’t forget that the medical campus built 3 very modern buildings, the county’s new public safety building is modern, the new court house-modern, Art Space town houses-modern, Martin House Visitor Center-modern. Many of the recent loft conversion are very modern as well. Other proposed projects such as Dulski and Issa tower will also be extremely modern. I am hard pressed to think of any fake historic buildings except for Bass Pro and the new condo tower at waterfront village, both of which are not even in historic settings.

    The only reason Buffalo is not bringing in international names like Gehry is that Buffalo does not have that kind of money to spend. I can pretty much guaranty that when the Albright Knox does its next ex[pansion it will be a very high level modernist who designs the project

  7. where are all the architects? says:
    June 28, 2007 at 12:35 pm

    It seems like this is still about education. We don’t really need Gehry or Koolhaas, libeskind, zaha and the rest. There are plenty of firms that are doing amazing work and are not out of our price range. Small projects like the new Boathouse, Lexington Coop, Ellicot Commons if designed by up-and-coming firms would do alot for our architectural heritage. We need a good architecture columist in the Buffalo News or the alt. press to highlight the talent that is available out there.

    HHL and Cannon are ok but we can do alot better. Instead of KPF for the dountown courthouse–it could have been Morphosis. The airport is another big $$ building and a mediocre choice of an architect. The B-P was another big $$ project and weak choice with Gwathmey Siegel & Associates.

  8. mark says:
    June 28, 2007 at 1:35 pm

    i disagree with you- i think KPF did a great job making a landmark airport for Buffalo. Although the courthouse they are doing isn’t incredible, it is pretty damn good quality and will be a buffalo landmark for years to come.

  9. where are all the architects? says:
    June 28, 2007 at 2:19 pm

    I agree that KPF buildings are usually of high quality but they have little bite. The designs are too corporate and conservative for me. It will be a landmark for Buffalo but I don’t think it will matter too anyone outside of this city.

  10. where are all the architects? says:
    July 2, 2007 at 12:25 pm

    Mark,

    Have you seen or heard of the Helio’s House gas station in Los Angeles? It was designed by Office Da, I went to their lecture at UB last year sometime I think. The gas station is tricked out with loads of green technologies but the form is really surprising. I think its these well designed small projects by ambitious young designers that Buffalo could really use. If architecture and marketing should work together–i think this sends a better message than a FLW gas station and its functional.

    some links:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ezHVrlPvqM&mode=related&search=

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/bp_helios_house.php

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/herrera/652815710/in/photostream/

  11. Mark says:
    July 12, 2007 at 11:27 am

    wow i have never seen that before. really interesting…its also a reminder of how many good architecture lectures i’ve missed at UB in the last two years lol.

 

You need to log in to vote

The blog owner requires users to be logged in to be able to vote for this post.

Alternatively, if you do not have an account yet you can create one here.

Powered by Vote It Up