Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. Interior space of the Guggenheim is much much nicer than the other two and stands the test of time. Nearly 100 years later and its still a presence in the city and an unmatched space.
2. Exterior The Walt Disney Concert Hall is just not that attractive to me. The real breakthrough was in the engineering and technology used to create it - this is somewhat true for Milwaukee Art Museum as well. Milwaukee and all Santiago Calatrava's works are fantastic but are bridge like in nature and it really doesn't incorporate the ground any more than the others. There is no green space in these buildings. Guggenheim NY and Milwaukee Art Museum would tie in this category.
Overall that leaves me with the winner being the Guggenheim NY because the interior of the Milwaukee Art Museum is a bit lacking in functionality. Form did not follow function in Milwaukee or really Los Angeles either. The form was dictated to put the building on the map and then sorta make the interior as best they could.
On a side note I think the poll itself should specify Guggenheim NY because there are many Guggenheim Musems. I've personally been to two of them.
I haven't been to the Milwaukee but the subject of the Guggenheim and Disney Hall came up before and I went with Disney Hall. The artists complained about the Guggenheim when it first opened, because the curved walls and recession from light may have served the architect's conceptualization of space but didn't really serve the artists. Disney Hall, OTOH, was an intimate collaboration with the sound engineers and the Philharmonic's conductor, and as a concert hall is very successful. So on the issue of form vs. function I give it to Disney Hall. Aesthetically, the sense of form coming into being, the exuberant freedom, even incompleteness--that really captures L.A. well and I'd disagree that it's not of its place.
All three are still beautiful, exceptionally successful buildings in their own right. I won't vote.
I haven't been to the Milwaukee but the subject of the Guggenheim and Disney Hall came up before and I went with Disney Hall. The artists complained about the Guggenheim when it first opened, because the curved walls and recession from light may have served the architect's conceptualization of space but didn't really serve the artists. Disney Hall, OTOH, was an intimate collaboration with the sound engineers and the Philharmonic's conductor, and as a concert hall is very successful. So on the issue of form vs. function I give it to Disney Hall. Aesthetically, the sense of form coming into being, the exuberant freedom, even incompleteness--that really captures L.A. well and I'd disagree that it's not of its place.
All three are still beautiful, exceptionally successful buildings in their own right. I won't vote.
I can accept that L.A. does serve function that one I just don't personally like the outside of and I don't think it or really any of Gehry's buildings will stand the test of time as well as Wright's do or Calatrava's will.
I can accept that L.A. does serve function that one I just don't personally like the outside of and I don't think it or really any of Gehry's buildings will stand the test of time as well as Wright's do or Calatrava's will.
You may be right. Gehry's work is deconstructive and conceptual. But despite our natural leanings, because we're in time we're not in charge of what will be considered "timeless". That just happens, generation to generation. I think he'll be highly esteemed at the very least. And after all, even Wright's legacy in Los Angeles is the concrete block homes: A brilliant concept, certainly of its place--perfect even--and meant to seem quite eternal, or persisting from an earlier millennium, but the largest of them, the Ennis House, is structurally failing! Terribly sad, but a bit ironic.
I could accept the Ennis House and really any of Wrights works in Southern California as having issues. Earthquakes weren't as well known and codes were not the same back in his time. Even Robie House just underwent millions of dollars worth of restoration and thats just Chicago. Los Angeles would be a much harsher environment. (Which is also why there's not as many historic buildings still standing in Los Angeles compared to NYC and Chicago where there are no Earthquakes or really any natural disasters that are detrimental to a structure's soundness).
Personally I love Wright's later works after he moved to Scottsdale (which includes the Guggenheim). Its a shame how his life turned out but through it all he kept creating.
Fallingwater underwent major reconstruction recently too. John Lautner was Wright's construction supervisor on many projects, and Lautner, L.A. based, was one of the big innovators of very ambitious commercial and residential design. So to your point about engineering breakthroughs in the construction of Disney Hall, there's a connection to Wright to be made and an interesting issue to be raised crediting successful innovations in assessing overall achievement. Wright's gesture is absolutely clear, but his reach exceeded technological grasp in many of these buildings. Should he in some ways be demerited?
The Milwaukee Art Museum can be appreciated more when one can see it in person - on the beautiful shoreline of Lake Michigan. Milwaukee is fortunate that Santiago Calatrava chose Milwaukee to create his first U.S. masterpiece (chosen best of the year).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.