It wasnit our intention to begin a critical dialogue about the new Burchfield-Penny Art Center. When we posted about a media event to announce it, we hadnit even seen the plans. But the conversation beganOeand we couldnit be happier.
This kind of heated and passionate dialogue is the mark of progressothe type of representative and diverse discourse that progressive citizens have.
Take for instance Tyler Greenis recent complaint that iMoMA’s atrium is the most unfortunate, wasted bit of museum space since I.M. Pei brought triangulation into museum architecture.i In that post, Green calls out to the blogosphere: iSo what should MoMA do with the space? Bloggers: Suggest.i To which writer/blogger/new urbanist David Sucher responds:
I’d try some color.
Then I’d focus on the outside of the building because that’s where it is truly flawed.
Ouch. But right on. A heated, articulate, bitchy, entertaining informed and informative exchange about the design MoMA. And now thereis one about the Burchfield-Penny.
Weid like to point out a few things about this discussion…
The effort of the folks behind the BPAC should be applauded. Whatever you think of the design, this effort is born of a commitment to art and to Buffalo. Further, we know from speaking with them, the folks behind this effort are remarkably proud of it, a genuine pride born of a design solution they feel successfully solves the host of unique challenges they are prepared to discuss after the projectis official unveiling.
While we understand the raw nerves left from the casino decisionoa decision essentially forced upon the city by our former Mayor and current Governor with no public referendum or discourse–we feel that thereis a fundamental difference between soliciting public opinion, which it seems BPAC did, and complete transparency. Complete transparency often isnit a realistic way to get things done. Just look at the debate in some of the comment threads and you can see how complete transparency could well have kept this project from ever coming to fruitionowhat with certain people hating modernism and others wanting the site plan to reflect ideal urban retail considerations instead of addressing the needs of a contemporary arts center that serves both the public and the college with which itis affiliated.
Weid also like to see a bit closer examination of the iSi bomb. Whether or not the proposed design and site plan is suburban, weire not sure. Weire waiting to hear some of the thinking behind the choices made at the BPAC media event next Wednesday. But to our mind, nothing is more suburban and antithetical to an urban sensibility than a Homeowneris Association–these block clubs on steroids with the power to force you from the neighborhood if you donit raise your flag the right way or paint your house to specification. We love cities because they arenit about control. As long as a building abides by code, as long as public input has been solicited, if you have the will to build it and are willing to take the risk that the market will support it, it goes up. New York and San Francisco and Los Angeles even Chicago are full of buildings many people consider architectural failures or lost opportunities to build something else that they themselves would have preferred. And many folks in those cities argue aesthetics and design and planning passionately. But to argue that the building doesnit belong in the neighborhood (which is a conversation fundamentally different from whether itis good or bad design) one needs to be able to not just make the case that the building is foreign (Mies van der Roheis glass towers and Santiago Calatravais bridges did not seem at first to belong to their older surroundings). One needs to be able to make that case that the architecture doesnit facilitate, as Vincent Scully proposed, a conversation between generations. Until we hear the design rationale from BPAC directly and an explanation of the site plan, we donit see how that broader and much more damning conclusion can be intelligently made.