While skimming through a new book in our library, Green Living: Architecture and Planning, I came across the following quote from the foreword written by Britain’s Prince Charles. The quote was planted next to a photo of a large, shiny, undulating building in a downtown area somewhere by architect Frank Gehry, hence the reference to him:
Architectural pornography: Eye-catching sculptures of steel and glass regularly get publicity and win prestigious architectural awards. But are they good buildings? They stimulate without inspiriting, they dazzle but often don’t function, and they usually leak. And, like pornography, people pay a great deal of money to have them; sex sells. We don’t mean to single out Frank Gehry, architect of this structure, nor even the entire class of “starchitects” who dominate the public’s attention. The criticism is really pointed at the starry-eyed public held in rapture, and the decision makers who consistently choose glamour over substance for the design of major buildings.
Next, read this description of the Milwaukee Art Museum’s Brise Soleil, designed by Santiago Calatrava and shown in the photo above (photo taken from the MAM’s website):
Unprecedented in American architecture, the Burke Brise Soleil is a moveable, wing-like sunscreen that rests on top of the Museum’s vaulted, glass-enclosed Windhover Hall. The “wings” open Tuesday-Sunday at 10 a.m. with the Museum, close/reopen at noon, and close again with the Museum at 5 p.m.; except on Thursdays when the Museum closes at 8 p.m. This schedule is, however, subject to change without advance notice due to weather, special events, or maintenance (italics mine).
While the Burke Brise Soleil has a wingspan comparable to that of a Boeing 747-400, its two ultrasonic wind sensors automatically close the wings if the wind speed reaches 23 mph or greater. Unlike the airplane, the Museum prefers to remain on the ground.
The building may remain on the ground, but the budget for the project was anything but earth-bound. The Museum originally planned to spend around $40 million, but costs quickly took wing as the project went forward, resulting in a $120 million building that looks kinda pretty, but gave precious little bang for the big bucks in actual exhibit space afforded for the collection.
Was it worth pushing the Museum’s budget near bankruptcy to build this structure? That’s open to debate. It is quite a conversation piece and is Calatrava’s first major United States work, something we can brag about, but for $120 million, we could have gotten a lot more space for the Museum’s works and programs and maybe even had money left over to expand the collection itself. And I’m not an engineer, but anyone can see that these wings are going to be a lot more expensive to maintain and repair over the years, especially in our climate. I am convinced it’s not about the quality of the building, but about the name attached to it that both raised the roof on the budget 300% and allowed the plan to go through in the first place.
