COMPLETE: GTECH Center

[Cotuit]

It's funny that he criticized Brasilia, yet his favorite "modernist" building in Providence is

This thing

An apartment building removed from the street and surrounded with surface parking.

[f1rehead]

Brussat is one of the many good reasons not to read the ProJo.

Does anyone know his qualifications to be an architectural critic? He paints UP in a bad light and edges perilously, speciously close to the blogger/journalist fight, but is he really qualified for his job?

Given the shallowness of his criticism, I would be surprised if he were.

Either he intentionally conflates modern/Modernist to "win" his arguments or he is not educated in the distinction. In both cases, he should not be allowed to write his column.

"The modernists even stole the word modern!" No, Mr. Brussat, you did when you decided to use the two terms interchangeably. There are very few practicing Modernists today, but I can guarantee you that they know the difference.

His rhetoric is more troubling in his use of misdirection and strawmen. He continually pitches his arguments as us-versus-them when there is no evidence of such a division. He writes, "Public distaste for modern architecture has been strong all along." Really? Is there proof to back that up?

[dgreco]

It's funny that he criticized Brasilia, yet his favorite "modernist" building in Providence is

This thing

An apartment building removed from the street and surrounded with surface parking.

I guess this reinforces his opinion that modern style should just be art and removed from everything else, but I don't think that really gets to why certain things do an don't work.

[runawayjim]

After looking at that I never realized how much surface parking we have, Also how do you get birdseye on other locations, do you need to register?

[DaveRPI]

It's funny that he criticized Brasilia, yet his favorite "modernist" building in Providence is

This thing

An apartment building removed from the street and surrounded with surface parking.

I guess this reinforces his opinion that modern style should just be art and removed from everything else, but I don't think that really gets to why certain things do an don't work.

[Gusterfell]

I find the language in this latest article a little frightening, its almost Bushian. He paints his enemies as terrorists and puts everyone who doesn't agree with him in a 'modernist' box. He advocates for outright segregation with his concept of the modernist sand box. I know I'm being a bit hyperbolic in my interpretation and reading between the lines, but it is a bit chilling even without the hyperbolic interpretation.

I really don't see this as an us and them debate. At least not among us lay people, and probably not in the architecture world in general. Freidrich St. Florian is a shining example of someone who can live comfortably in both the classical and modernist worlds.

I also think the use of the word modernist gets confused in Brussat's columns and I think he may be using it properly, but coming off as an ass because people are interpreting it wrong. There's the Modernist (big 'm') style that was dominated by the likes of Le Corbusier, whose works and imitations of his work are blamed for destroying many cities in the mid twentieth century, that's how we ended up with places like Boston's West End, Providence Cathedral Square, and New York's Co-Op City.

There's a disconnect in Brussat's writing between the Modernist movement, and people like many of us who think there is room for modern design within the existing context of Providence. I don't think anyone on this forum would advocate the wholesale demolition of great swathes of the city to build city in the park type Corbusian developments (and if there were I'd probably ban them ). Personally, I look toward cities like Barcelona, London, Buenos Aires, and many Scandinavian cities for inspiration on what Providence could be, and how to blend the old with the new. Throwing out Brasilia like he did is pure nonsense, no one is advocating using Brasilia as a model for Providence. And Brasilia's failure is not as a result of the style of it's buildings, it's the layout of the city. If all the buildings in Brasilia were federalist, or victorian, or greek revival, the city would still have failed.

[brick]

have you been in that bldg? is it functional and aesthitic on the inside? its exterior seems dated but i dont necessarily think its horrible.

form follows function

ornamentalism is not architecture

[dgreco]

It's not horrible looking. But it doesn't fit into an urban fabric very well. Which goes to reinforce his point that the only way he likes modern buildings is if they are in place as art instead of integrated with the streetscape. The contradiction comes with his criticism of modernism as a whole.

The building is interesting enough form wise but as far as working with the streets and pedestrians, etc. I'll take ten GTech's first.

[Lone Ranger]

I don't think Brussat is an idiot I do think he needs an editor to challenge him a bit though.

[BBascule]

Does anyone know his qualifications to be an architectural critic? He paints UP in a bad light and edges perilously, speciously close to the blogger/journalist fight, but is he really qualified for his job?

Given the shallowness of his criticism, I would be surprised if he were.

[Liamlunchtray]

Confined to a "Modernist sandbox," it would be a bland and forgettable building.

[Garris]

I find the language in this latest article a little frightening, its almost Bushian.

[Citydweller]

That doesn't mean it's a bad design though.

[Lone Ranger]

I'm curious - do you thing that traditional architecture should not be allowed?

[matt]

I'm curious - do you thing that traditional architecture should not be allowed?

[runawayjim]

Not bad, but not good.

In time it will be mainly judged for how it fits into the city.

Twenty years from now, people will say one of three things:

1. Wow, that's such a cool building!

2. Eh?

3. Ugg, what were they thinking!!????

I can't begin to judge before the building is fully open and the Westin is as well. Then I can see how it is to walk around, near and through it in concert with the other buildings that make up the street space.

Urbansim first!

I'm curious - do you thing that traditional architecture should not be allowed?

[dgreco]

i think even the way it is right now, the building is fitting in quite well with the city and the street scape.

you have to define traditional architecture. do i think every building should be uber modern looking? no. but i don't think every building should look like the mall or the courtyard either. that would make for a very bland city as well.

[Garris]

I'm curious - do you thing that traditional architecture should not be allowed?

[jencoleslaw]

getting paid for something doesn't mean you're an expert. in fact, not getting paid for it would give someone more clout in my mind. and i think i heard somewhere that brussat doesn't get paid for his column. he writes it out of the goodness of his heart.

[MikeR]

See, the problem with Mr. Brussat is that he doesn't realize the extent to which one's perspective is based on one's underlying assumptions. Does anyone else here find this threatening -- or terrorizing, as Mr Brussat calls it? I don't. At all. And I'm not always the biggest fan of modernism. This building, of course, is the art museum that Mr. Brussat criticizes near the beginning of the column.

[quente]

Today, walking away from Brown Stadium, I passed a house with a strikingly "modern" style (modern cerca 1930 or so, almost cubist) that was built in the middle of what was otherwise a neighborhood of mainstream, traditional, upscale appearing homes. While I don't think an entire street of such a style would appeal to me (as exists in places like LA, Portland, Phoenix, etc), as a contrast to the other homes on that street here in Providence, it was almost brilliant and "fit in" in some unexpected ways.

[Citydweller]

Of course I think traditional architecture should be allowed! I think almost everything should be allowed. Which is my point.

- Garris

[BBascule]

I like this discussion that you and Garris have started, but I would disagree with you about the following:

The question of where to experiment and where to blend depends - on the building, street, district or neighborhood. Some neighborhoods are 'done' (like Beacon Hill or Benefit Street) and need mostly to be preserved and only changed with great care. Other areas (like the Jewelry District) are much more appropriate for free expression.

[Gusterfell]

In general, the "Disneyland" remarks you read in these threads are not to disparage existing 'immersive experience' neighborhoods. Usually term "Disneyland" has been used to described the attempt by civic leaders to falsely re-create that 'immersive experience' by regurgitating lost architectural styles - that in the end come off as fake and seem more akin to a mall, or say, Disneyland's Main Street USA attraction.

[Citydweller]

Exactly. A truly urban experience can be had in places like New York, Boston, San Francisco, London, Paris, etc. without being compared to "Disneyland." This is because they don't insist on being stuck in an architectural era that has come and gone. Such places embrace the architecture of today, even as they treasure the architecture of their past.