The major developments proposed along the riverfront in Holy Cross and in the so-called South Market District off the Loyola Avenue streetcar extension have one thing in common: terrible architecture.
Despite the involvement of prestigious architectural firms and hundreds of millions of investment dollars, the proposed developments look cheap, generic, and totally out-of-keeping with the historic styles of their neighborhoods. In a mesmerizingly beautiful city dependent on architectural tourism, this is worrisome. Building thoughtless structures and shunning the local pattern book of styles steadily diminishes the unique feel of the city, no matter how ardently we fight to preserve older buildings.
The projects’ aesthetic crimes are typical of architecture motivated by financial rather than artistic or humanistic values. Both follow the dead-end modern design precept that the arrangement and rearrangement of boxes is the consummation of human creativity.
In the four-block, $200 million South Market District development, each of the proposed structures is a cube, livened up with exactly one small differentiating touch: a cube with a column, a cube with a slice cut from it, a cube with some windows slightly different in size than others (plus the inevitable bright orange sculptural scribble out front). To make matters worse, gray is the color of the day, not the pastels and earthy cobblestone-browns that predominate in the CBD above Poydras.
The Holy Cross renderings are less detailed, but they also show the hand of shipping-container chic. Like a more banal version of the nearby Make It Right homes, which are at least eye-catching, the stark geometric forms proposed in Holy Cross clash with our garden-like city, rather than blending in.
Bad designs come from bad design philosophies, and the philosophy behind the South Market District development is dangerously bad. In its statement of principles, the Eskew+Dumez+Ripple architecture firm boasts that “[o]ur work prioritizes the experience of a place over formal aesthetic concerns.” Look beyond the jargon and what you’ve got is an open defense of ugliness, a mantra that also ignores the extent to which we experience places aesthetically.
Think of walking into Grand Central Station, or St. Paul’s Cathedral. Think of nearly every inch of our own city. The aesthetics of places cannot be separated from the experiences people have in them.
EDR disavows historically-grounded architecture, saying that “mimicking” centuries-old techniques is misguided, because architecture must “be representative of the particular time in which it was built.” This is a shopworn rationale for following the herd. Architect Mac Ball, in deciding that the Sophie B. Wright Charter School’s new gymnasium would not be built in keeping with the rest of the school’s style, also argued that additions to historical buildings should reflect the time in which they are added.
There’s a key question the city must ask itself in weighing every proposed development: “Could this be anywhere but New Orleans?”
Intellectually empty and logically circular, it amounts to saying that “we must build in the style of the era because it is the style that people of the era build in.” But styles are contemporary only because architects make them so. If Mac Ball’s gym doesn’t reflect the flavor of our city, or the South, or the school, and disrupts the feel of the city, nothing prevents him from designing something that does.
New Orleans’s aura and allure doesn’t lie in a collection of individual buildings. It’s a cohesive quilt of character and beauty — a tout ensemble, as was realized by the heroes who saved the French Quarter from the wrecking ball. The brick-and-mortar structures are crucial, but more so is the sense of place that the buildings create by speaking to one another harmoniously.
EDR pays lip service to this philosophy. The firm professes to believe in “weaving new and different threads into the urban fabric.” But would anyone trust an artist claiming that a carefully restored tapestry could use slicing up and modernizing? What if that artist was proudly ignorant of the tapestry’s history and meaning? Should he be let loose with needle and thread? EDR claims to “celebrate local conditions while transcending local convention.” Decoded, this is an endorsement of unimaginative eyesores that don’t fit in.
Does this make me a curmudgeonly anti-modernist, a Prince Charles decrying plans to update Britain’s National Gallery as a “monstrous carbuncle” on the face of an old friend?
No. It’s possible to create architecture that both incorporates historical styles and experiments with new ones.
The new Iberville development has been designed to “evoke the Storyville era.” The renderings have suggested it will look like an updated Vieux Carré, with plenty of shutters and balconies, but airier and more glassy.
Loyola University’s Monroe library, constructed in 1999, similarly echoes the Collegiate Gothic of the surrounding campus while being unmistakably contemporary. And our oft-forgotten postmodern treasure, the Piazza d’Italia, looks both forward and backward as it plays with the cultures of Italy and New Orleans, respectfully reproducing traditions and rearranging them to say something new.
In developing better design standards, simple questions will do. Would ordinary people find this beautiful? Does it seem to fit in with the landscape? Does it follow our established notion of what works here?
These criteria may appear highly subjective, but the architect Christopher Alexander, in The Timeless Way of Building, has made a strong case that they are not. The styles that have stayed with us over time, and that we appreciate, do so because they appeal to universal human qualities. Alexander points out that there’s more to historic architecture than simple nostalgia. For the same reason that Plato and Shakespeare have become classics, we venerate our old buildings not because they are old, but because they are timeless. And there should be no shame in continuing a timeless tradition.
This is not to say that all new places should look like the Garden District (though would that be so bad?) But if proposals like South Market and Holy Cross keep going forward, then no matter how many older buildings we keep standing, New Orleans won’t resemble New Orleans.
Lifeless architecture is also bad for business. The flattening of styles, the creation of a visual monoculture — these may be economically efficient elsewhere. But here, local character is money, and people do not come to New Orleans to see the same buildings that they see everywhere else. Nobody is going to travel from Jackson, let alone Japan, to see the South Market District.
We should insist that large development projects are distinctive and follow New Orleans architectural styles. Aesthetic criteria must be a mandatory part of project approval. There’s a key question the city must ask itself in weighing every proposed development: “Could this be anywhere but New Orleans?” New threads should be added to the urban fabric with the respect and care that would be accorded any great tapestry.
It’s important to remember that the South Market buildings are replacing the most ugly and anachronistic thing in its neighborhood: acres and acres of surface parking.
Acres of surface parking was a mistake. Two wrongs don’t make a right (turn). I may be cynical but playful, and anyone who writes children’s books is alright by me. Mr. Robinson has done an excellent job in expressing what many of the New Orleans citizenry has been thinking. The soul of New Orleans is being financed away, building by building, block by block. Propaganda and expensive PR campaigns finally silence the locals in the neighborhoods. When the neighbors are more powerful, have greater financial means, in greater numbers, and organized, sometimes the projects don’t go through. When that happens, a weaker neighborhood is targeted.
I wouldn’t mind seeing some drawing of Mr. Robinson’s suggested direction for Holy Cross or South Market (SOMA? Taken. NOSOMA?). Pictures help me understand.
Mr. Robinson is the author of a children’s book. Is he an illustrator as well?
The problem is the HDLC and their insistence that anything new look totally new. I persoanally think that is misguided.
I agree. Do not replace old warehouses with hideous steel and glass monstrosities. I want to see buildings erected with frieze work and artistic flair, not the garbage being proposed
I can write and illustrate, and I have written a children’s book or two, but I am not a licensed architect. Oh hell, where am I going with this anyway, in a city where credentials do not appear to matter anyway? Look at all of the charter schools in this city. It’s not what you know. It’s who you know. And that may partly explain why this city is in the shape it is in and why there are acres of parking lots in the CBD and why the quickest way to demolish a building is to set it on fire. This is not a joke, and anybody who has lived in this city for st least five years knows that black smoke has nothing to do with a new pope being elected. For one thing, it’s not the right color smoke.
Don’t worry about these these new buildings,I’ve watched the construction and they won’t be there long. They look very much like some kids tree house…first hurricane….gone. Yay !!
There’s no mystery why most people prefer old to new buildings. It has mostly to do with proportion, something all architects surely must be exposed to with the Golden Section in Design 101. We feel better with high ceilings (even if a room is narrow, as in a shotgun), large windows (light is good), we like brick and wood (warm colors?), and curves are usually more pleasing than straight lines and sharp corners (more anthropomorphic). All of these characteristics can be included in new architecture, albeit at a higher cost than gray, generic boxes with slitty windows. Modernist cubes look cheap because they are. The author is absolutely correct, although I can hear the yowls of disgust emanating from the polished concrete desks of architecture firms around the city as I type this.
The principle that new buildings can and should relate to their place is a good one. My book, “New in New Orleans Architecture” makes the same argument albeit with greater clarity and better examples See http://www.amazon.com/New-Orleans-Architecture-John-Klingman/dp/1455615374/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403370574&sr=1-2&keywords=klingman
What a shock it must have been to Vieux Carre’ residents when original creole structures were razed to make way for massive structures modeled on a Paris complex. The Poltalba buildings certainly were of a style and type the City had not seen before. Then in the early 19th century, Americans flocked to New Orleans; the French thought them Nouveau riche, with many startled at the proliferation of this new style in which their homes were being built to look like Greek temples, wildly dissimilar from the creole townhouses of the Vieux Carre’. Then came the fad of adding more ornament to houses in a new Italianate style, even more of a departure from the original Creole structures. It must have been especially jarring when turreted styles took hold with the complex massing of High-Victorian, further muddling the coherent style of New Orleans. But it wasn’t over: Art deco towers were built in the CBD and French 2nd Empire and Romanesque mansions were built along the avenue. Our City is so rich in architecture because important styles, done well, were welcomed throughout its history. Let’s hope that when our descendants look back to our time they see our valuable contribution to the City’s architectural history which very much has a future.
it looks like something out of Waco Texas. Or any other conservative, boring, could be anywhere, America office building blah blah blah.
We had a number of proposed developments in the Carrollton/Audubon area 10 year ago. It’s about more than architecture. From the archives:
http://www.neighborhoodsinaction.org/shortstreet/LeveePark.pdf
The South Market building shown in the rendering is a pretty faithful copy of traditional warehouse architecture. I don’t really see the problem here. Building in new styles only adds diversity and strength to the architecture of the city.
Beyond that, larger concerns prevail. Economics may guide the design, but the numbers have to work or we don’t get new housing or other forms of development. Instead, we’d be stuck with vacant lots, while the existing supply of homes continues to gentrify at an even faster pace.
Yeah but this is just ugly.
That’s part of the problem, “…the numbers have to work or we don’t get…” Who sets the numbers? Who sets the rules? Who says, “We don’t get”? Sometimes, you have to go without before you get what you want or what you need. I don’t see a lot of moral fiber in the individuals who seem to be calling the plays in this city. They are depending on New Orleanians to continue to be disorganized and lazy.
New Orleans needs to lose it’s soul. The soul that harbors bigotry, discrimination and lacks jobs and education. Welcome to the 21st Century.
Cities don’t lose their “souls,” people do (that’s if the concept of a “soul” is in your belief system). But, I will say this, there is a lot of buying and selling that is going on in this city, and it’s happening in offices, and it involves public money. The cycle of abuse continues. Stepping on other people to get to the top, and then lying and cheating to stay there. Mo’ money, Mo’ money. Fantastic PR campaigns! Expensive legal counsel! Awards and accolades! Bigotry, discrimination, lack of jobs, unequal educational opportunities…Bill’s got it right.
I must agree. Buildings do, and should have souls. As a fan of architecture in general, and New Orleans architecture in particular, the thought of a another desolate city block being turned into something that resembles just another old row of warehouses is an abysmyl prospect.
Are today’s architects so driven by cost that the best that they can come up with is another variation on the “box”?
Is this actually a new “style”? If it is, it needs to die a quick death.
Although I admire the motives behind Brad Pitt’s ‘Make It Right” foundation, and it’s goals, I cannot say i approve of the “style” of the residences that seemingly were dropped out of a UFO in the Lower Ninth Ward. They would look just fine in Malibu, but c’mon man, this is NOLA! I’m sorry, but to me it looks like a student architect’s vision of the “Home Of The Future”, the kind of thing that one would see at a World’s Fair in the 50’s or 60’s. I was hoping that the tragedy of Katrina and the loss of those homes would be an opportunity to rebuild vernacular homes with new materials, and building science that would allow them to be more energy efficient, and sturdier in the face of the sometimes drastic weather we experience here. What’s worse is that they are not conducive to stoop sitting, a favorite New Orleans pastime.
The rendering of the South Market project just doesn’t look friendly. I’d like to see more sidewalk space for tables, and chairs. It needs a friendly frieze that would cause me to pause and enjoy it. It says to me either “come in, and get busy or keep moving”, it’s not inviting me to just hang out. We need more of that in this age of people communicating constantly on “devices”, and not with each other.
Architecture should embrace, and entertain the community; not turn it away, It needs soul….
– Roger Steinbrink aka “The Architect Of Soul.”
When “cost” alone steers architectural design, how can it (the building) have soul? No man can serve two masters. Besides, in this city of bribes and payoffs, they better damn well try to cut costs somewhere. Hence, the “box” design.
“Borrowing elements” from historic buildings is completely inappropriate and insulting to architects; you can’t copy and paste genus loci, because you’ll end up with Disneyland. Buildings should be representative of their time and technology of the day; historic buildings were “contemporary” structures of their day, after all.
you nailed it! perfectly, on all fronts.
actually, no, they werent. many of the CBD structures (old city hq Gallier Hall, for example) borrow on classic greek design and were not contemporary. duh.
today’s cheap architects do one thing well — cheap buildings. these look like theyre designed for Houston, not New Orleans.
funny, New Orleans was one place where free people of color could exist and live harmoniously in the same neighborhoods as non. why would we want to lose that accepting nature?
we dont have jobs because shipping moved out, and we dont have education because the middleclass taxbase did the same. now we need to attract both industry and taxbase — and Houston-style builds aint gonna do that.
pay them and they will come. developers set the tone, architects just respond.
all of those examples you cited (except deco) were new buildings using timeless, classic styles — not using cheapest-box-possible style.
nobody is going to look back at big-box style (walmart, best buy, these new projects, eetc) and espouse their contribution to history. theyll just call it what it is — cost-driven boxism.
his credentials do not matter. arguing against the man (and not countering his arguments) is the classic “ad hominem”.
one does not have to be a designer himself to say that the HC proposals suck ass and should be rejected. the argument being made here is that quality design matters, and should be part of the review process for new development.
taking down that argument (perfectly crafted by the author here) should be your goal. trying to instead focus on the author is simply making an ad hominem.
agree, but let me say this — my neighborhood stopped Sean Cummings from putting in his big-box on Elysian Fields. we didnt do it because we’re powerful and wealthy (attend our meetings and youll realize the absurdity of that suggestion). as if. we did it by being vocal…in the end it was his own refusal to back down his proposed height to the legal limit that got a “No” from councilwoman palmer. had he said, “Ok, 50 feet it is!” then we’d probably have a god-awful 50′ building.
two wrongs dont make a right.
they dont. the architects are simply building as big as possible for as little as possible. thats the design ethos of today, and the most utilitarian solution to that is a box. these architects are more or less hired guns and are driven by the developers… who can influence the developers? only the city, only good policy mandating design that matters. thats where we — and this well-crafted argument — come in.
Of course Mr. Robinson does NOT have to be an architect to write an opinion piece about architectual design – and an excellent and well-crafted piece of work it is. Certainly that was never an issue for me. Hell, I critique (tongue in cheek) things all the time, and I am no damn expert in anything. OMAGAWD – my chair is rocking and I am getting ready to roll. Somebody didn’t get their nicotine and caffeine fix this morning and sounds pretty serious to me.
He’s back! Sean Cummings is on his way to Elysian Fields and he says that 50 feet is looking better and better to him. And oh yeah, thanks for that brown-box CVS store that is heading for Elysian Fields near Claiborne Avenue. Where were all of my poor loud friends – just when I needed them most?!
I was not concerned with taking down anything. I’m just saying graphics, photos, drawings help me understand better. I remember them tearing down the old main library to build the John Hancock building, and thought that was awful. If I had my way every new building would be required to look like Longue View Gardens or the Ursuline Convent. Or maybe the Jerusalem Temple. But look down from the air and all you notice is the Superdome. I’m not any kind of designer or creative person, though. The ugly Holy Cross plan is apparently a done deal, but if I wanted to move it into another direction, which I believe would be a positive development, I think an alternative proposal that people can see would help. Now I called that a drawing, but surely there are other ways to do make proposed images, given that tweets and instagrams and face posts all seem to come with more graphics than words. I don’t believe this is in any way some kind of ad hominem attack on the author, with whom I agree. Just a suggestion that it is good for there to be a carrot somewhere out in front of the stick.
While I agree in principle, I can’t quite envision what a “CBD-style” would be. Almost by definition, the CBD is a mishmash of competing styles. The Plaza Tower was meant to make that part of the city a new focus of modern architecture and make that entire quadrant of the CBD a home for the avant-gard. Granted, the Plaza Tower failed in that respect, but to me, that’s an example of how that part of the CBD has never been considered to have a “personality” of its own to preserve. Of course, that’s no excuse for bad architecture and bland buildings, and a major architectural project should offer more than square footage, but still, what should a CBD-style encompass?
Gallier Hall was built before the industrial revolution. Stone masons and other hands-on craftsmen worked with technology of their day that was appropriate (165 years ago) to construct the building. As you may not know, government buildings of that era (c. 1840’s, in contrast to 2014 and 165 years of technological advances) “borrowed” from classical architecture for the sake of following suit with the popular Greek revival at the time. In no way is the mindless disposition of a copy-and-paste attitude toward design reflective of society today; the technological advances we have developed in the past 165 years since Gallier (hurricane, flood protections, etc) are in no way advanced by borrowing classical elements of architecture’s past.
….and you think Greek Revival will?
So according to your previous comments developers and architects are out. Refresh everyone here on exactly what your position is for building in this fine city? And you realize that you can’t afford to reconstruct the Pantheon, by the way.
…show us the money, Kyron. Greek Revival costs multitudes more than the technologically advanced design of contemporary society. (Just to set the record straight, I’m not advocating for the feeble rendering pictured above, incase you’re hopelessly confused here when I mention “contemporary” I am however, against your “paste classical stickers over everything” approach.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Nathan!! I watch and cringe when I see our boards and elected officials accept projects without questioning their timelessness, quality and BEAUTY. Yes, beauty! Since when did we cave to ugliness just because it was different and “of its time,” rather than “of its place?” This only means the architect cannot design in context, the builder cannot build as an artisan and the people cannot see inspiration.
But wait, people can see inspiration in buildings and gorgeous urban places and comment on it every time they visit our great City. It’s why they come and stay and return again. So why cannot we continue this tradition?
I say let’s get serious about the subject of aesthetics and expect no less than the very, very best, from here forward. We have dozens if not scores of architectural traditions in our city – many completely different from one another – that can work as our unique “pattern language.” You mentioned the New Orleans Pattern Book, but I vote we make the eight volumes of books, “New Orleans Architecture,” our guiding principles for both architecture and urban form and set out on a mission to carry on the uniquely New Orleans tradition of beauty and timelessness! Perhaps this is where “a New Urban Architecture” will be born…
Bravo again for your courage and truthfulness!
You are exactly right about the smoke. On being “qualified” – Anyone who appreciates beauty is qualified to comment. How about developing an easy way for people to vote for proposed designs? (One vote only with space for commentary about WHY a design is appealing or not.) An Ap for that? 😉
Hi, John, I was just sharing your article on living without air conditioning and your book with a TradArch list serve yesterday.
Yes, it must have been delightful to actually look forward to new architectural styles, instead of recoiling in horror at every movement.
Agree with the oner commenters. This is the very first time in history that what is replacing what came before is truly of poor quality, questionable construction and definitely uglier. No hands down.
I think the point is that the style is not as important as the good design and construction quality. We have awesome precedents that could inform a “new urban architecture.” If we cannot be inspired in NOLA to do awesome architecture, where else can we?
A decent Greek Revival building can be built for about the third of the cost of the average Frank Gehry designed building, and it will last longer.
So should we tear down the majority of the warehouse district? This building looks just like many of the former warehouses a few blocks away.
…who said anything about Frank Gehry? He’s just as unnecessarily superfluous as Greek Revival of yore. Contemporary society is better than that.
This is the philosophy I take issue with. I think it is simply dogma, built on sand. Architects CONSTANTLY (and very angrily) repeat it as if it’s some kind of “truth,” but it’s a totally arbitrary assertion. It doesn’t go any deeper than “old styles should not be used because they’re old.” As I say in the piece, it’s circular. “We must build in the styles of today because those are the styles we build in today. We must not build in yesterday’s styles because they are yesterday’s.” It sounds good, but it’s empty sloganeering. First, who says that it is the job of architects merely to “represent” the present? From where is that mandate handed down? Architects create the present through their work, they do not merely “reflect” something that already exists. Everything architects design is a normative assertion of what the present ought to be, and they should not delude themselves into believing they are merely passive. (I actually think the other position is more “insulting” to architects. I see architects as free to play with all the ways of building of all times, and to put forward a vision of what is best; the contemporary view sees them as merely interpreting a Spirit of the Age that they are not permitted to tamper with or question.)
Next, what principle means that yesterday’s styles can never be deployed today? If you want a test of an architect’s reflexes, see how quickly he says “Disneyland” when you mention historic styles. But the reason Disneyland is false and horrible is NOT that it uses styles from the past, but because it intends solely to replicate a thin and superficial version of those things. But that’s not an argument for never building that way, that’s an argument for doing it well, and not creating a cheap simulation. I think the difference can be seen in the new Poundbury village in England. (see: http://www.architectmagazine.com/international-projects/behind-the-facade-of-prince-charless-poundbury.aspx )There, traditional materials are used for authenticity, green technologies are employed, and styles are not strictly imitated, to keep them from appearing affected. Of course, someone let Prince Charles design the town’s fire station (seriously!) and it ended up looking exactly like Disneyland. Why? Because he doesn’t understand the crucial difference between lazy nostalgic pastiche and faithful, respectful reinterpretation. There are many different ways to use the past, and not all of them are kitsch. To see how ludicrous it would be to think that every work that draws from traditions in its field is necessarily derivative, just imagine if the same logic were applied to literature or music! Salvador Dal
Oh god somebody needs to stop that guy. Does he not realize that he probably might have gotten the height exemption if he’d made it beautiful and in keeping with historic styles? It’s amazing just how stubbornly they hold fast to the shipping container buildings.
Thank you! This the most accurate perspective on the architectural legacy of New Orleans!
New Orleans is a charm fest of cookie cutter, pattern book,
http://southmarketdistrict.com/the-district/rendering-gallery/
This isn’t the only building. Look at all of the renderings they provide (not just one), for the entire development. And yes, none of it is old provincial New Orleans
Yes. This is correct. What everyone else wants is “old style”. Style being the key word. Styles change. It’s called PROGRESS. Unfortunately, most people here are progress averse.
Doesn’t exist. Good point.
You’re spot on.
Yeah. Stop the guy who’s proposing the modern building that will bring in progressive, higher-earning, higher-educated, modern people into the city. You know, the ones who don’t have a provincial, narrow-minded view
I suppose the first thing to understand is
The more I read all of the comments here, the more it appears that architecture is not the argument
First, I don’t know where I said I wanted dicey neighborhoods, or that I thought music was under threat. I really don’t see how those things are related at all. Music in the city is in a real golden age. I’m critiquing a tendency among contemporary architects to believe that all historic local building styles must necessarily be discarded. That critique doesn’t say anything about economic progress. As I say in the piece, I’m a believer in bringing people into the city, and I think distinctive architecture is a factor in doing that. The sense of not being
This is what I think is mistaken, the belief that it can only be a
This debate on architecture threads directly into the other concerns and perceived threats regarding music, neighborhoods, gentrification etc. Introducing new architectural styles into a city like New Orleans sends a powerful signal to people in other cities. It tells others who may like some, but not all things about the city that it’s becoming more open, that it’s changing. So now for arguments sake you have someone from New York, who liked New Orleans but didn’t want to move because it was a little too provincial a few years ago. Liked jazz
Well, I don
Contempt? No so much. I fully understand your headspace
I don
This clearly has become a circle-jerk, so isn’t worth much additional time
This has been extremely interesting, thank you for a very lively discussion! I will say that one of the things that excites me tremendously is the possibility that technology holds for reducing the cost of the intricate and ornate, and democratizing luxury. Bringing things formerly available to the few to the many is one of capitalism’s greatest features. I do look forward to the future and think it holds many great things. All the best to you!
Certainly some architects take the “we must build in the styles of today” notion too far. However, you’ve shown yourself to be equally extreme in your distaste for modern styles. Hell, you’re criticizing the Holy Cross development based on what amounts to a watercolor rendering. Many of the most historic cities in the world – some much older than New Orleans – have found room for 21st century designs. There are about a zillion historic buildings in this city to cherish. On the other hand, parking lots have no history or soul, and opportunities to develop over them wax and wane. I’m not sure why you believe otherwise after watching decades of stagnation. How ’bout we give the architects a chance?
I seem to need to make this point over and over: criticism of particular tendencies in development in no way implies a criticism of development itself. “What, you want parking lots??” No! I don’t know why people think this is implied. I have made an argument that new architecture should not deliberately discard traditional ways of building, and should respect the aesthetic continuity of places with rich stylistic heritages. That’s the argument. It’s not “don’t build things.” As I say in the article, I’m not arguing against newness, I’m arguing against some particular tenets of the contemporary architectural consensus that I think are deeply mistaken. I think it’s difficult to find compromise because that consensus is in principle opposed to any reproduction of historic styles, labeling them pastiche and Disneyland-type-falsity. I tried to find some middle ground, though, and I deliberately singled out the Iberville redevelopment in the article as (hopefully) successfully combining old and new.
Another reason modernism is difficult to compromise with, though, is that it often celebrates tension and starkness while deriding context and harmony. So instead of trying to figure out what gives a place its spirit, and then building to fit seamlessly in with it, there is an urge to disrupt and make grand statements. Now, you can say “Well, I’m a pluralist, I believe there’s room for all things, why can’t you live and let live?” The problem is that you can’t have both harmony and disharmony. If someone puts a Gehry house on a Marigny street, it doesn’t matter that it’s only 1 out of 20 houses because the sense of place is entirely altered. I think one of the things we have here that is special is not just “a lot of old buildings” (THAT, you’re right, won’t be affected by the addition of new ones) but an incredibly rich sense of unity (which would suffer under the pluralistic view).
Now maybe I’m wrong about Holy Cross, perhaps it will be gorgeous, perhaps it will seem both traditional and contemporary, an elegant update of the city’s timeless look. It didn’t seem that way to me from what we have now, but I’d be delighted if it turns out to be true!
Where is Frank Lloyd Wright? Just when I needed you the most?
Yeh, But what was there before the parking lot?
Yeh, But what was there before the parking lot? I like that. Reminds me the riddle,”What is at the bottom of the ocean?” WATER. Damn —-I just slipped on that puddle on the floor on my way out the door!!! What is THAT STUFF, ANYWAY?!!!
As an alternative to the big-box construction spreading out over the surface parking lots, consider the example of The Cotton District of Starkville, Mississippi; https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1093&bih=496&q=Starkeville%2C+Mississippi+architecture&oq=Starkeville%2C+Mississippi+architecture&gs_l=img.12…1806.32397.0.36048.39.39.0.0.0.0.117.2387.38j1.39.0.chm_loc%2Chmss2%3Dfalse%2Chms2min%3D10%2Chms2max%3D10%2Chmtb%3D120%2Chmta%3D1440%2Chmrde%3D0-0%2Chmde%3D1-0%2Chmmpp1%3D1-0%2Chmmpp2%3D1-0%2Chmffs%3D10000…0…1.1.48.img..18.21.1350.BxsOI1TVnwI#hl=en&q=the+cotton+district+starkville+mississippi&tbm=isch&imgdii=_
I just want to clarify. Is there more than one Sean Cummings? gawdKudNotBeThatCruel! Okie Dokie. Read this quick, cuz it might get DELETED…Going Going Gone?
Yes! Alan M. The voice of reason! Where in gawd’s name have you been, man, in this discussion? And, please do not tell me N RAMPART ST. I am way out of my element here and have had to rely on wit and cynicism. And we all know how old that gets, fast! Hahahaaaaaa
This link will take you to the second page of the “Retail Opportunities” portion of their website, called “Area Fundamentals.” In the third paragraph from the top they make the claim that New Orleans has “the lowest poverty rate of any city in the southeast.” Can this be true? Did I miss something, or is someone just getting carried away? Here’s the link;
http://southmarketdistrict.com/retail-opportunity/area-fundamentals/
I think that from a developer’s point of view the problem with the Cotton District model is that it would be too difficult to provide ironclad security. Too many little streets and alleyways, just like a real New Orleans neighborhood. Instead, the Big Box model maximizes rent, and with a single main entrance for each building makes it much easier to keep undesirable people out. It is in effect a gated community downtown.
Here’s a photo from a recent residential development in Atlanta called Inman Park Village. Parts of Inman Park Village are super-modern in a Swedish kind of way, but the parts of the development closest to Inman Park, one of Atlanta’s few 19th century neighborhoods, are architecturally respectful of its elder neighbors across the street. Note the arched windows and the treatment of the pediment.
http://www.atlantatownhomes.com/Communities/pictures/Inman_Park_Village.jpg
…and then compare that to the treatment of the fa
“As long as it’s done right….”
And there’s the rub; whose definition of “right” are you using? I actually suspect that what you really mean is “As long as you like it.”
Or is there some “Bureau of Right” somewhere, handing down these edicts?
Sure. To get captain obvious about it
This city needs an architectural critic. But just not this guy…..!!! Great conversation but I have to say pretty lame in most his points. The new urbanist lament is totally unfounded. Comparing St Peters and Grand Central to an apartment building? Really? Should we review your book against Huck Finn?
The times are different, the building techniques are different, the financing, the codes, the air conditioning. If Mr Robinson would have submitted this article on parchment in calligraphy maybe I would buy in more. Though its kind of cute to see someone talking about intellectually rigorous design without mentioning the market, the economics as if they have nothing to do with the conversation. Mr. Robinson’s lack of true knowledge of how and where buildings come from in today’s world is frankly the true lack of intellectual rigor. But alas he is a mere children’s book writer throwing peanuts from the gallery.
Often when there is an upheaval we look back nostalgically, romantically to a bygone era that never really existed in reality but in some folks romantic past. Buildings live, some die, some are reborn and some learn along the way to stay relevant. Much of it is because we care for them, and when we don’t care for them they usually die, sometimes a terribly slow death. Which is both economic, aesthetics and need all rolled up in to one rotting out building.
Mr Robinson may be saying that the building we are building today are going to be less likely to be cared for in the future. On this, I might agree with him. But I have seen building old and new, that I love an care for. I have build new and have refreshed old and love them both the same. They have character, they have charm they have scale and proportion and they call cost money. My plumber charges me for toilets in both, he doesn’t care about the style.
However, I do believe there is a need for an on going discussion, thus the need for an architectural critic. Also, I would love to see a panel discussion with some of the great minds of the city planning and design and Mr Robinson. We need to talk about density, and contraction, planning, design and development. There has to be more conversations like this from all the different perspectives. I imagine the weak cherry picking by Mr Robinson in this article would be put down fairly plainly and simply.
What is it, specifically, about the South Market development which justifies the praise you’ve heaped on it? What about it is original, or distinctive, or inspired? Stunning? Really? Because I see none of that. I see generic boxes which one might see in any live/work development along any freeway in Dallas, or Atlanta, or Houston. Sorry, I just don’t see the glory there. And while I’m glad that a new development will bring residents back to the city, next to a streetcar line, and that those residents will likely be young people typically drawn to the sort of apartments which cater to singles or roommate situations, that doesn’t change the fact that they are going to be stuffed into access controlled boxes which could be anywhere and are completely unremarkable in and of themselves.
Also, as a more or less side note, having watched them go up I’m truly alarmed at how lightly built they are. How would these buildings have withstood Katrina?
I think it’s a fundamental rift that could be argued indefinitely regarding the realities of the city, where it’s going, and the fact that it’s being driven to a large degree by new residents from elsewhere (brain gain as the media puts it)…coming here for the opportunities that were created (some perhaps from Houston, Dallas or Atlanta). It’s these outside perspectives, outside money, and outside visions (and desire for new conveniences, or architectural styles for that matter) that have contributed to these demands for such retail and residential. It’s these outside perspectives that bring desire beyond the incestuous circle jerk that was a New Orleans that was seemingly content with decline in the name of preservationism, in general
Yep and yep.
New Orleans cannot have the lowest poverty rate of any city in the southeast. I live here and there is widespread poverty and deplorable street conditions. Somebody did not just get carried away. Somebody is lying through their teeth – I mean, through their pen. This is marketing hype and propaganda. Secondly, Leonardo da Vinci wrote and illustrated children’s books. So, I think that going in that direction (by another blogger) toward Mr. Robinson was a mean-spirited remark. Now, I would like to know if somebody put something in the water over the weekend, because a number of bloggers, not just here, have been awful. Also, Madonna writes and illustrates children’s books, but I am not using her as an example. She has quite a “body” of work out there, but I do not appreciate her body outside of music.
NIckelndime, consider the possibility that a sudden proliferation of posts, all promulgating more or less the same point of view, may in fact be the work of sock puppets; i.e., an individual or group of individuals in the employment or otherwise under the influence of an organization or entity who are told to fire up their web browsers and get online and spread the message. The Putinistas, lackeys of Vladimir Putin, did it like crazy on the forums of the NYT and The Guardian at the time of the Crimean Anschluss, only they gave themselves away by the Russian accent of their internet slang. Oy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
Mr. Racket, having awakened from my afternoon nap and regained consciousness thanks to a tall, cool mint ice tea on the verandah of my decaying Garden District manse, so graciously served by our old family retainer, the thought has accumulated in my Carnival-fogged brain that you are fond of repeated references to “circle jerks.” I am unfamiliar with this term; should I assume that it is one of the markers of progress
Russian music playing wildly in the background…Oy! Oy! Oy! I’ll have what Alan M. had on his verandah, but I’ll have mine on my porch. Oy! Oy! Oy! I hope that’s fireworks I hear! Oy! Oy! Oy!
Lazy afternoon naps are one of the best things about living and proliferating and promulgating in this city. Afternoon naps invigorate and feed the soul. This city, with the lowest poverty rate in the southeast, is the only city where one can fall asleep anywhere, and who would notice!? Oy! Oy! Oy! Russian music playing wildly in the background—Oy! Oy! Oy! Beulah! Peel me a grape!
The posts on this article have hit the 100 mark. Actually, with this post, it will be 102? Is this like, some kind of record? Do I, like get a prize, or something? Russian music playing wildly in the background – Oy! Oy! Oy!
Something tells me you’re not unfamiliar with alternative lifestyle, Alan. Dark sides aside
Pretty funny
The area that will soon be home to South Market is no man’s land in New Orleans. I don’t see how it could possibly disrupt the architectural continuity of an area that has none to begin with. Maybe if we had never built the Poydras towers you would have a point.
I would never support modern architecture in the middle of the Marigny or the Quarter.
Why do you bash them when the building in the rendering above wasn’t designed by EDR?