Posted by David Church on June 06, 2002 at 18:07:05:In Reply to: ArchWeek - Reevaluating Postmodernism posted by Kevin Matthews on June 05, 2002 at 01:09:18:
Your current edition contains an article, very curiously uninformed. The failures of the building were voiced at the time. Included below is a copy of an e-mail to your author.
Seldom have I read an article with fewer facts, and unsupported opinion than your article on the Portland building. I was there at the consideration of the design competition and the city council hearings. although graves talk was all about human scale, anthropomorphism and a reverence for solid material which weather gracefully and coin appreciation for history, the budget from the hofman/graves team never included the goods. cheap materials, poor construction, program failure were evident from the start. every major Portland firm and many more architects and designers spoke against the proposal.
Despite the pretentious rhetoric, cheap won. Local architects told the city council that the budget proposed would not support the vision. At the time, Portland finances were in difficult position, and the city council voted safe, with fiscal concerns first.
Before occupancy permits were issued, structural failures were evident.
Before the Portland building, graves most prominent work was scenic design. Someone gave the best description of michael graves: "he is an architect committed to one-act plays and throwaway sets"
David Church
|
ArchitectureWeek
Search
Buildings
Architects
Types
Places
Pix
Free 3D Models
Store
Library
|