Architects Rated and Overrated

[ablarc]

ARCHITECTS RATED AND OVERRATED (New York Edition)

...I think Gehry is somewhat overrated...

This line of thought originated in a Chicago thread, http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/sh...?t=5130&page=3, but it seems more appropriate under a separate heading. In the Chicago thread, folks responded with their own nominees for each category. The following is a more or less dutiful compendium of those nominations, with the residue of a text to cement them together:

If most folks rate you high and you've won a lot of awards, some folks are bound to think you're overrated. If most folks rate you low, some will rise to defend you (except perhaps if you're Thomas O'Hara).

1. Highest general ratings belong to Gehry, Calatrava and Foster. These are the commonly-held-to-be geniuses. Because they're high-rated, people take potshots at them. Love them or hate them, we expect much from these characters.

Overrated Wannabes, pretenders to the top drawer: Koolhaas, Eisenman and Zaha Hadid. The former is so terrible that some folks mistake his work for genius, the second is just a fast-talking wiseguy even when he’s doing architecture, and the latter is baffling and unprolific enough to be as yet unknowable (though sporadically very interesting; give her time).

2. Just below Group 1 are Piano, Rogers, Pelli, Stern and Meier. These guys are the best of the journeymen and they sometimes strike out, but they're also a bit less subject to negative criticism because they're less challenging and people have lower expectations for them. They're also solid architects, thoroughly in command of their craft. Professionals.

3. Then come Gwathmey, Tschumi, Herzog & deMeuron, Pontzamparc, Mayne, Nouvel, Ten Arquitectos, Maki, Graves, Arquitectonica and Libeskind.These guys are better-than-average enough to be sporadically controversial. Overreachers, and notable as much for striking out as for hitting homers. But still good enough to hate.

4. The next tier contains Polshek, Diller & Scofidio, Cook + Fox, FX/Fox Fowle, Pei Cobb et al. (lots of corporate teams) and Rafael Vinoly. Nobody hates these folks because they’re not really good enough to hate, so they’re easily overlooked. Shall we call them high-mediocre? Though truth is, they sometimes do truly reprehensible work, such as the Lincoln Center or Brooklyn Museum redesigns.

5. Almost everyone belongs in the next tier, which is notable for interchangeability and a certain…shall we say…anonymity of design. Few names are memorable in this group, of which Costas Kondylis is king and David Childs the king emeritus.

And at the bottom are the active despoilers, the old moles who work so patiently and tirelessly to assure New York’s future ugliness. The names Thomas O’Hara and Gene Kaufman stand out here.


Feel free to augment, revise and rearrange the list.

[pianoman11686]

Ablarc: I find myself in strong agreement with this compilation, and I appreciate the inclusion of some of my additions. I think that whenever putting together a list such as this, the easiest tasks are selecting the upper echelons and the bottom-feeders. And, while it's not practical to do a strict black-and-white, good-and-bad list, I find those middle gray areas to be most troublesome. In this case, I don't have many quips. I would, however, consider moving Herzog de Mueron up one spot, and shifting Graves down one (this based mostly on the quality of their most recent work). Maki's a tough one because of his lack of exposure outside Japan; I think his new WTC tower will solidify his position in either this group or the one above. Finally, I'd like to add Kohn Pederson Fox to the mix. While they may ostensibly fit well in group 4, I think they've proven themselves to be a cut above the other big corporate firms (including SOM, as whole).

Good work, and I hope to see a broad response from the forum.

[BPC]

I must say that the charms of Zaha Hadid are lost on me. I would assign her as the current most overrated architect in the world. May NYC never bear witness to one of her monstrous creations. I would assign Robert Venturi the title of most underrated (so underrated, in fact, that he did not even crack your list!).

[Citytect]

Hmmm... I don't think I agree with much of the list. Mainly because some of these architects are much more established than others. It's much easier to judge the ones that have been around a long time and have countless realized projects. It is harder to rate less established architects - and possibly unfair.

Specific disagreement: I've always thought Gehry was overrated. He's good and he brings some new ideas to the table. But I think he generally designs eye-catching but flawed buildings.

I think the "Overrated Wannabes" section is unnecessary. These architects are particularly interested in architecture theory. They're architects of ideas more than buildings. I consider them neither overrated nor wannabes.

[ablarc]

THE LIST AFTER COMMENTS of pianoman, BPC and greenie:

1. Highest general ratings belong to Calatrava and Foster. These are the commonly-held-to-be geniuses. Because they're high-rated, people take potshots at them. Love them or hate them, we expect much from these characters.

2. Architects particularly interested in theory: Koolhaas, Eisenman. This category includes Zaha Hadid, “most overrated architect in the world” (BPC).

3. Eye-catching but flawed: Gehry.

4. Most underrated: Venturi.

5. Just below are Piano, Rogers, Pelli, Stern, Meier, and Herzog & deMeuron. These guys are the best of the journeymen and they sometimes strike out, but they're also a bit less subject to negative criticism because they're less challenging and people have lower expectations for them. They're also solid architects, thoroughly in command of their craft. Professionals.

6. Then come Gwathmey, Tschumi, Pontzamparc, Mayne, Nouvel, Ten Arquitectos, Maki, Arquitectonica and Libeskind.These guys are better-than-average enough to be sporadically controversial. Overreachers, and notable as much for striking out as for hitting homers. But still good enough to hate.

7. The next tier contains Polshek, Graves, Diller & Scofidio, Cook + Fox, FX/Fox Fowle, Pei Cobb et al., KPF, SOM (lots of corporate teams) and Rafael Vinoly. Nobody hates these folks because they’re not really good enough to hate, so they’re easily overlooked. Shall we call them high-mediocre? Though truth is, they sometimes do truly reprehensible work, such as the Lincoln Center or Brooklyn Museum redesigns.

8. Almost everyone belongs in the next tier, which is notable for interchangeability and a certain…shall we say…anonymity of design. Few names are memorable in this group, of which Kondylis is king and Childs the king emeritus.

9. And at the bottom are the active despoilers, the old moles who work so patiently and tirelessly to assure New York’s future ugliness. The names Thomas O’Hara and Gene Kaufman stand out here.

[BPC]

Harsh words on O'Hara and Kaufman, neither of whom I've heard of. Examples?

[pianoman11686]

I smell a survey (similar to the one for the Art/Architecture thread) down the line.

On the topic of Robert Venturi: I don't know how a Pritzker-prize winner can be considered underrated. Maybe what was meant was that he wasn't included in the list (hence, not underrated, but simply not rated). But I'm not aware of any of his projects in New York City. I know he's designed a lot of smaller projects (mostly academia, museums, single family homes) in and around the area, but he's not recognizable as a New York architect.

I've realized that a lot of Pritzer winners are on this list, in various categories. I'd like to include Kevin Roche somewhere, possibly in the company of Meier. He's done a lot of projects in NYC, some of which I'll try to post later. Another possible latecomer, though not nearly as prolific in these parts: Rossi.

While we're adding names, let's add Perkins Eastman, SLCE, and Handel Architects to the corporate/high-mediocre category.

[ablarc]

Harsh words on O'Hara and Kaufman, neither of whom I've heard of. Examples?

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/sh...?t=9770&page=2

[antinimby]

What about all these other relatively unknown architects and firms that are doing pretty good work in Asia, Middle East, South America and elsewhere?

Btw, I think Portzamparc should be in category 1, or 2 at the very least.

[ablarc]

What about all these other relatively unknown architects and firms that are doing pretty good work in Asia, Middle East, South America and elsewhere?

This thread is mostly about architects who have built in New York, or might in the future.

Btw, I think Portzamparc should be in category 1, or 2 at the very least.

Next update of the list.

[STR]

Hmm. No mention of Adrian Smith (Partner, SOM Chicago). Few architects have recieved so many large commissions yet recieve almost no attention. Not particularly challenging, he still does a lot of essentially PoMo, so he's not going to shock anyone. Yet he doesn't really do bad buildings either. Definately up there with Pelli.

However, since you're limited this to those who work in NYC, I guess he doesn't make the list. Too bad. Not for the list, but the city. It's an extreme shame the best NYC can get from SOM is David Childs.

[lofter1]

... On the topic of Robert Venturi: I don't know how a Pritzker-prize winner can be considered underrated. Maybe what was meant was that he wasn't included in the list (hence, not underrated, but simply not rated). But I'm not aware of any of his projects in New York City. I know he's designed a lot of smaller projects (mostly academia, museums, single family homes) in and around the area, but he's not recognizable as a New York architect.

Venturi's scheme (unbuilt -- whew!!) for the Whitehall / Staten Island Ferry Terminal might be one reason that he hasn't built much in NYC:

[BPC]

I believe it was killed not because of the design itself, but because Staten Islanders viewed the giant clock as a kind of mockery. I personally liked Venturi's design, but I like Fred Schwartz's (built) design as well, particularly the giant blue neon signage out front.

[lofter1]

Has Venturi ever seen a barrel vault he didn't like?

I think he had a moment (20 years or so ago) and did some fun kitschy stuff (Disney in Burbank). Maybe I need illumination regarding his other important works, but I don't see his firm too high up on the list.

[ablarc]

I smell a survey (similar to the one for the Art/Architecture thread) down the line.

Hard to do one of these on this topic. So many names have been floated and the forum's program only allows ten items in a poll. I could maybe restrict it to starchitects, but I'd be raked over the coals for my selection.

I thought of doing two polls: best architects and worst architects. But so many of the worst toil in anonymity, unlikely ever to be recognized for their awfulness.

Suggestions?