MOCAD selects NYC-based architects for renovation

**Patrick** · February-26-12, 02:26 PM

Should they have used a local firm instead?

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...FREE/120229937

The Museum of Contemporary Art Detroit is moving forward with plans for a major renovation of the Woodward Avenue museum and outdoor area around it.

MOCAD has named two New York City agencies, Rice+Lipka Architects and James Corner Field Operations, to plan the building and site renovation

**Detroitnerd** · February-26-12, 02:34 PM

I'm sure they'll get some guff for this, but I can understand the move. A New York firm might come up with a more urbane design than a Detroit firm, especially when it comes to parking, foot traffic, use of outdoor space.

Frankly, I could just imagine some Detroit firm coming up with a plan for a 300-car valet structure with pedestrian tubeways guiding visitors into the museum ...

**Jason** · February-26-12, 02:59 PM

I don't really know if Detroit has any architecture firms that are comparable to those.

The only firms I can think of that might compare have only really done interiors and small commercial renovations, not bigger renovations, or anything technical like museums. They're all just side projects of professors.

One of the firms will be doing the architecture, and the work they do is relevant [[museums, community centers, etc. renovations...) and it's also good.

The other firm will be doing the landscaping, and they have experience doing high quality high profile public spaces [[they did the High Line in NYC for example). I'm actually kind of surprised they would do such a small project since the other projects they're doing are a lot bigger.

Detroit hasn't supported local architects for decades, and now there really aren't any. So now there's a choice between good and local.

But who knows, maybe this will inspire future clients to hire better architects in the future, and the city will support more local architects that way.

**Gistok** · February-26-12, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Jason

I don't really know if Detroit has any architecture firms that are comparable to those.

The only firms I can think of that might compare have only really done interiors and small commercial renovations, not bigger renovations, or anything technical like museums. They're all just side projects of professors.

One of the firms will be doing the architecture, and the work they do is relevant [[museums, community centers, etc. renovations...) and it's also good.

The other firm will be doing the landscaping, and they have experience doing high quality high profile public spaces [[they did the High Line in NYC for example). I'm actually kind of surprised they would do such a small project since the other projects they're doing are a lot bigger.

Detroit hasn't supported local architects for decades, and now there really aren't any. So now there's a choice between good and local.

But who knows, maybe this will inspire future clients to hire better architects in the future, and the city will support more local architects that way.

Ummmm..... Jason.... maybe this will enlighten you on LOCAL projects done by LOCAL architects.... Rosetti and the SmithGroup [[starting with the most current works)....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SmithGroup
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rossetti_Architects

**mwilbert** · February-26-12, 03:22 PM

I'm sure there are local firms with the capacity to do this, but institutions tend to like to use architects [[and other kinds of firms as well) that have done very narrowly similar work. Most likely that was a factor.

**Gistok** · February-26-12, 03:52 PM

A lot of local work in the early 20th century has been done by local architects. But fortunately they had a broad palette of designs. Wirt Rowland [[of Smith Hinchman & Grylls) designed 3 quite different towers in the Buhl, Penobscot and Guardian Buildings. And practically no theatre architect had as wide a design repertoire as Detroit's C. Howard Crane. [[Fox, United Artists, State [[Fillmore), Opera House, Orchestra Hall, etc) Ditto for Albert Kahn... although his work is somewhat easier to spot.

But ironically great modern architect work seems easier to spot... you can often spot a Gehry a mile away....

**Detroitnerd** · February-26-12, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

But ironically great modern architect work seems easier to spot... you can often spot a Gehry a mile away....

You may be interested in Stewart Brand's remarks about "magazine architecture" -- buildings that architects design to look good in photographs rather than being practical, adaptable structures aimed at pleasing their inhabitants. That may account for the from-a-distance almost branding-like designs that recall an architect's other works.

**Jason** · February-26-12, 04:28 PM

Yeah, I know all about SmithGroup and Rossetti, and all the other big corporate firms. I think SmithGroup especially does good work, but it's still corporate work.

You wouldn't have them design a modern art museum. For these museums the building itself is it's biggest, most expensive, and most publicly visible piece of art, while at the same time it's performance [[quality of the gallery spaces, etc.) can bring out the best in all of the rest of the art pieces.

And really, our corporate firms don't pop up much in the history of architecture. Albert Kahn gets mentioned sometimes because his industrial buildings were inspirational to 1920s European modernists. And that's the only context in which Albert Kahn is known to anyone outside of Detroit. Now, when you buy a history of architecture book, Detroit DOES come up more often than a lot of cities. You have architects like Eero Saarinen, or Minoru Yamasaki. Cranbrook, the Eames and others who came from there gets mentioned. Those are all internationally renowned local architects who would be great to hire if they were still alive, lol

**Thruster315** · February-26-12, 04:51 PM

I might be totally misinformed here, so please- correct me in this instance if I'm way off base in my assumption here...

For a museum called the Museum of Contemporary Art Detroit, do they really do anything WITH Detroiters? I can't recall any Detroit artists of note really exhibiting there. I see more outsiders coming exhibiting there than anything else. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for seeing things other than Detroiters exhibiting at a local space but shouldn't there be some representation of the amazing local talent there?

Compared to the Detroit Artists Market which is a stone's throw from them, the DAM exhibits some pretty astonishing stuff from the locals.

And now hiring an outside architectural firm to re-do their space? Is the only thing Detroit about the Museum of Contemporary Art Detroit in name and geography only?

Again, I'm pleading some ignorance here as I'm not the art intelligencia. It's just my perception- so please, feel free to tell me I'm way off base here. Or if I'm spot on, feel free to continue the debate and discussion.

**rb336** · February-26-12, 04:54 PM

I've seen Lipka's work, they do well with open floor plan architecture and integration of exterior spaces, but don't know if they were Lyn Rice designs or not. Don't know the other.

**Detroitnerd** · February-26-12, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Thruster315

I might be totally misinformed here, so please- correct me in this instance if I'm way off base in my assumption here...

For a museum called the Museum of Contemporary Art Detroit, do they really do anything WITH Detroiters? I can't recall any Detroit artists of note really exhibiting there. I see more outsiders coming exhibiting there than anything else. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for seeing things other than Detroiters exhibiting at a local space but shouldn't there be some representation of the amazing local talent there?

Compared to the Detroit Artists Market which is a stone's throw from them, the DAM exhibits some pretty astonishing stuff from the locals.

And now hiring an outside architectural firm to re-do their space? Is the only thing Detroit about the Museum of Contemporary Art Detroit in name and geography only?

Again, I'm pleading some ignorance here as I'm not the art intelligencia. It's just my perception- so please, feel free to tell me I'm way off base here. Or if I'm spot on, feel free to continue the debate and discussion.

MOCAD has always been pretty up-front that it's a venue for international contemporary art, and that it's more important to establish the museum as a national player than to exhibit lots of Detroit artwork. It's a tightrope that institutions of this order walk: Don't show enough local art and you have a certain set that will complain. Show more Detroit art and then they'd get complaints that they're competing with or poaching from from the area's struggling art galleries. That said, they have included plenty of Detroit talent over the years.

**casscorridor** · February-26-12, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Thruster315

I might be totally misinformed here, so please- correct me in this instance if I'm way off base in my assumption here...

For a museum called the Museum of Contemporary Art Detroit, do they really do anything WITH Detroiters? I can't recall any Detroit artists of note really exhibiting there. I see more outsiders coming exhibiting there than anything else. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for seeing things other than Detroiters exhibiting at a local space but shouldn't there be some representation of the amazing local talent there?

Compared to the Detroit Artists Market which is a stone's throw from them, the DAM exhibits some pretty astonishing stuff from the locals.

And now hiring an outside architectural firm to re-do their space? Is the only thing Detroit about the Museum of Contemporary Art Detroit in name and geography only?

Again, I'm pleading some ignorance here as I'm not the art intelligencia. It's just my perception- so please, feel free to tell me I'm way off base here. Or if I'm spot on, feel free to continue the debate and discussion.

MOCAD is a boon to the Detroit art scene regardless of how many or few Detroit artists they display. And to be honest, there aren't that many great artists in Detroit, nor is Detroit a major art hub or center. So by bringing attention and "outsiders" to Detroit, MOCAD is doing a huge favor. Hopefully some more "local" galleries will pop up and more "local" artists will make art and show it. But to be fair, there are a decent number of artists from Detroit, but most move to art hubs such as NYC. We really need to get past this Detroit exceptionalism/boosterism and realize where we are at in the world. Detroit can rise from the ashes... but not through ignoring reality.

**JBMcB** · February-26-12, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

You may be interested in Stewart Brand's remarks about "magazine architecture" -- buildings that architects design to look good in photographs rather than being practical, adaptable structures aimed at pleasing their inhabitants.

I saw this first-hand in Seattle at the Olympic sculpture park. In photographs the space looks fantastic, with rolling hills and a hyper-modern visitor's center.

Once you get there - the paths are oddly banked and spaced, and far too steep in some areas. Some paths dead-end into beautiful outcrops looking over the seafront, but there is no indication that it's a dead end, or if there is a blind path leading somewhere else, which is also prevalent.

The visitor's center is beautiful, but is difficult to access and use. Approaching the building it's not immediately obvious on how to get inside, and once inside it's not obvious where anything is or what there is to do. I suppose it encourages exploration, but it's not convenient when you are hunting for a restroom [[they are tucked away next to the elevators) Worst of all [[and I've seen this in other places) the stairs are oddly spaced and sized, making climbing them unnatural and awkward.

Frank Ghery is the worst offender, though. Some of his buildings are beautiful, but I'm convinced that all he takes into account is how it's going to look in the elevation layouts. The Disney concert hall had to be reworked quite a bit, because the sun reflecting off the steel facets would heat up surrounding office buildings and cause dangerous hotspots on the sidewalk, to the point traffic cones were melting on the road[[!)

**Detroitnerd** · February-26-12, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by JBMcB

I saw this first-hand in Seattle at the Olympic sculpture park. In photographs the space looks fantastic, with rolling hills and a hyper-modern visitor's center.

Once you get there - the paths are oddly banked and spaced, and far too steep in some areas. Some paths dead-end into beautiful outcrops looking over the seafront, but there is no indication that it's a dead end, or if there is a blind path leading somewhere else, which is also prevalent.

The visitor's center is beautiful, but is difficult to access and use. Approaching the building it's not immediately obvious on how to get inside, and once inside it's not obvious where anything is or what there is to do. I suppose it encourages exploration, but it's not convenient when you are hunting for a restroom [[they are tucked away next to the elevators) Worst of all [[and I've seen this in other places) the stairs are oddly spaced and sized, making climbing them unnatural and awkward.

Frank Ghery is the worst offender, though. Some of his buildings are beautiful, but I'm convinced that all he takes into account is how it's going to look in the elevation layouts. The Disney concert hall had to be reworked quite a bit, because the sun reflecting off the steel facets would heat up surrounding office buildings and cause dangerous hotspots on the sidewalk, to the point traffic cones were melting on the road[[!)

Yes, this sort of stuff exactly. Or the labyrinthine layout of the RenCen, for another example. Brand's "How Buildings Learn" is a great book. He clearly articulated a lot of the complaints I'd been unable to put into words about modern and contemporary architecture...

**Gistok** · February-26-12, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

You may be interested in Stewart Brand's remarks about "magazine architecture" -- buildings that architects design to look good in photographs rather than being practical, adaptable structures aimed at pleasing their inhabitants. That may account for the from-a-distance almost branding-like designs that recall an architect's other works.

DN, few buildings in the world hold truer to that statement than the Sydney Opera House... probably the most famous in the world, after the Paris's Garnier Opera House.

However it belies several very unflattering secrets.... it was built at 10 times its' original budget, And when it was finished... the larger hall intended for Opera had some technical problems, so it became the symphonic hall, and the smaller hall became the actual opera house. If that weren't enough... they can only do "truck and coach" traveling operas... not full blown operas like most famous opera houses.... and the acoustics required some modifications. And then about 15 years after it was finally completed [[long after the architect stormed off) it required $90 million in maintenance, because the roof tiles, the bond that holds them together, and other items were deteriorating). So they can't even hold a full opera at the Sydney Opera House... regardless of how photogenic it is from the outside.

And I don't really care if MOCAD is being redesigned by outside architects. Where would Detroit be without Daniel Burnham [[downtown towers), Stanford White [[Silvers Building), Paul Phillip Cret [[DIA) and Gilbert Cass [[Main Library) work.

One fortunate thing about C. Howard Crane [[there was no such thing as "the Crane style"), is that with most other major theatre architects... having a large number of their commissions close at hand would have been monotonous.... [[you can always spot a Rapp & Rapp, or a Thomas Lamb, or a John Eberson theatre)... but Crane's output was so varied, it often becomes very difficult to tell that the same architect designed them all.

**adamjab19** · February-26-12, 09:08 PM

You know, I am getting slightly annoyed about people and business being called out for not doing EVERYTHING with local/state firms and/or products. [[i.e.-kid rock's t-shirt company) I get the sentiment but sometimes you just have to use outside resources... Did MOCAD' s decision put 30 families out on the street because some architecture firm in Detroit didn't get the bid? Doubt it. Why can't people be happy we even have a MOCAD instead of worrying about who's designing their garden?

**Gistok** · February-26-12, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by casscorridor

MOCAD is a boon to the Detroit art scene regardless of how many or few Detroit artists they display. And to be honest, there aren't that many great artists in Detroit, nor is Detroit a major art hub or center. So by bringing attention and "outsiders" to Detroit, MOCAD is doing a huge favor. Hopefully some more "local" galleries will pop up and more "local" artists will make art and show it. But to be fair, there are a decent number of artists from Detroit, but most move to art hubs such as NYC. We really need to get past this Detroit exceptionalism/boosterism and realize where we are at in the world. Detroit can rise from the ashes... but not through ignoring reality.

Casscorridor... we do have CCS and Cranbrook... 2 of the finest art schools in the country. Now where the individuals end up after graduation is another matter... but [[greater) Detroit is indeed an arts center for both industrial and cultural arts.

bartock · February-26-12, 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

MOCAD has always been pretty up-front that it's a venue for international contemporary art, and that it's more important to establish the museum as a national player than to exhibit lots of Detroit artwork. It's a tightrope that institutions of this order walk: Don't show enough local art and you have a certain set that will complain. Show more Detroit art and then they'd get complaints that they're competing with or poaching from from the area's struggling art galleries. That said, they have included plenty of Detroit talent over the years.

so this sort of set up is okay for you on this ONE issue? Complete horseshit and hypocrisy, given your position on everything else. It was recently muted on this website, but perfectly pointed out.

**Detroitnerd** · February-27-12, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by bartock

so this sort of set up is okay for you on this ONE issue? Complete horseshit and hypocrisy, given your position on everything else. It was recently muted on this website, but perfectly pointed out.

I don't know what you're talking about, bartock. I think you're going to have to find some quote where I say that all local companies must use all local resources all the time. So good luck with that.

**rb336** · February-27-12, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by casscorridor

MOCAD is a boon to the Detroit art scene regardless of how many or few Detroit artists they display. And to be honest, there aren't that many great artists in Detroit, nor is Detroit a major art hub or center. So by bringing attention and "outsiders" to Detroit, MOCAD is doing a huge favor. Hopefully some more "local" galleries will pop up and more "local" artists will make art and show it. But to be fair, there are a decent number of artists from Detroit, but most move to art hubs such as NYC. We really need to get past this Detroit exceptionalism/boosterism and realize where we are at in the world. Detroit can rise from the ashes... but not through ignoring reality.

Having lived in NY, and been friends with people in the arts there, I can tell you there aren't many "great" artists there, either. At local galleries, I've seen essentially the same quality from NY-based artists as Detroit artists. What NY has is a much broader range of poseurs with deep pockets

**ScienceFair** · February-27-12, 01:31 PM

As far as local architects go, there is plenty of talent here. The limiting force in most designs are the vision and/or pockectbooks of the owners. Go to CCS, LTU and U of M and see the work the students are putting out. The creative talent has always been here, but the opportunity to create edgy, world-class [[albeit "magazine") architecture does not exist in a depressed economy in a second-tier city. Internationl firms like SmithGroup have world-class talent and often do the most progressive work overseas.

**hybridy** · February-27-12, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by ScienceFair

As far as local architects go, there is plenty of talent here. The limiting force in most designs are the vision and/or pockectbooks of the owners. Go to CCS, LTU and U of M and see the work the students are putting out. The creative talent has always been here, but the opportunity to create edgy, world-class [[albeit "magazine") architecture does not exist in a depressed economy in a second-tier city. Internationl firms like SmithGroup have world-class talent and often do the most progressive work overseas.

don't forget UDM...however small and marginalized one may think the program is, it turns out top talent. unfortunately all the arch grads have flocked to the coasts, other midwest cities, or oversees [[myself included). cranbrook is also a magnet for high design. depending on the contract/scope of work mocad may work with a local firm to do construction documents & administration.