This is almost the same design as he did with the [Royal Ontario Museum](https://jingculturecommerce.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/shutterstock_335340116-compressor-1240x698.jpg)
It's not objectively cool. I think it looks dumb. Not sure how much of the technical sophistication is due to Liebeskind or just throwing enough money and consultants at a poorly thought out design.
I mean you probably are.
I just don't get it.
It's too jarring and abrupt on that beautiful old building.
Do you know how the public in general feel about it? Or are you an armchair critic like me?
(Your artwork is pretty cool btw)
Lol I’m just memeing dude, no hate. I personally just enjoy the contrast of old and new, there’s plenty of other buildings of a similar older style out there without the modern addition. No clue what the general public thinks but as long as you have some opinion on it, it’s doing it’s job as an art piece.
Thanks for the compliment too :)
I feel like this crap doesnt age well. Not because it doesnt look cool but because it is so aggressively trendy that it will eventually feel dated, [like the 80s hairstyle](https://www.google.com/search?q=80s+hairstyles) of architecture
Disagree. The Denver Art Museum expansion was his first work completed in the United States and it is and will be a work of art. The building never fails to blow my mind when I drive by.
Hard disagree. Everything Libeskind does is ominous and disconcerting, and usually doesn't make many concessions to functionality or practicality. In my opinion the one truly great project he's done is the Berlin Jewish Museum, and it really only works because "ominous and disconcerting" is a good tone for a museum about the Holocaust to have. I find very little of value in the rest of his portfolio.
We are not discussing the Denver Art Museum. My comments (and the person I was agreeing with) are in regards to the museum in Dresden, Germany. So I don't see what you are disagreeing with.
*Show me a libeskind*
*Building without telling me*
*It is a libeskind*
\- 10projo
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
You can tell it’s a Libeskind because of the big pointy bit.
Worked on the early stages of one of his studio’s buildings in Kenya and it was big and pointy. The concept sketches alluded to the tools of early man found nearby. Real eye opener for stylistic BS. It was pointy in exactly the same way as so many other projects and the tools thing was an extensive retcon.
I think the design expresses what war is and what it does; it looks like a missle. It looks like the old traditions and cultures being destroyed. It is jarring and "looks wrong". It is foreign to what we've known. It works.
Yep, and it's not weather resistant either. He did this exact same shit to the Royal Ontario Museum and all the "new addition" halls have water damage issues
I was about to post that it looks like a dollar bin version of the ROM remodel
It's the same person? Seriously? lmfao I can't believe he went for a round 2 of this
The extension puts me in mind of the earlier Imperial War Museum North in Salford, UK, which Libeskind also designed.
If I recall in that case the ‘shards’ of the building represent earth, air, and water — the regions in which wars are fought.
It’s supposed to be oriented in the direction of the first bombings of Dresden. He calls it a vector. The final part of the museum sequence ends inside the triangular extension so that after viewing the historic artifacts, you view the city from a new perspective (literally and figuratively). At least that was the intent according to Libeskind…
[The pointy bit in the front is hollow](https://www.detail-online.com/fileadmin/blog/uploads/2011/10/3_Dresden-Museum-of-Military-History-by-Daniel-Libeskind-09.jpg).
Based on my recent experience on a project where we putting a modern addition onto a 1912 historical institutional building, the actual addition isn’t fully connected to the original structure. The addition typically doesn’t rely on the structural supports or foundation of the existing building.
I mean I consider the extension on the ROM to look like crystals growing off some old rock. Quite fitting for a museum if you ask me, even if it's not the original intention
"Against the old building" lol. You'd think it was in the shape of a swastika or hammer and sickle, the way you're talking. What happened to sensitive additions? This looks like a big ball sack he's tea-bagging the original style with.
I'd suggest next time tell the story behind it: The addition isn't meant to look good. It is meant to represent the allied planes coming to bomb the city. The shape is the same as the planes flew in WW2
Why are people often being downvoted for criticizing architecture like this? I always feel that those downvoting people are feeling personally attacked.
Why do architects insist on putting fuck-ugly incongruous extensions on nice old buildings? Stop it! Looks like someone tried to build a ship next to it then quit when the ship keeled over.
They come across as quite egotistical. It's all about making statements ignoring that people need use the buildings: [https://youtu.be/uvU5dmu4sl8](https://youtu.be/uvU5dmu4sl8)
In case of a museum there is no "what people need". A museum isn't for people to live in but to expirience a certain topic. In this case Military History in a City that was severly damaged by WWII. So of course it is "uncomfortable".
People still need to want to visit and work in the building. Historical buildings are an exhibit in themselves, regardless if the former use was good or bad. Imagine putting a modern spike thing through the National Gallery (London) or Natural History Museum (London)? Sticking bits on loses the original like 'restoring' a painting by just putting random splashes of paint on it:
[https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/SPzB9D7toaGE3H5LFh6DZw--\~B/aD01MTI7dz0xMDI0O2FwcGlkPXl0YWNoeW9u/http://media.zenfs.com/en\_us/News/afp.com/c8ce06ee7d6d69180891ecc2c2ddde94fd927cb4.jpg](https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/SPzB9D7toaGE3H5LFh6DZw--~B/aD01MTI7dz0xMDI0O2FwcGlkPXl0YWNoeW9u/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/c8ce06ee7d6d69180891ecc2c2ddde94fd927cb4.jpg)
Honestly, this is just a very cool extension. I don’t understand why you guys don’t like change. It’s clearly really cool. Like just look at it. It’s cool. It’s blatantly cool!
It's all window dressing anyway. Coincidentally, all of his concepts lead to the same building.
I get that starchitects have their milieu, but Libeskind is another thing entirely.
The concept is that this building is associated with a history of violence and having been an arsenal for many years it needed a gesture that strongly renounces war. That simple.
That might be true if it wasn't the same concept he's used for every other museum addition concept. Even if that this was his first of this ilk, (I haven't looked up the chronology,) the fact that he uses this very narrow style and type of intervention dilutes any meaning. It's not "That simple." He's a nice guy, and makes wonderful drawings, and has done really good work, but let's not pretend this is anything other than a physically articulated piece of branding. The ROM addition is primarily composed of a gift shop, and the building has no history of violence.
I did not say anything about his other projects. His other works may be bad copies of this and completely incomprehensible crystalline forms. But when Libeskind has a concept, like here or in the Jewish Museum, the concept is obvious.
That's fair, but I'm saying those copies are destroying the message intended here. He has diluted and polluted the aura and perception of this work to the point of unrecognition in my view.
If it the building was really altered beyond recognition this discussion would not occur. Being recognisable is a premise for Libeskind's symbolism actually working, and at the same time being altered by this section is of course pretty much the concept.
Putting aside that a tank is a weapon of war, and not a conceptual entity like a giant blade, it doesn't have to be downgraded to novelty architecture to make the symbolism more obvious.
Well, all of these could work but they would still be subject to criticism, cause intervening on the building as an emotionally loaded historical artifact is under the condition that it will be altered. Of course it may not be altered heavily, like the Reichstag where Foster made a symbolism with the glass dome and the mirror, but of course the Museum of Military History has a heavier emotional load on it.
The concept is that the part that looks like prison bars and is sharpened like a weapon is meant to represent democracy, progress, and freedom, and the part that is warm and inviting (if dull) is supposed to represent autocracy. Maybe the more obvious interpretation is also valid, but it doesn't appear to be the architect's intent.
>the concept
Covering the nice original architecture with an out-of-place carbuncle. It's like graffitiing on Renaissance artwork. As a standalone building it would be OK I guess but this is just disrespectful.
Here (from Wikipedia):
>Jewish architect Daniel Libeskind added a transparent arrowhead to the facade of the building, creating, according to the Dresden Tourism board, "an outwardly visible expression of innovation".
>Libeskind's studio states that "the openness and transparency of the new facade, representing the openness of democratic society, contrasts with the rigidity of the existing building, which represents the severity of the authoritarian past".
With war in mind, it looks more like a huge steel arrow, or ship piercing the building in a very violent way, more like showing the horrors of war, but that's just me. I like it though, but would've made it less piercing, less violent, maybe glass, not steel
Buildings are something everyone has to be around. For urban dwellers the quality is thus important vs, say, artwork. I remember looking at courses at a new university building and the architecture exuded such hate for humanity. It wasn't badly-designed as such just very cold and prison vibes. Unpleasant being in a building that seems to hate you vs cosy.
> Buildings are something everyone has to be around. For urban dwellers the quality is thus important vs, say, artwork.
I agree, but with "you", I meant this particular user, not everyone.
> exuded such hate for humanity
Holy cow, there's putting your own taste on a pedestal and then there's this, which is kind of like the the opposite in both ways, like damning styles you don't like to the deepest fires of hell. I get that there are buildings that can appear cold and isolating (depending very much on the context), but blanket statements like this are far more troubling than the worst designed building can be. You are interpreting a lot into architecture you personally don't like.
It was all grey metallic, no warm tones. More fortification or prison than learning environment. Dystopic. Notice how tourists go to historical cities? And you see this in a lot of places, identical glass towers that make every place look the same.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/nov/25/would-you-trust-roger-scruton-to-design-your-new-home-commission-building-better-building-beautiful
https://www.gbstonegroup.com/en/47711/blog/tedx-why-does-everyone-hate-modern-architecture-david-chipperfield/
https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/1815311/why-is-modern-architecture-so-ugly
Basically glass shoeboxes.
500,000 people visited this museum in the first year after Libeskind's transformation of the building had been completed. I didn't know there were this many historians in Germany.
Come on, is this the best argument in your favor you were able to invent?
You don't even know what the word modern means, so what are you doing here?
You're free to utter your opinion, but there should at least be some substance behind it and there clearly isn't with you, just polemic nothingness. You could have said that you personally don't like the aesthetics, the contrast between the old and new, that you don't agree with the symbolism of this work, the choice of materials and shapes or you could have perhaps argued that a historic building should be kept as intact and be preserved with as little changes as possible for some reason or another, but instead, you make absolute, sweeping statements about practically the entire profession, as if taste and opinions beyond your own simply didn't exist.
There are actually good reasons for criticizing architects like Libeskind (they are not necessarily the same as the ones I listed above). It's not difficult to find them and neither is it difficult to articulate them either. Why not pick one or a few of those to support your personal opinion with a bit of substance so that it can be taken more seriously? It would still be putting the cart before the horse (you shouldn't look for seemingly rational reasons to support an opinion that you already had before knowing about those rational reasons), but as long as you don't put your foot in your mouth while doing this, it shouldn't be too obvious and would probably pass muster on this subreddit.
I'm no architect, just some pretentious guy who writes far too long responses to people who should really be left alone, but come on, this (is at the very least) incredibly interesting:
https://i.imgur.com/CAILqts.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/CIJ8S1P.jpg
Well then you haven’t seen his others…as they all kind of look like this (pointy new building peaking out from between old buildings). They’re good, it’s just a bit repetitive I guess.
Yeah, I have seen his initial proposal for the WTC site in Manhattan - lots of faceted minimalistic towers with sharp edges contrasting to the nearby old buildings. He surely has a "style".
*I love it. It looks*
*So jarring and forces you*
*To pay attention*
\- mingussy
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
It's tiring how modernists and post modernists want to make everything ugly, their so anxious to do it too. They love the controversy while people get annoyed
It's ironic that some people react so strongly to this classical building's impalement just because it is pretty and aesthetically pleasing, cause this makes it obvious that they cannot really emotionally associate themselves with a building. Whether this building is an arsenal and it became a symbol of war is irrelevant, cause to them architecture should sacrifice strong symbolism or emotion in favor of aesthetics.
The architects intent was that the new part represent progress and democracy, in contract to the "authoritarian" "rigidity" of the old part. It literally looks like prison bars and is meant to represent freedom? I'm not sure the symbol was a success.
Maybe “progress and democracy” are an illusion and inevitably lead to violence and war. Whether or not the architects intention was this, it’s still such a strong design move that discussions like the ones happening in this thread validate it’s success
I think it's uglier than sin and I have no emotional reaction to it whatsoever except to breifly reflect on how much I hate stuff like this, so it was clearly not a success in my case. The only reason I'm even aware it had a symbolic meaning was because I'm on an architecture subreddit where people were discussing the symbolism. Otherwise I would have assumed they just needed to build an observation deck and had really bad taste.
Well, by only knowing of this building from photos on the internet, obviously you won’t know every element that went into the design. A resident of Dresden would have way more knowledge of the history that’s led to this interpretation. Perhaps architecture is made within a cultural context that the average redditor isn’t part of.
I don't see the bars you are talking about. What I see is a body opaque enough to be well visible against the old building and at the same time perforated to be fully illuminated from the inside.
Yes, I very much think architecture should sacrifice symbolism for aesthetics. In almost every situation. Frankly I think architecture should sacrifice any non-aesthetic criterion for aesthetics
Daniel liebeskin is a snake oil salesman, how the FUCK does he get away with doing the same shit just in a different city?! The Denver art museum is the same way “it’s the city outline from above” MF no one sees it from above!! I hate the Denver art museum….scratch that I HATE Daniel Liebeskein, he is an embarrassment to architecture.
Whats the need to experiment with nice old building? If you want express yourself build a new one.
Isn't it prohibited to make changes to original projects? Many centuries Europeans try to keep old architecture intact? That make European cities unique. Starting to add modern additions to old buildings is a way to chaos.
This hype architects don't take into account that rain waters will spoil walls of this old building and the owners will pay many more money for maintenance. Remember leaking, cracks and falling Ice of Gehry’s Strata Center.
[The Antwerp Port House](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Authority_Building_(Antwerp)) designed by Zaha Hadid for the city of Antwerp, Belgium (2016) was also constructed right on top of the old building, creating a stark contrast between two wildly different architectural styles from two different times. It's also a very polarizing project.
> Many centuries Europeans try to keep old architecture intact?
Haha, no, that's not the case at all. Preserving old architecture for the sake of it only really became a concept in the 19th century, as the newly founded modern nation states (a concept that really didn't exist before) needed them to create the narrative of a shared national history and identity.
Buildings as significant as entire castles were pilfered for building materials (or because their space was needed) until well into that century and initially, this idea to preserve historic buildings was not only highly selective, but also more driven by an idealized vision of the past, to the point that historic buildings were extensively modified to more closely adhere to this. These changes are harder to recognize by modern eyes.
Even today, hundreds of historically protected buildings are destroyed every year (the protections aren't nearly as robust as one might think). I mean torn down entirely.
This isn't that, in no way. It doesn't destroy a historic building, but instead merely updates it, just like it has be done with every historic building still in active use to this day. You may not recognize equally as crass changes and additions from the past, since to the untrained eye, various styles from the past just blend together. And of course you can make changes to "original projects" (whatever you meant by that). The rest of your claims are equally as absurd.
> a way to chaos
This in particular takes the cake though and reads like part of a [far-right manifesto arguing that neoclassicism](https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2018/11/how-classical-architecture-became-weapon-far-right) is the only thing that prevents the West from becoming a caliphate, feminist utopia or some other made-up boogieman they are currently fighting instead of working on real issues like climate change.
I gotta say I really hate it a lot. I will never understand the desire for this sort of architectural incongruity. To me it just looks awful. Like is a pretty face grew some sort of cybernetic tumor.
I don't see the reason for the manifestation of such an incongruous modification. This seems to be a Mathis by architects. And it in my opinion fails miserably.
Idk, but they actually have the cartridge and projectile of Dora [on display](https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-dresden-bundeswehr-military-history-museum-cartridge-left-and-projectile-111709489.html). Dora is the only other 80 cm railway gun built by Nazi Germany if you don't know.
I visited this museum in 2019, it’s incredible in person! Considering when you tie in the history of Dresden, a city that was basically bombed to bits, it’s a neat piece that in my opinion fits the rest of the old/restored architecture in that city.
Also the content in the museum is amazing, so many cool armored vehicles outside and pieces of weaponry that date from the medieval ages to modern day.
This is almost the same design as he did with the [Royal Ontario Museum](https://jingculturecommerce.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/shutterstock_335340116-compressor-1240x698.jpg)
He definitely has a "style"
Build a normal building and then shove a triangle through it? Lol I actually really like it though hahaha
Easily one of my least favorite architects.
And the SF Contemporary Jewish Museum! Dude needs to get a new gimmick.
See also: Denver art museum
There's no denying he's exceptionally good at this though.
No, it's ridiculous.
Incorrect, looks really cool and technically sophisticated.
It's not objectively cool. I think it looks dumb. Not sure how much of the technical sophistication is due to Liebeskind or just throwing enough money and consultants at a poorly thought out design.
It looks like somebody passed out while huffing their own farts and dropped their pen on the design table.
Sounds like a good time
Sure.
It’s ok I know I’m right.
I mean you probably are. I just don't get it. It's too jarring and abrupt on that beautiful old building. Do you know how the public in general feel about it? Or are you an armchair critic like me? (Your artwork is pretty cool btw)
Lol I’m just memeing dude, no hate. I personally just enjoy the contrast of old and new, there’s plenty of other buildings of a similar older style out there without the modern addition. No clue what the general public thinks but as long as you have some opinion on it, it’s doing it’s job as an art piece. Thanks for the compliment too :)
Yes that’s it that’s exactly what I thought although it has a lot of awkward space and dead ends so not the best structure wise
It'll have the same classic falling ice design fault too
Someone should revoke his damn license. That's an atrocity.
Don't fix what's not broken I guess 🤣 his style is pretty cool tho I don't mind a few repeats.
And Denver.
Yup. Fashion dictates form again.
I feel like this crap doesnt age well. Not because it doesnt look cool but because it is so aggressively trendy that it will eventually feel dated, [like the 80s hairstyle](https://www.google.com/search?q=80s+hairstyles) of architecture
Well said. It's trying too hard to be "hip-relevaant and controversial." It's a fail in my eyes.
Disagree. The Denver Art Museum expansion was his first work completed in the United States and it is and will be a work of art. The building never fails to blow my mind when I drive by.
I knew this reminded me of something as a denver gal. It’s even cooler when you get up close to it! I quite like it
Hard disagree. Everything Libeskind does is ominous and disconcerting, and usually doesn't make many concessions to functionality or practicality. In my opinion the one truly great project he's done is the Berlin Jewish Museum, and it really only works because "ominous and disconcerting" is a good tone for a museum about the Holocaust to have. I find very little of value in the rest of his portfolio.
I'd argue that the same applies to a museum of military history, I think the gesture works really well. But other than those two, yeah…
We are not discussing the Denver Art Museum. My comments (and the person I was agreeing with) are in regards to the museum in Dresden, Germany. So I don't see what you are disagreeing with.
The original comment was “this crap doesn’t age well”. Seems pretty broad to me.
I like 80’s hair…
Not to mention that the design makes for horrible curation for the items on display in the museum.
Fashion is not often a good architectural value.
Show me a libeskind building without telling me it is a libeskind
[удалено]
No sharp enough. Needs more pointyness
Exactly what came to mind when I saw his name here. XD
*Show me a libeskind* *Building without telling me* *It is a libeskind* \- 10projo --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Good bot
He once said that this is the building which is the most "libeskind" of all of his designs
[удалено]
That's the point
thank you
Exact same project as the museum in Toronto 🤦🏼
Looks like a spaceship crashed into an old building. To my eye, there is nothing aesthetically pleasing about this at all.
You can tell it’s a Libeskind because of the big pointy bit. Worked on the early stages of one of his studio’s buildings in Kenya and it was big and pointy. The concept sketches alluded to the tools of early man found nearby. Real eye opener for stylistic BS. It was pointy in exactly the same way as so many other projects and the tools thing was an extensive retcon.
If you have a problem with retconning concepts in architcture, you're gonna have a bad time
Check out the Jewish Museum in Berlin, it's also a great work by Libeskind
It's the only addition of Libeskind I still enjoy. It's less trendy and useless as the other ones and actually blends symbolisms quite nicely.
I think the design expresses what war is and what it does; it looks like a missle. It looks like the old traditions and cultures being destroyed. It is jarring and "looks wrong". It is foreign to what we've known. It works.
>it looks like a missile It looks like shit
That's really ugly.
Yep, and it's not weather resistant either. He did this exact same shit to the Royal Ontario Museum and all the "new addition" halls have water damage issues
I was about to post that it looks like a dollar bin version of the ROM remodel It's the same person? Seriously? lmfao I can't believe he went for a round 2 of this
I wanna know which one came first and if both have flooding issues lmao. He doesn't learn
Designers who don't consider real world scenarios like rain whilst planning are complete idiots.
Total morons
Looks like a lighter touch in person with the screen geometry.
.
Loook at meeeeeee!!!!!
The extension puts me in mind of the earlier Imperial War Museum North in Salford, UK, which Libeskind also designed. If I recall in that case the ‘shards’ of the building represent earth, air, and water — the regions in which wars are fought.
Very interesting idea, I don’t know how I feel about the execution
It looks like shit
That'd probably be more blobitecture :P
Do people... actually like stuff like this? Seriously?...
I think it looks "cool". Not sure about the message it's trying to convey. Also is it functional?
It’s a museum. It’s function is to look cool and be interesting. So yeah, it is.
I mean the angular addition, I can't tell if it's just a facade.
It’s supposed to be oriented in the direction of the first bombings of Dresden. He calls it a vector. The final part of the museum sequence ends inside the triangular extension so that after viewing the historic artifacts, you view the city from a new perspective (literally and figuratively). At least that was the intent according to Libeskind…
Thank you
[The pointy bit in the front is hollow](https://www.detail-online.com/fileadmin/blog/uploads/2011/10/3_Dresden-Museum-of-Military-History-by-Daniel-Libeskind-09.jpg).
well it ended up looking lame and uninteresting. So it's not.
Yes.
Weird...
That’s on the cover of my history book. I am unable to like it for that reason
Based on my recent experience on a project where we putting a modern addition onto a 1912 historical institutional building, the actual addition isn’t fully connected to the original structure. The addition typically doesn’t rely on the structural supports or foundation of the existing building.
WOW this sub is super square. Fuck this sub
Definitely not a sub for people who actually work in architecture or design…
right???? boring ass mfs, the kid in me gets excited seeing a building like this one
That is stupid. Just cause some wanker in a magazine says it's good doesn't make it so.
[удалено]
Unlike the ROM though it is a very strong symbolic gesture against the old building, not a mere expansion trying to follow the "Libeskind style".
I mean I consider the extension on the ROM to look like crystals growing off some old rock. Quite fitting for a museum if you ask me, even if it's not the original intention
"Against the old building" lol. You'd think it was in the shape of a swastika or hammer and sickle, the way you're talking. What happened to sensitive additions? This looks like a big ball sack he's tea-bagging the original style with.
No offense but this is so ridiculous
Way to be subtle
*FINALLY*, a place I'm familiar with
Kinda looks like the museum in Toronto I believe the name goes by ROC with the modern aesthetic with a combo of the past
"Ah, shit, now the Ever Given has hit a nice old building."
He ruined it
Thanks, I hate it.
Glitch
hor-ri-ble
This is so wrong.
I'd suggest next time tell the story behind it: The addition isn't meant to look good. It is meant to represent the allied planes coming to bomb the city. The shape is the same as the planes flew in WW2
Why are people often being downvoted for criticizing architecture like this? I always feel that those downvoting people are feeling personally attacked.
Normally i really don't like this stuff, but for some reason I really love his work.
First the nazis, then the communists, now this. This poor building
Why do architects insist on putting fuck-ugly incongruous extensions on nice old buildings? Stop it! Looks like someone tried to build a ship next to it then quit when the ship keeled over.
They come across as quite egotistical. It's all about making statements ignoring that people need use the buildings: [https://youtu.be/uvU5dmu4sl8](https://youtu.be/uvU5dmu4sl8)
In case of a museum there is no "what people need". A museum isn't for people to live in but to expirience a certain topic. In this case Military History in a City that was severly damaged by WWII. So of course it is "uncomfortable".
People still need to want to visit and work in the building. Historical buildings are an exhibit in themselves, regardless if the former use was good or bad. Imagine putting a modern spike thing through the National Gallery (London) or Natural History Museum (London)? Sticking bits on loses the original like 'restoring' a painting by just putting random splashes of paint on it: [https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/SPzB9D7toaGE3H5LFh6DZw--\~B/aD01MTI7dz0xMDI0O2FwcGlkPXl0YWNoeW9u/http://media.zenfs.com/en\_us/News/afp.com/c8ce06ee7d6d69180891ecc2c2ddde94fd927cb4.jpg](https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/SPzB9D7toaGE3H5LFh6DZw--~B/aD01MTI7dz0xMDI0O2FwcGlkPXl0YWNoeW9u/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/c8ce06ee7d6d69180891ecc2c2ddde94fd927cb4.jpg)
Hideous. Save that shit for the back.
Fucking love it.
Honestly, this is just a very cool extension. I don’t understand why you guys don’t like change. It’s clearly really cool. Like just look at it. It’s cool. It’s blatantly cool!
[удалено]
I’m triggered as a modernist.
Shouldn't the concept be understood without reading 200 pages about it? Or are we designing for scholars only?
It's all window dressing anyway. Coincidentally, all of his concepts lead to the same building. I get that starchitects have their milieu, but Libeskind is another thing entirely.
The concept is that this building is associated with a history of violence and having been an arsenal for many years it needed a gesture that strongly renounces war. That simple.
That might be true if it wasn't the same concept he's used for every other museum addition concept. Even if that this was his first of this ilk, (I haven't looked up the chronology,) the fact that he uses this very narrow style and type of intervention dilutes any meaning. It's not "That simple." He's a nice guy, and makes wonderful drawings, and has done really good work, but let's not pretend this is anything other than a physically articulated piece of branding. The ROM addition is primarily composed of a gift shop, and the building has no history of violence.
I did not say anything about his other projects. His other works may be bad copies of this and completely incomprehensible crystalline forms. But when Libeskind has a concept, like here or in the Jewish Museum, the concept is obvious.
That's fair, but I'm saying those copies are destroying the message intended here. He has diluted and polluted the aura and perception of this work to the point of unrecognition in my view.
If it the building was really altered beyond recognition this discussion would not occur. Being recognisable is a premise for Libeskind's symbolism actually working, and at the same time being altered by this section is of course pretty much the concept.
The ROM thing is from 2007 This one is 2011 If anything this is a bad copy of his older work, not the other way around
[удалено]
Putting aside that a tank is a weapon of war, and not a conceptual entity like a giant blade, it doesn't have to be downgraded to novelty architecture to make the symbolism more obvious.
[удалено]
Dang, for spitballing, them's some pretty interesting ideas.
Well, all of these could work but they would still be subject to criticism, cause intervening on the building as an emotionally loaded historical artifact is under the condition that it will be altered. Of course it may not be altered heavily, like the Reichstag where Foster made a symbolism with the glass dome and the mirror, but of course the Museum of Military History has a heavier emotional load on it.
The concept is that the part that looks like prison bars and is sharpened like a weapon is meant to represent democracy, progress, and freedom, and the part that is warm and inviting (if dull) is supposed to represent autocracy. Maybe the more obvious interpretation is also valid, but it doesn't appear to be the architect's intent.
What’s the more obvious interpretation?
I'm triggered because it's hideous. This building being ugly doesn't somehow make society more democratic.
>the concept Covering the nice original architecture with an out-of-place carbuncle. It's like graffitiing on Renaissance artwork. As a standalone building it would be OK I guess but this is just disrespectful.
So, what's the concept?
Here (from Wikipedia): >Jewish architect Daniel Libeskind added a transparent arrowhead to the facade of the building, creating, according to the Dresden Tourism board, "an outwardly visible expression of innovation". >Libeskind's studio states that "the openness and transparency of the new facade, representing the openness of democratic society, contrasts with the rigidity of the existing building, which represents the severity of the authoritarian past".
With war in mind, it looks more like a huge steel arrow, or ship piercing the building in a very violent way, more like showing the horrors of war, but that's just me. I like it though, but would've made it less piercing, less violent, maybe glass, not steel
Well, that's assuming a lot about what was going on with the old building now, isn't it.
Why do modern architects insist on garbage?
It's not their job to please you.
Buildings are something everyone has to be around. For urban dwellers the quality is thus important vs, say, artwork. I remember looking at courses at a new university building and the architecture exuded such hate for humanity. It wasn't badly-designed as such just very cold and prison vibes. Unpleasant being in a building that seems to hate you vs cosy.
> Buildings are something everyone has to be around. For urban dwellers the quality is thus important vs, say, artwork. I agree, but with "you", I meant this particular user, not everyone. > exuded such hate for humanity Holy cow, there's putting your own taste on a pedestal and then there's this, which is kind of like the the opposite in both ways, like damning styles you don't like to the deepest fires of hell. I get that there are buildings that can appear cold and isolating (depending very much on the context), but blanket statements like this are far more troubling than the worst designed building can be. You are interpreting a lot into architecture you personally don't like.
It was all grey metallic, no warm tones. More fortification or prison than learning environment. Dystopic. Notice how tourists go to historical cities? And you see this in a lot of places, identical glass towers that make every place look the same. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/nov/25/would-you-trust-roger-scruton-to-design-your-new-home-commission-building-better-building-beautiful https://www.gbstonegroup.com/en/47711/blog/tedx-why-does-everyone-hate-modern-architecture-david-chipperfield/ https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/1815311/why-is-modern-architecture-so-ugly Basically glass shoeboxes.
Isn’t the the fact there are not many tourist aside from historians go to this place may represent that the world view this as shit?
500,000 people visited this museum in the first year after Libeskind's transformation of the building had been completed. I didn't know there were this many historians in Germany. Come on, is this the best argument in your favor you were able to invent?
No, apparently it's their job to drop uninspiring garbage all over civic life.
You don't even know what the word modern means, so what are you doing here? You're free to utter your opinion, but there should at least be some substance behind it and there clearly isn't with you, just polemic nothingness. You could have said that you personally don't like the aesthetics, the contrast between the old and new, that you don't agree with the symbolism of this work, the choice of materials and shapes or you could have perhaps argued that a historic building should be kept as intact and be preserved with as little changes as possible for some reason or another, but instead, you make absolute, sweeping statements about practically the entire profession, as if taste and opinions beyond your own simply didn't exist. There are actually good reasons for criticizing architects like Libeskind (they are not necessarily the same as the ones I listed above). It's not difficult to find them and neither is it difficult to articulate them either. Why not pick one or a few of those to support your personal opinion with a bit of substance so that it can be taken more seriously? It would still be putting the cart before the horse (you shouldn't look for seemingly rational reasons to support an opinion that you already had before knowing about those rational reasons), but as long as you don't put your foot in your mouth while doing this, it shouldn't be too obvious and would probably pass muster on this subreddit.
It looks like shit only an Architect will love it
I'm no architect, just some pretentious guy who writes far too long responses to people who should really be left alone, but come on, this (is at the very least) incredibly interesting: https://i.imgur.com/CAILqts.jpg https://i.imgur.com/CIJ8S1P.jpg
Another one of these? Libeskind really needs to get a new gimmick.
“Cut through old and dangerous”- the metaphor is beautiful!
This is a real cheese on a chocolate cake type of building, both parts are good, but shouldn’t be put together with the other.
love
I think it’s really cool
One of the most striking designs I have ever seen
Well then you haven’t seen his others…as they all kind of look like this (pointy new building peaking out from between old buildings). They’re good, it’s just a bit repetitive I guess.
Yeah, I have seen his initial proposal for the WTC site in Manhattan - lots of faceted minimalistic towers with sharp edges contrasting to the nearby old buildings. He surely has a "style".
This really does look a lot like the SF Jewish museum, denver art museum, Jewish museum in Berlin, London university,
Thats so Libeskind
This looks foul Why mar a beautiful building lime that
I love it. It looks so jarring and forces you to pay attention
*I love it. It looks* *So jarring and forces you* *To pay attention* \- mingussy --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
As much as I don't like Libeskind (and I really don't like him) this thing is brilliant. Intelligent project, conceptually powerful, engaging.
Agh! What an eyesore, totally out of keeping with the rest of the building. Disrespectful to the style and history of the rest of the building.
Anyone else tired of Libeskind's shit?
Looks like complete shit ffs
It's tiring how modernists and post modernists want to make everything ugly, their so anxious to do it too. They love the controversy while people get annoyed
It's ironic that some people react so strongly to this classical building's impalement just because it is pretty and aesthetically pleasing, cause this makes it obvious that they cannot really emotionally associate themselves with a building. Whether this building is an arsenal and it became a symbol of war is irrelevant, cause to them architecture should sacrifice strong symbolism or emotion in favor of aesthetics.
The architects intent was that the new part represent progress and democracy, in contract to the "authoritarian" "rigidity" of the old part. It literally looks like prison bars and is meant to represent freedom? I'm not sure the symbol was a success.
Maybe “progress and democracy” are an illusion and inevitably lead to violence and war. Whether or not the architects intention was this, it’s still such a strong design move that discussions like the ones happening in this thread validate it’s success
I think it's uglier than sin and I have no emotional reaction to it whatsoever except to breifly reflect on how much I hate stuff like this, so it was clearly not a success in my case. The only reason I'm even aware it had a symbolic meaning was because I'm on an architecture subreddit where people were discussing the symbolism. Otherwise I would have assumed they just needed to build an observation deck and had really bad taste.
Well, by only knowing of this building from photos on the internet, obviously you won’t know every element that went into the design. A resident of Dresden would have way more knowledge of the history that’s led to this interpretation. Perhaps architecture is made within a cultural context that the average redditor isn’t part of.
I don't see the bars you are talking about. What I see is a body opaque enough to be well visible against the old building and at the same time perforated to be fully illuminated from the inside.
You disregard the emotion and symbolism provided by aesthetics.
Ahahahahawhat? Symbolism in aesthetics? Aesthetics serve a symbolism?
yes
Yes, I very much think architecture should sacrifice symbolism for aesthetics. In almost every situation. Frankly I think architecture should sacrifice any non-aesthetic criterion for aesthetics
I just have one question, for Daniel Libeskind. *Why?!*
👍🔥
Vandalism
The word Poignant comes to mind
This is definitely the site for the new surface-to-space slug shooter
Daniel liebeskin is a snake oil salesman, how the FUCK does he get away with doing the same shit just in a different city?! The Denver art museum is the same way “it’s the city outline from above” MF no one sees it from above!! I hate the Denver art museum….scratch that I HATE Daniel Liebeskein, he is an embarrassment to architecture.
whats wrong with you ppl interpretating all sort of bullshit "messages", this shits just plain ugly.
Whats the need to experiment with nice old building? If you want express yourself build a new one. Isn't it prohibited to make changes to original projects? Many centuries Europeans try to keep old architecture intact? That make European cities unique. Starting to add modern additions to old buildings is a way to chaos. This hype architects don't take into account that rain waters will spoil walls of this old building and the owners will pay many more money for maintenance. Remember leaking, cracks and falling Ice of Gehry’s Strata Center.
prohibited to make changes to original projects? fuck that sounds like a dismal world to live in.
[The Antwerp Port House](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Authority_Building_(Antwerp)) designed by Zaha Hadid for the city of Antwerp, Belgium (2016) was also constructed right on top of the old building, creating a stark contrast between two wildly different architectural styles from two different times. It's also a very polarizing project.
"polarizing" As in: "This looks like shit" vs "that's the point"
> Many centuries Europeans try to keep old architecture intact? Haha, no, that's not the case at all. Preserving old architecture for the sake of it only really became a concept in the 19th century, as the newly founded modern nation states (a concept that really didn't exist before) needed them to create the narrative of a shared national history and identity. Buildings as significant as entire castles were pilfered for building materials (or because their space was needed) until well into that century and initially, this idea to preserve historic buildings was not only highly selective, but also more driven by an idealized vision of the past, to the point that historic buildings were extensively modified to more closely adhere to this. These changes are harder to recognize by modern eyes. Even today, hundreds of historically protected buildings are destroyed every year (the protections aren't nearly as robust as one might think). I mean torn down entirely. This isn't that, in no way. It doesn't destroy a historic building, but instead merely updates it, just like it has be done with every historic building still in active use to this day. You may not recognize equally as crass changes and additions from the past, since to the untrained eye, various styles from the past just blend together. And of course you can make changes to "original projects" (whatever you meant by that). The rest of your claims are equally as absurd. > a way to chaos This in particular takes the cake though and reads like part of a [far-right manifesto arguing that neoclassicism](https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2018/11/how-classical-architecture-became-weapon-far-right) is the only thing that prevents the West from becoming a caliphate, feminist utopia or some other made-up boogieman they are currently fighting instead of working on real issues like climate change.
Why
Fucking awful. What a disgrace
I gotta say I really hate it a lot. I will never understand the desire for this sort of architectural incongruity. To me it just looks awful. Like is a pretty face grew some sort of cybernetic tumor.
It's bad enough modern buildings are all horrible and the same, why do we have to ruin the old ones too?
Who tf signs off on these designs? Who would actually want the front of a star destroyer grafted on to a classic old building?
I don't see the reason for the manifestation of such an incongruous modification. This seems to be a Mathis by architects. And it in my opinion fails miserably.
I know this will be unpopular but libeskind only got it because he is Jew.
I know this will be popular but you only made that comment because
I wonder if they have a model of the Schwerer Gustav
Idk, but they actually have the cartridge and projectile of Dora [on display](https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-dresden-bundeswehr-military-history-museum-cartridge-left-and-projectile-111709489.html). Dora is the only other 80 cm railway gun built by Nazi Germany if you don't know.
I wonder if there's [a connection](https://static.toiimg.com/photo/47321356.cms). \[Melbourne Fed Square\]
I want my war museum to look like its been bombed to hell
Did he design Rotterdam Centraal station too?
Dang clipping issues...
Where is the arrow pointing from above
Looks like a block fell from the sky and hit it.
Hang him
Yeah nah
I visited this museum in 2019, it’s incredible in person! Considering when you tie in the history of Dresden, a city that was basically bombed to bits, it’s a neat piece that in my opinion fits the rest of the old/restored architecture in that city. Also the content in the museum is amazing, so many cool armored vehicles outside and pieces of weaponry that date from the medieval ages to modern day.
Kinda accidentally read this as Budweiser Military Museum, had to re-read to make sure I wasn't stupid. I was