What building is this?

People make a big deal about a particular structure in Europe. And I wouldn't doubt rightfully so; I haven't been there but it may well be -- if you stay on the picture postcard side -- as marvelous as conventional wisdom contends.

(A little secret? I think it was the first building that I ever noticed as a discrete building. I must have been about seven or eight -- maybe it was the year in fact it was finished. I dimly remember seeing a photo, loving the image of the building -- the image you always see, of course -- and wanting to be an architect. See how dangerous starchitecture can be?)

But this views of it is rarely shown:

click

Would the building be so acclaimed if the facade (above) was shown alongside the famous iconic view?

I tend to doubt it. This facade of the building appears particularly unpleasant and homely. But if you told people the name of the architect and the building before you showed them the photo I have little doubt that most -- after remembering their proper place -- would ooh! and ahh!

UPDATE: This guy (sorta) agrees with me. Another guy plunks for the popular opinion, the opinion of the common man the man in the street wearing a baseball cap.

Comments

[A.C. Douglas]

"UPDATE: This guy (sorta) agrees with me. Another guy plunks for the popular opinion, the opinion of the common man the man in the street wearing a baseball cap."
------------

You got that 180 degrees wrong, son. The "man in the street wearing a baseball cap" view is the benighted view both you and Fred take. My view is, of course, the elite connoisseur's view -- naturally.

ACD (The Elite Connoisseur)

[clew]

How much is the response to architecture marked by gender? -- I feel mildly deflatory towards your triple mannishing of 'popular', and more than mildly curious about whether there is a difference by sex.

I know I've read one architect's discussion of how to design buildings so that even an old frail lady feels safe navigating it, and even the cubicle workers and cleaners are comfortable, but I can't remember where it was. (Well, physically, I remember: I was sheet-composting part of my garden, and metaphorically I suppose it's still there.)

[Liz L]

Well, THAT'S not too pretty, to say the least!

Perhaps buildings, like clothes, can have a "right" side and a "wrong" side. If so, your view is definitely the "wrong" side!

Or was Corbu just having a "bad building" day, perhaps?

[Brian Miller]

Sorry, David. This one is a bit silly. Almost all buildings have bad sides. The servant's entrances to a glorious victorian mansion, the rear alleys of a classic American Main Street, etc. are usually pretty dowdy.

The mistake of a modernist building, of course, that they are like this one often objects floating in space and their bad sides can be easily observed and photographed. (Or, the bad side is the most visible one fronting directly on the street.

[David Sucher]

Brian, I think you are forgetting one think: genius transcends the ordinary.

At any rate I do not agree with your base assertion that every building has a bad side. The ordinary old 1920's house on an alley -- the backs are not ugly -- il-kempt maybe but not downright ugly. Especially for a precious object -- a church for god's sake! -- which sits isolated and grand on a rise. No I think it is a flaw. And worth noting.

[Joseph Clarke]

Hmm, I spent an afternoon sketching and painting this building last summer and I did not find anything wrong with this facade. I really think it has more to do with your dim, skewed, and poorly-cropped photo.

[David Sucher]

Oops!
My faux pas and I apologize.
The photo is not my shot but found here.
Copyright Jeffery Howe

[JRoth]

I'm always happy to pile on Corb-bashing. I don't even think the iconic view is that great!

Two of my classmates at arch-school returned from France with an embarrassing photo of themselves bowing down before the concrete pile. Yuck.

I was raised anti-Modern, am now Modern-friendly, but have never - never - understood the cult of Corbu. Not even the way David thinks Wright is nothing special; I find Corb's buildings to be malformed, and his thinking to be anti-human ("a machine for living in"!? Heavens, no!).

To make one apposite statement: I often find the "service" sides of buildings - especially iconic ones - fascinating. They are often attractive, if in a different way from the public faces. The scale and material shifts make for interesting juxtapositions. But, if you know that you're designing a back, it shouldn't be so difficult to make it work on some level or another.

Now might be a good time to mention that I have no idea what's supposed to be good about the Seagrams Building....

[john massengale]

Sorry, Charlie, but you're wrong this time, because you haven't been there.

Ronchamps is a sculpture on top of a mountain. It's also a place of prayer. Because Corb was a great artist, he was able to successfully combine those two things.

There is only one approach to the building, from the other side. As you walk around the building, the facade has a context that is unlike the isolated, distorted shot you show. It does not stick out as ugly, but as part of the whole.

When you go in, you realize that this is the outside of quite a beautiful wall. You can see a picture of the inside of the wall at http://massengale.typepad.com/venustas/2004/10/photos_of_la_sa.html

I'm a traditionalist, but I appreciate great Modernism when I see it.

[David Sucher]

Massengale.
Might I suggest that you re-read my post?

[john massengale]

And?