Not everyone is sanguine that CNU supports starchitecture

It should be fairly obvious now that some in CNU have crossed over to the dark side and supports starchitecture. The evidence? CNU gave an award for urban design (no less!) to chief starchitect Frank Gehry. But some are troubled. 

I can't find much to justify the award except these postings (below) from Pro-Urb.  Stefanos Polyzoides makes a reasonable point: yes there is a role for the exceptional building, though of course the exception will devour the rule unless you can craft some process to sort out the exceptional from the ordinary -- every non-profit (and there are many!) will claim exemption from the normal rulesof good urban building. And since it surely must be possible to find at least one piece of pedestrian-oriented starchitecture -- an iconic/goofy/exceptional building which addresses the street-level well -- why give an award to Gehry, who represents the very worst tendencies and who is not at all pedestrian-oriented. And without explaining in the clearest possible terms why you are giving the award. The whole thing -- the Award itself and the silence around it -- is very odd. Here's what's on Pro-Urb:

From: Stefanos Polyzoides

The local CNU Host Committee, with the blessing of the national Board, gave Frank Gehry a Civic Art Award for his LA Philharmonic Building.  This had nothing to do with politics or with appeasement.

He deserved it under the principles outlined in the Charter.  Monumental buildings can attain idiosyncratic form and still be significant new urbanist presences:

The Block, the Street and the Building # 7
Civic buildings and public gathering places require important sites to reinforce community identity and the culture of democracy. They deserve distinctive form, because their role is different from that of other buildings and places that constitute the fabric of the city.

Comments

[Benjamin Hemric]

Thanks for the interesting info about this award and all the commentary about it! From what I've read so far, I would give the "game" to Aurbach also.

Although I'm not that familiar with the written principles of New Urbanism, just on a common sense level it seems to me that a very striking building has to be more than a very striking building to win its architect an award FOR URBANISM -- rather than, say, an architectural award for its striking architecture, instead.

To the extent that Disney Hall is successful, it appears to be successful as a striking object, DESPITE its failures to meet the criteria of successful urbanism as laid out in the written principles of New Urbanism. So why give its architect an award for urbanism? To give it an award for urbanism, as defended by Stefanos Polyzoides, is to say that the more striking (and difficult to pull off) a building is, the more worthy its architect is for an award for urbanism.

As you implied earlier, the phrase that most seems to apply here "surely in jest."