HUGE update to post below

Commenter Daniel Nairn in post immediately below this one believes that the "insistent character" ignored by Gehry was none other than Fred Kent, who if you don't know is one of the most knowledgeable, astute etc etc people working to make cities more comfortable for walkers. He founded and still leads Project for Public Spaces.

Confirmed here: Twitter / PPS: Fred Kent (the fairly insi ....

It is absurd that Gehry would decline to engage him . Outrageous, in fact, and shows Gehry in an even very poorer light than before. Kent knows the dynamics of urban spaces as well as anyone around -- certainly has far more experience and prestige in the field of public spaces than does Gehry. 

The story gets sadder and makes Gehry look very bad.

Comments

[Els Withers]

I wasn't there--I don't know the details of the question--but who cares who the questioner is? It is the content of the question that matters. The secondary accounts I have read give the impression that the exchange was on the level of "Nuh-uh!" "Uh-huh!" "Nuh-uh!" "Uh-huh!" This doesn't really reflect well on either participant. However it would seem the burden falls on the critic (no matter how lofty his reputation) to offer some supporting evidence rather than merely insistently repeat his original statement.

[Paul Nelson (StructureHub Blog)]

Perhaps (I my self don't know) Gehry didn't know who Kent was by face.

Not that that would excuse his abrupt dismissal of the question, but at least if he doesn't know Kent, the "pompous" retort would be more forgivable considering Gehry is going through a lot (at least over the past year) - as a beleaguered architect trying to withstand constant criticism in public.

[John Minett]

As a European trained architect and city planner, I find the discussion about Frank Gehry's architecture and his response to Fred Kent's question about urban space, arcane.
It is as if individual buildings are the only aspect of towns and cities that really matter in creating quality of urban life.
Certainly there is a need for special buildings that lift the spirit - jewels like the Guggenhiem in Bilboa. They need to sit in open space to be viewed and admired. But most buildings are like theater sets, providing a backcloth to life that takes place in public space. Unfortunately, the tendency in the United States to see every site as an island fit for a jewel destroys the sense of urbanity.
Hence the importance of Fred Kent's question. If we are to create cities that have streets and spaces that support the life of the community, his question should be answered rather than ignored.