Buffalo Rising Online

How unfortunate that after several years of planning for the first new major art gallery in the past 100 years, the Burchfield-Penney Art Center and Buffalo State College are being skewered by certain members of Forever Elmwood and others who somehow think that because they were not personally a part of a design charette or a "Create the New B-PAC Design Contest" sponsored by the Buffalo News that the project should be scrapped and begun anew.

I'm no architectural expert--not even knowledgable enough to discuss the relative merits of the design being shown presently versus other concepts being proposed. That's why I'll be at Buffalo State on Wednesday to hear the architects and representatives of B-P and Buffalo State explain the vision for the first major new art gallery in the Buffalo area in 100 years.

I'd suggest that instead of "stirring the pot," Forever Elmwood, which is a wonderful organization that has made significant and continual contributions to the growth and economic vitality of the Elmwood Village, should have been sitting down with both B-P officials and the administration at Buff State to discuss concerns they may have had about their lack of involvement in the project much earlier than this. After all, the community has been aware of it for several years. And, to imply that the only way anyone can get any information about the building is to file a Freedom of Information Act request is to cast aspersions on the motivation and conduct of many members of the community who have given tirelessly of their time, talents, and financial resources to make the vision of a new B-P a reality.

Instead of the confrontational approach taken by Forever Elmwood and the calling of a "counter-news conference" on next Wednesday morning, I'd respectfully suggest appropriate parties sit down and try to collectively resolve their differences. If we're looking for something new and different here in Buffalo, perhaps it should be talking with one another and not at one another.

-Do we know how Gwathmey Siegel & Associates was chosen? What was the selection process? I'm assuming this was not an open or invited competition.

-I think the Darwin Martin House Visitors' Center should be the standard that this community sets for selecting architects on new cultural buildings in Buffalo.

-Imagine what it would do for Buffalo if we could bring a building designed by OMA, Zaha Hadid, Steven Holl, Daniel Libeskind or Herzog & DeMeuron. The building can be the attraction--these are the H.H Richarsons, Frank Lloyd Wrights and Louis Sullivans of our time. This would benefit us, here and now, and our city a century from now.

http://www.ap.buffalo.edu/sap/news/lecture.asp

UB School Of Architecture & Planning Spring 2006 Lecture Series

*Its a great resource for information on what is happening in the way of significant architecture in other cities around the world.

this building doesn't threaten to tear down any existing architecture. it is adding to the neighborhood culture and comerce, and regardless of anyones personal taste, a great amount of thought went into its design - interrior and exterrior. please lets not stand in front of progress. b-p is planning quite a facility and i think that if nay sayers saw the presentation they might not feel so nay-sayish. --public input

Well, I intend to call the mayor, the common council, the county executive and the county legislator to block any city or county money for this abortion! Its an abomination more akin to 1970s brutalism than to the Beaux Arts of Albright Knox or Richardsonian or the signature building of Buffalo State.

Its neither modern like a Ghery or a Calatrava or a Pei...nor is it traditional....its a suburban abortion pooped in the middle of our cultural district

I urge everyone else to call and block the funds until its redesigned, as well!

I agree with LWT, let's all work together. B-P should hold a meeting to hear the public's concerns. There is a huge amount of public money here.

Everyone supports a new museum. And that is why there are so many opinions about it. If we learned anything from the Peace Bridge and Canal, it should be that the public needs to be involved in the process, from the beginning.

I'm not sure why B-P hasn't been more open about the project, but it's not too late to get more input, and make this a builiding that truly benefits the WNY community.

Mollie, i'm sure the architects who designed this souless box spent plenty of time on this--time and effort spent has no direct. bearing on the actual quality of any given project. I could spend 5 years assembling a heap of discarded junk, doesn't neccessarily mean it will somehow achieve masterpiece status.

This buildining rudely turns its back on Elmwood Avenue with a blank wall and a barren grass plane. The architects can rave all they want about the "avant-garde" and "innovative" manure-like materials used. You can cram every element on the periodic table into that wall and it won't change the fact that this is still a blank wall.

This particular section of Elmwood forms a vital gatway into an older, vibrant potion of Buffalo and this BP design craps all over this fact. These architects (who are from New York..probably don't know a damn thing about Buffalo...and most importantly would never be able to plop this excuse for a building in their own city) seemed to value "convenient parking" in their designs more than anything important, like respecting the scale and character of the surrounding area.

I suspect the secretive nature of this project reflects the Buffalo State administration's mentality that the college is a completely self-contained campus that exists in a vacuum and has no responsibility to the surrounding community.

This building design has absolutley zero conext to its surroundings.

This pile of junk would better fit in the burbs next to a freeway offramp, not in a city sharped by wonderful pieces of human-scaled, respectable architecture.

Bravo gabe.

Get to the meeting at Crane Library, contact President Howard, Hoyt, etc. It will make you feel better. It worked for me.

gabe...dude...you need to get out of Buffalo and look around. Check out the new museums in St. Louis and Reno. Have a drink and settle down.

Nope, Gabe is right on the money and so are alot of other people!

Dont belittle people for calling a turd a turd!

Why is it that members of the public consider themselves entitled to be included in this process?

it's oh-so-much-easier to discredit development than it is to participate in creation, you know?

Credit to Ted for the effort he's invested as Director to develop the legacy of the B-P

The new bpac is a triumph for bsc and the city! now tack on a casino for good measure . the deals are done and the ink DRY !

Bman--Gabe doesn't need to get out of Buffalo. He knows whereof he speaks. There's more ingenuity in my block than those places you mention.

Let's work together,

Forever Elmwood has strenuously tried to communicate with the BP and Buff State--to no avail. The project was kept tightly controlled and closed. And no one is casting "aspersions"-- criticism of a building design is not criticism of people's motives or talents or generosity. And why is it so awful to ask questions of a design--some of the people questioning the design are people with training and experience in urban planning and architecture. But more important, the people who live and work in the neighborhood, people who have decades more experience with the buildings and setting of that area, have a right to say, "wait." Let's hear what the architects have to say, and let them listen to what we have to say.

I wonder what the naysayers would have said to the Guggenheim back in the day?

Come to think of it, I remember my parents and Aunt saying how awful the Knox addition to the Albright was.

Modern, clean straight ines can complement and allow older architecture of character and grace to shine.

Put another architectural gem (that really isn't since craftsmanship is a lost art and very expensive) on that site and it may detract from the surrounding structures.

Keep the lines clean and it dissolves, creating a backdrop for the surrounding architecture.

Arete-

As an architect and urban planner, let me tell you that most projects of the scale of B-P go through an extensive community process, even privately financed projects.

This is a large project, financed with tax payer money on a very visible site, next to historic buildings. There should have been a public process from day one. B-P chose not to do this and now they will see the consequences of that decision play out.

There is no entitlement here. Those who want to be included in the process are being good citizens. This is no time to worry about offending people at B-P. There is too much at stake here.

Let's give credit to those who want to have a building that works for the college AND the community. We're not there yet. But we still have a chance.

Love the Guggenheim! But holy cow, I think that's a weak analogy. I'd throw a parade for the Guggenheim. Sorry, this building is no Guggenheim. In fact, it looks very much like a corporate office you'll see on the way to Toronto, in Mississauga, on your left as you whizz down the QEW. It also looks like another building just down the road from there, and also like the one. . . . oh, there's just too many.

As far as I know, this building will have some public dollars behind it. Seems civic-minded for people who really know and love and pay for that neighborhood to have their voices heard. Or is that too much to ask of the BP?

MRodgers-

You're missing the point. One of the big problems with the B-P design is that it turns its back to the street and to the city. That is not the case with the Guggenheim.

Please don't compare this building to the Guggenheim. I've been to the Guggenheim. The Guggenheim's are good friends of mine. This is no Guggenheim.

I wonder if some of the critics here have considered that the B-P is not a retail location or an office building. As a museum, it has special needs that this design addresses and addresses quite well.

[+] a museum needs space around it for outdoor sculpture.

[+] a museum has different access requirements than a retail store or an office building because of school bus drop offs, security and insurance.

[+] a museum can't have a lot of windows, and there can be none in the exhibition areas.

It's heartening to have this kind of heated and passionate dialogue about architecture and planning, but at some point we need to let go of our amateur notions about what is good and bad architecture and consider what the design challenges were that the architects had to solve--not just what the community would like to see but what the people building it require.

I'm glad WestCoast attempted to contact the BP and I think maybe we should hold off on condemning the building until we hear what they have to say.

One just has read the ignorance of some of the comments on this post and the one before it to realize why the BP was reluctant to engage in a public dialogue about the design. If there is to be public review of the building, it shouldnit be from retail organizations like Forever Elmwood or Modernism-hating architecture hobbyists like BIA or even other architects who are doing nothing but reacting to the drawings with no understanding of the projectis requirements or the brief. Whatis the Albright Knox think? What does Hallwalls think? Thatis what I want to know.

BuffaloFan,

Just look across the street at the Albright to see how magnificently those very same design problems were solved by E.B. Green a hundred years ago. Then ask yourself if this design offers even a faction of the dignity and elegance.

This design could easily be made more distinctive and less like a suburban office park with a little more attention.

It reminds me of "Inetech" from Office Space.

So - who knows what % is publicly funded? And of that %, what's the precedent for involving public input?

I suppose there's something about zoning and city ordinances as well, to allow for community influence?

How much does the public actively involve themselves in these decisions?

Is this going to turn into the kind of fuss that the Lexington Coop dealt with?

To Let's Work Together, Like you, I was under the impression that Forever Elmwood was a group of progessive-thinking businesspersons who were interested in promoting the city, not themselves. Boy was I wrong. They are showing their true colors by whining and condemning a project because they weren't specifically asked for their opinion and because their isn't a door to the building on Elmwood Avenue---oooh, how horrible! Ok, so now they will have a public meeting, file a lawsuit, complain to Sandy Beach, write an editorial to the News and that will cover all the obstructionist tactics that make it impossible for this city to move forward. Are any of these people running for political office? Sure sounds like it. Their reaction is disheartening, exhausting, and disgusting. I think the Burchfield-Penney should move the building to the Grant Street side of campus--I'm certain that the business owners on the West Side would be thrilled.

thank you Buffalo Fan. you said almost everything i wanted to say.

first, it seems by the comments of everyone here that nobody has seen anything to base their opinions on but the few images they have on line here. perhaps i was one of a few in on a big secret, it didn't seem that way at the time, but i saw the presentation months ago and was impressed.

i am looking foreward to the gallery and the facility as a whole. thank you b-p and i hope that progress doesn't get held up, like in the peace bridge. i would like for my daughter to be able to see the project completed before she grows up.

furthermore, i don't believe that the burchfield is the property of or in any way affiliated with buffalo state other than location. we are fortunate as a community that the gallery chooses to stay build right here and once again add to the culture of our community!!

It's funny that BP and the architects are characterized here as "secretive" just because they didn't continually ask the public what they think, in an attempt to please everyone. Maybe they took a lesson from the Peace Bridge Authority. They're including the public by constantly asking us what we think, desiging, and redesigning the project. Nearly a decade later, and still no new bridge--and not even a final design yet. Ever heard the phrase "too many cooks in the kitchen?" Whenever anyone announces development plans in this city, it seems like we've got hundreds of thousands of architects and "experts" who think they could do better. Why don't we just leave this one to the professional in charge and be grateful for a new art gallery. This website used to be very positive and upbeat. Lately, however, it seems like a forum to complain about everything under the sun.

I kind of like the design.

For those of you who want to squash the debate regarding this museum, let me remind you that the State government is very involved with this project ( and yes the museum is part of Buff State). The State is funding it, they gave the museum the site, and they selected the architect.

These are the same people that wanted to bulldoze the Erie Canal and they moved UB to Amherst, and they destroyed Humbolt Parkway.

This is why we need more public input not less.

Everyone supports this project. It is funded, and it is going to happen.

So, those of you who want to stop debate, I have one question - what are you afraid of?

Many good points made above-- and there are pure obstructionists in every place and for almost every project, but ...

NO ONE has said there shouldn't be a new Burchfield-Penney edifice.

What is wrong with debating the design? What is the problem with accepting ideas from the community at large when there will be thousands upon thousands of people looking at this every day of their lives for decades to come? I know that keeping secrets from the American people is the way of the current government, but there's tax money involved in this project. And the site is more than four acres-- a huge parcel for a city neighborhood. Anything here will have an enormous impact.

As someone who is temporarily forced to live in a place where no one cares about anything related to their environment, except whether or not there's enough free parking, it's exciting to me to see Buffalonians get exercised about new development and to argue about architecture and planning. The reason this country has become so damn ugly is because in most places anything goes anywhere with no sense of context or design; there's no education in civics and civic design; and people accept whatever is shoved down their throats.

hamp - i think that i and those of us with a pro or a wait and see approach to this have been clear, but if you didn't catch it already above i will clarify my very realistic concerns. i wouldn't want them to decide to build elsewhere, which they can, or have it take decades to complete! which we are currently experiencing - once again let us refer to the peace bridge...?!!

since when did buffalo become a bunch of obstructionists? i do agree when the proposals detract from what we have, but this is a positive addition. do you want to see the city get built? or just spend years arguing over personal taste to the demise of great ideas, projects and well intended organizations?? this isn't 1900 - we can't build larkin administration buildings or anything remotely close to that anymore. it is out of the question cost wise. this is 2006 now and we have to start thinking realistically and toward the future!

i want to point out that everyone here seems to be motivated by their own personal taste in regards to this issue. i am not always inspired by what other people call 'taste' but i would never have the gaul to spout off because i didn't agree. there are all sorts of opinions on beauty. it is very subjective. when somebody posts here how it will detract from the city or neighborhood - in a real way not just becaue their personal taste in design doesn't agree with that of the people who have worked to put this together - then i will consider this a debate. until then all i hear is the sad sound of the wheels of buffalo progress spinning.

i really don't get what all the arguing is about at this point. they are about to unveil it to the public, they haven't broken ground and for crisesake i haven't seen any fat lady singing yet!

lastly, i really can't believe that someone actually posted that b-p was building a turd! do you really think that a group that promotes the arts is unconcerned enough with aesthetics to present as their facility a 'turd!'????

Regarding what " a group that promotes the arts " has given us, I'll let the drawings speak for themselves.

Besides, the main point is not about whether the building looks nice or not. Read the posts, we're not talking about aesthetics.

The project as shown in the renderings turns its back to the public . It is not connected to the city in any way. History has shown us that these types of suburban buildings ultimately detract from cities. They are lifeless, and they don't foster any street life or pedestrian amenities. Is that what we want from a $26 million public building?

The demeanor of the site hasn't changed, but the demeanor of the comments sure has. Comparing a building to an "abortion" is not just offensive, but also kind of gross and certainly inappropriate. How about "I find it unattractive?"

I'm not absolutely thrilled with the design, but that's right: I'm not an urban planner, I'm not an architect, I don't have an MFA... All I have is an opinion. I have the right to voice it, but to thrust it upon the world? Not so much.

Do we, any of us, have a right to input on the design? Perhaps... I understand the issue about public money. But I also understand that consensus takes approximately forever and there are times when it's probably not a realistic goal.

Do you think H.H. Richardson, or F.L. Wright, or Frank Gehry, for that matter, worried much about public input when they were designing? I'm not saying that Gwathmey Siegel & Associates are necessarily of that calibre, but I do think it's worth pointing out.

I guess as regards this design, I'd rather just see it built than delayed for the next 5 years while we try to please everybody. It's not the greatest design ever, I'm sure, but I'm also pretty certain it's not something we'll regret having- the most important art will be inside the building.

The building is completely un-urban in every way. I think that is the real issue here. It's not about materials or even aesthetics; it's about respecting the fact that the building is located in a city - not at an interstate off ramp.

Truly great architecture respects context and urban design, and it respects the way a community wants to look in the future. I'm not so much incensed with the renderings as I am with the site plan. This is auto-oriented crap -- and no architect's theoretical explanation will change that.

The comments by people who are critical of the design have been by far mostly polite and thoughtful. On the other hand, some of the folks who are indignant that anyone voice some objections to this deisgn have called us "disgusting." How can you debate when people are calling other people "disgusting." For having an opinion about a site and neighborhood and history that we love and care for? And who is "thrusting on the world" their opinions? That's just silly. This site is here so people can discuss what's happening. But some of you think you can only have certain opinions: no criticism! you're either for us or against us! I can't even begin to understand that mindset. It's a mentality that has damaged Buffalo for decades, an attitude of not questioning, just accepting, whether it's politicians, buildings, highways--just trust the experts and don't get in their way. Well, look take a long, hard look around--see what we have as a result.

Rust Belt, I think you sum it up best. While, I have stated my own personal asthetic objections to the building, I think asthetics is largely subjective. Like you, I object mostly to the site placement and lack of context. If they would just turn the damn building around to face the street and put some modest walkways and landscaping between the building and Elmwood, i'd be happy, regardless of the actual architectural style of the building.

I certainly don't have a problem with criticism of the design, and nothing I wrote is to the contrary- I expressed some dissatisfaction with the proposal myself. I'll add to that and say that I think Rust Belt et al. are dead-on in saying that even simply making it face the street would pretty much satisfy my objections. Why not have an entrance from the street, which is inviting and urban-friendly, as well as an entrance from the parking lot behind, which addresses the needs of school-groups and disabled people?

I did take issue with the way some commenters--well, one in particular--stated their criticism, that's quite true. I'll stand by that statement ("Comparing a building to an "abortion" is not just offensive, but also kind of gross and certainly inappropriate. How about "I find it unattractive?"") gladly. I also think addressing the critics as 'disgusting' is inappropriate. The point was more about the tone of the discourse than anything else and I agree, I've read much worse. But the biggest impediment to progress, as I see it, is the inability to have a civil discussion, one where reason trumps emotion.

As for "thrusting it [our opinions] upon the world," well- yes, that's overstating it perhaps. But a lot of the preceding commentary was precisely about the lack of public input on the design. I was questioning whether or not we have an unequivocal right to input. And again, I never said we do- or don't. I was wondering aloud, and pointing out that some great buildings go up without (or despite) public input. Conversely, some really regrettable designs get built with public approval. Input from the GenPop doesn't guarantee success, and lack of it doesn't guarantee a nightmare.

I fully agree that "an attitude of not questioning" is unhealthy, which is why I raised the questions I did.

And they said City Hall was a horrible deisign back in the day. Now look at the building and see what the current generation has to say. This type of critique has been ongoing for generations. I still hold the opinion that the new design neither detracts from nor insults the surrounding architecture. It allows for the interior to be utilized as needed while allowing a simplistic backdrop to the other buildings in the area.

The Federal Courthouse project is being criticized, as well, though it's facade will mirror the surrounding architecture while bringing needed dollars to our area and city. Yet, we criticize and tear down dreams. For the architectural critics and the preservationists - stop waiting for last minute fixes and become more proative before the bell has tolled. Then, your voice has more weight behind it.

M Rodgers:

How can you be proactive when the entities refuse to share or discuss plans?

What does being 20, 30, 50, or 60 years old have to do with handsome, forward looking design? Not only does this building turn away from Elmwood with a suburban design, but it also seems very dated. It's not modern enough! No boldness, no unusual or fresh shapes. A second rate design.

For a 25 million dollar plus public building (in use and tax support), does it seem unreasonable to expect more than "simplistic" design and the humdrum ability to "be used as needed"? That sounds like a description of a good warehouse. Is that all we deserve given the money spent and years devoted to this dream we all hope to see realized?

I don't see what the distress is here--why can't the architects make some changes and resubmit a design with more character and a more welcoming face to the community that will support it.

has anyone considered what buff state looks like? beyond the first quad behind rockwell hall it is all modern architecture not unlike b-p's proposal. despite anyone's taste, there's your relevence.

^ The only Buff State building that faces Elmwood is Rockwell Hall.... front door and all.

Eric, if you read the comment - being proactive was a sidenote for preservationists to enact an action plan before buildings are torn down. Why did I post this? Because, we are always chasing end results instead of getting out there and attempting to stop issues before they arise. This situation is an example as is the last ditch efforts of preservationists on most buildings slated for demolition. Where are the people BEFORE issues arise?

Jeesh, Ben is right, everyone is entitled to a position or opinion, but speak a word and the dogs bite your a** off. That's a warning sign, folks.

Why do residents who favor preservation and good design rush in at the last minute? It's very simple - that's when we find out about these things. If B-P thinks they have such a great project why did it take the freedom of information act to see it?

And why should it matter if it's last minute. So was the Canal, and the bridge. And we're getting better projects as a result.

Would that we could have stopped the pedestrian mall at the last minute. Too bad we didn't stop the Amherst campus at the last minute. Too bad we didn't stop the Humboldt expressway at the last minute. Too bad we didn't stop the demolition of the Larkin building at the last minute. Too bad we didn't stop the convention center at the last minute. Too bad we didn't stop the city court building at the last minute. Too bad we didn't stop the I-190 at the last minute. Too bad we didn't stop the Metcalf house demolition at the last minute. Too bad we didn't stop the Marine Midland tower at the last minute. Too bad we didn't stop the Mid City demolition at the last minute. Too bad we didn't stop the Howard Johnson's demolition at the last minute. Too bad we didn't stop the Rath Building at the last minute. Too bad we didn't stop the Bill's stadium at the last minute. Too bad we didn't stop the parking garage at the airport at the last minute. Too bad we didn't stop Main Place Mall at the last minute.

We'd all be better off. And our chidren and grandchildren would't care a bit that these projects were stopped at the last minute. It would have been worth it: they'd be living in a better Buffalo.

What a great (and sad) illustration of that point hamp! As the saying goes, "better late than never." It's heartening to see Buffalo finally taking advantage of the last minute as last minutes turn into lifetimes.

i have a great idea, lets fight everything, every project no matter what. lets not let anyone build anything anywhere, lets maintain this hangover from 1901 and keep our city in a state decay.

I'm turned off by this whole "obstructionist" debate.

But I am a bit curious about these anti-modernism comments. It should be clear that we are not going to get a neoclassical art gallery unless we build first a time machine. What is this community's opinion on the Gordon Bunshaft designed portion of the Albright-Knox Gallery? I've always thought it looked elegant, refined and urban. Are there any architects specifically by name that this community would've liked to see design the b-p art center? -or any precedents in art gallery design that would make a good comparison? The best thing that we can do is put what happens here in our back yard into a national or global context. I'm always envious of European cities and their ability to preserve an historic urban fabric and still be bold and experimental with new architecture. I wish we could steal just a smidget of that sensibility.

--and I should say that I'm not at all suggesting that the images that I've seen of this b-p design say bold and experimental. I would need to see more images of the design. Their web site however is full of mediocre looking buildings.

M Rodgers--I always read comments before I respond.

Thanks for your clarification, but you know, it would be nice if we all could be vigilant all the time about every project. But some people can't and I don't think it their crime. It can be hard, very hard, to cooperate, to foresee, to have actions plans with companies, profit or non-profit, who don't want you to. It does happen.

Why do you mind so much that some people just don't like the design (so far). I don't understand.

Dave, you asked-

Here are some architects that would have given us something better. If you look at Gwathmey's web site, they are wired into the state universtiy. I don't know what the connection is, but there definitely is one.

Toshiko Mori Santiago Calatrava Frank Gehry Richard Meir Zaha Hadid Rem Koolhaus Daniel Libeskind Kohn Pederson Fox Cannon HHL

and there are hundreds more

Thank you hamp. I like your list very much. At what stage is the Abright-Knox in with its expansion plans?

Don't know what stage AK is at.

But their strategic plan calls for a world class piece of architecture.

It would be nice to walk from AK to BP without having to walk around the building through a parking lot. The way the design stands now, AK visitors wouldn't even know where the door to the BP is.

Keep in mind that if it were not for the Bunshaft addition, we'd all be walking around to the "back" of the A-KAG. I'm sure the expansion will be "world-class" - as long as that term can be used to describe the district's adjacent building. A building is exciting and "world-class", if it lacks conformity on the exterior. If we look past that phenominal first impression, we'd realize that they are not user-friendly; they have much wasted space; and they are a maintenance nightmare. The same can be said for just about anything. After all, I'd rather be driving a "world-class" sports car than an American family truckster, but it's certainly not going to haul the kids or bring home the groceries.

first and foremost the problem with this building is a lack of identity. take for example elmwood ave, richardson, albright-knox, buffalo's industrial past, forest lawn... i mean this building represents nothing of buffalo or say any relation with the surrronding area. even so the non-descript building fails enormously at establishing its own identity. the building could be easily mistaken for an amherst office/medical building, science labs, or really anything. from the picture it also seems to lack creativity, intrigue, and originality. this building is the gateway to elmwood and an important element of the museum district, anyone who is upset at br readers for asking questions must have their head examined.

Eric....That's my point exactly. I attended the openings of both of those new museums of art in St. Louis and Reno and they are quite anemic by comparison to the BP design and are situated in unseemly places in their respective cities. I am sure that gabe has some knowledge about that which he speaks but has he actually gone to these sister galleries in other cities so that he can make a more objective analysis of the BP facility? Doesn't seem so. The BP design is interesting and functional and is going to be serving as an educational space as well as a gallery. Its a fine structure. And the idea of a "counter-conference" held at the time of tomorrow's BP press conference is absurd. Why do some members of the public feel they have to have input into every project that is proposed? Its narcissistic and obstructionist. And futile, for that matter. Do you really think that more money will be spent to redesign the gallery? I don't think so. So call Sam Hoyt and everone else who may or may not listen. The BP design is going to be a reality and a fitting one at that. Maybe the AK will reflect the BP in their new expansion plans.

Granted I am not an architect or urban planner so I won't use big, important, intelligent words like turd or crap or abortion or poop or junk, but speaking as an artist, I essentially couldn't care less what a gallery/museum looks like from the outside. What is important is the design and use of interior spaces. The importance of how the space is occupied by art and those viewing it trumps all other concerns. Like so many other things in life, it's what's inside that counts.

People were drooling all over themselves regarding the Guggenheim, and yes it is an attractive building. It is also one of the most horrifically designed buildings when it comes to.......um, oh yeah, LOOKING AT ART! Which is, as far as I know, the point of the building. Most grand architectural designs have more to do with the architect's over-inflated sense of self than the intended use of the structure.

Art galleries are much more that places to look at art. Of course it is important to accomodate art, but the Burchfield's program is much more than that.

If it's only about viewing art, why don't we just build big boxes?

The immense popularity of the Guggenheim proves this. It is not the best place to display art, but it is hands down one of the best art experiences around.

People go to museums and art galleries for a total experience. And just as the inside matters, so does the outside. This is an extremely prominent location for a museum dedicated to Western New York art. Should'nt it be welcoming to the public it is supposed to be serving?

Finally, I don't understand the need to put down others that demand that this be a better building. This thing is going to be built, it is funded and the site is set. It's not going away.

Will you please tell me why you object to the public making comments? I sincerely do not understand why this upsets you so.

The Canal, Peace Bridge, the Scajaquada, Main Street, Hertel, Elmwood design projects were all changed in reponse to public input. And they are all better because of this.

right on

I'm all for an intelligent debate, but what I was reading was nothing of the sort. I wasn't putting down "others who demand that this be a better building", I was blatantly making fun of their clumsy language. I'm not upset in the least. If anyting, the amount of vitriol that people have been spewing over this makes me giggle a little.

I do have to disagree again regarding the Guggenheim. I like it as a building, but not as a museum...and that's it's name...The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. The work in it is always secondary to the structure. It's a wonderful architectural experience, not art experience, and one should never confuse architecture with art.

Where's my "right on" dave?