Washington Times vs. the Washington Post on Star-chitects and Star-chitecture

Norman Foster's proposed canopy for the Smithsonian American Art Museum and National Portrait Gallery.

Deborah K. Dietsch writes in yesterday's Washington Times that it is "Time to rethink 'star-chitecture': Big names are costly". She says:

The demise of these projects underscores the city's conservatism when it comes to architecture. The larger problem, however, may be relying on star power to repeat past successes of building projects in other cities instead of coming up with truly imaginative designs supportive of our own.

Far from being visionary, the selections of Mr. Gehry and Mr. Foster, who are part of the architectural establishment, evidenced a conformist, me-too mentality. They aimed to copy costly blockbuster architecture that has turned a number of European cities into cultural tourism meccas.

The choices also reflect timidity on the part of the Corcoran and Smithsonian to embrace true design innovation. Instead of tapping lesser-known or younger talents who might develop more imaginative solutions, these institutions jumped onto the bandwagon of big-name architecture.

On the other hand, Mark Fisher, the metropolitan columnist for the Washington Post disagrees in "Panels' thoughts on architecture belong in a museum," writing that:

Foster's design for Washington was breathtaking. An undulating ceiling of glass panels would connect our city's 19th-century architectural tributes to Greece and Rome with our 21st-century passion for technological innovation in an open, transparent society. The courtyard -- site of Abe Lincoln's inaugural balls -- would add a contemporary accent while preserving the past. The resulting space would draw tourists, create a snazzy party venue and demonstrate that art is not all obsession with the dead. But trying to shoehorn the new into Washington's cityscape is never easy. The out-of-towners who run the federal arts commissions are busy rooting out architects' challenges to their fantasy of the capital as 19th-century theme park.
_________
I strongly disagree with Fisher. What he calls "19th-century theme park" I call a distinctive architectural and cultural history that comprises the competitive advantage-unique selling proposition that DC possesses vis-a-vis other communities.

Dietsch is more right than Fisher. At some level, the modern architecture of the Fosters and Rosches and Safdies is merely more of the same that's everywhere else. Making over DC like Bilbao or the Business School at Case Western University or Disney Hall isn't much different than making every decent sized suburban arterial road miles and miles of parking fronted strip shopping centers. If anyone thinks that the Michael Graves designed expansion of the Prettyman Federal Courthouse is really worth looking at, please let me know. Or how is Safdie's coming ATF headquarters any different or less brutal than the famed HUD headquarters in SW?

Prettyman Federal Courthouse expansion by Michael Graves. Like Station Place, it doesn't look "this good" as built.

Architecture and history are the defining elements of the competitive advantage of the Eastern Seaboard center cities. Rather than just tear it all down, it wouldn't hurt to know something about it.

Tinkertoy ad. Possible design influence on Michael Graves?

Recycling cans and architecture? Have architectural historians looked at the impact of everyday objects in design?