The design of the new Clyfford Still Museum, planned for near the corner of 13th and Bannock on Block 044-E, was revealed today. The architect, Brad Cloepfil, has designed a building that seems to appear as a tribute to both neo-brutalism and Frank Lloyd Wright. Any building on that site must deal with Libeskind’s Denver Art Museum Hamilton Building as a neighbor, so given that, I think this design is an appropriate response. The project is slated to break ground in 2009 and be completed in 2010. Here’s the rendering, courtesy of Rocky Mountain News/Brad Cloepfil:
For more on the project and its design, here’s Mary Voelz Chandler’s article about it from the Rocky: Natural Light Key to Design of Clyfford Still Museum
Sorry Ken, couldn't disagree more. This is a bad throwback to the crap Denver was saddled with in the 70's…in fact, they just tore down a cold concrete slab that looked amazingly like this beauty over at 18th and Larimer. I'm glad the city is getting the Still collection. However, sadly, we will also get a bunker that looks better suited to wartime Berlin.
Thank god for the trees. This thing is an ugly monstrosity.
I admit I don't know the first thing about architecture, but I too find this to be quite an ugly building. It looks very imposing and uninviting and like it was designed 30 years ago.
Textured concrete will look sad after a few years of aging.
Site positioning does no favors to the urban fabric of that area.
Design doesn't relate at all to nearby buildings.
Frank Lloyd? Unfortunately, this is more of Denver's "pig pile." Frank's words not mine.
Preliminary models usually do a weak job of expressing a building design. The rough quartz aggregate exterior surface could be an interesting contrast to the metal sheathing of the Hamilton, and it evokes the rough texture of Still's abstract building. Unfortunately, this design so far does have a "bunker," brutalist look. I seriously hope the design for the building evolves into something more inviting and timeless.
I do not see how this building takes advantage of the wonderful sunlight of Denver. With the overhangs and no windows how is the light supposed to enter the building. I think this design still (no pun intended) needs a lot of work.
The 60's called and they want their building back.
It's definately un-"Styll"ing. Maybe its an ode to the era that put that area dormant.
Ok, with that all said I would change my mind about the project if the textured cement turns out to be felt instead. That would be cool.
And couldn't they have picked tree's that leafed out?
Is brown the new black?
I personally love this building for a number of reasons:
1) It is a great response to the post-modern expressive architecture found elsewhere in the plaza. This will be a great contrast to the expressive library, art museum, and museum residences buildings.
2) It is perfectly suited to the paintings of Clyfford Still, which are mostly dark and introspective.
3) If Allied Works previous work is any indication, the building will be really flawlessly designed and beautiful in the end. I trust their taste, because they have a phenomenal track record of stunning, reserved buildings.
4) The tree thing will be really fantastic.
5) Apart from the new Museum of Contemporary Art, Denver has almost no buildings which feel strict or carefully-designed. We have no European or Japanese-style minimalism. We have no other buildings like this.
I agree that it's not for everybody, but I feel like people who genuinely like Clyfford Still will also genuinely like this building, and it will be a perfect home for this collection of artwork.
It seems to me the real test of a great art museum is not so much what it looks like on the outside as what the visitor's experience is like inside the building. This is where the Hamilton Building fails, for me; it's too much about the architect's ego and not enough about providing a setting for reflection and transcendence. I'm relieved to see that the exterior design of this building does not try to outshine or compete with the other buildings in the immediate vicinity — the Hamilton Building, the original DAM, the Denver Public Library. The design — including the textured planes, the glimpsed views, the "slits and slots" that are supposed to channel in natural light, and even the texture and dappled light the grove of trees will provide — all seem to be consistent with, and to pay homage to, Still's paintings.
If they could use the luminous concrete and change the lighting scheme it might be ok. I know that is a stretch. How about polished granite or marble instead.
i dig it…they might want to push for taller proportions but this will turn out nice is my bet. (no, this is not the architecdt writing this response!)
I wonder what it will look like with color…unless that is with color? Somethings turn out better when they are built and I guess this will have to prove itself. It does have to have little light in so that none of the art gets damage or fading, so I understand the little windows, but it sure seems un-welcoming in the picture.
darn, I think I misspelled his last name.. can you skip my last comment, I ruined my joke. thats what I get for trying to be clever.
Not impressed either. I know designers may try to throw some obsidian in to make the surface more reflective, but otherwise this is a rather unremarkable design. And I wish everyone luck in planting–and maintaining–the grove of trees that will be necessary to soften the look. I remember when they planted some trees surrounding the sculpture in the back of the library. They lasted, oh, about two weeks….
The 1970's called… They want their museum back!
I'm hoping the textured concrete look to the building is actually felt. Now that would be a touch of class!
It's amazing to me how brown never goes out of style.
Indeed, it does nothing for my eyes either. In fact, it's ugly.
I think it's gorgeous. The Still family required a simple box in order to donate the collection. This is a wonderful way to resolve that.
better than a parking lot
Yikes. I think I took a Psych 101 class in a building just like this one.
There are interior renderings on these websites:
artdaily.com — http://www.artdaily.com/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=23448
archinect — http://archinect.com/news/article.php?id=72169_0_24_0_C
the model is pretty ugly, but i have a feeling that it will look surprisingly better in real life. still, they could have done better.
"Yikes. I think I took a Psych 101 class in a building just like this one."
Did you by chance attend the University of Northern Colorado?
Anybody who did knows exactly what this textured concrete, no prominet windows, imposing type design winds up looking like – a bunker. I think it is fantastic that the city is saving money by building a fallout shelter and art museum all in one, but the cold war is over.
Trees or not, these designs are rareley friendly and inviting…
What a shame, the city is really missing a great opportunity on this one. I really dislike Leibskind's building too, but at least that building stands out – this one is not only horrible, but, as most on here noted, it looks like a bunker.
What the city should do is paint the building blue, install glowing red eyes on it, then call it art. In my book, that would salvage this.
Yuck! This is a terrible example of the window-phobia, concrete-philia that afflicted architects in the 70's.
Does anyone know whether this building will be LEED certified? (For one thing, it looks like this museum will require a lot of artificial lighting.)
"I think I took a Psych 101 class in a building just like this one."
Even worse … reminds me of all of those tilt slab elementary / high schools built in the 60's / 70's that were built around the west. We waited almost a year for this?? C'mon!
I have seen other exterior and interior renderings of this building and I have to say that I love this design. This photo of the model that is most widely published currently does not do the design justice. First of all, the building will not be beige. Picture the building in a shade of white or gray against the Hamilton. Secondly, the texture of the exterior and interior concrete is in a vertical pattern, which will brillantly mimic the texture of Still's abstract paintings. Third, the skylights will infuse the building with light, even though there are very few exterior windows. The lack of exterior windows will create an intraspective atmosphere to experience the paintings. The interior renderings are stunning! I think the finished building will contrast beautifully with the Hamilton, yet stand on it's own as a powerful statement that does an excellent job of showcases Still's work.
Lastly, the more I visit the Hamilton the more I love this building. Contrary to what many people have stated, it is a terrific place to view and experience art. I just wish they would make the roof where the glass atrium was (in the original design) look more finished. This can be easily done by covering the roof with the same metal panels as the higher roof immediately to the left of the museum entrance. The current roofed over atrium detracts from the exterior of the building.
Hitler called. He wants his bunker back.
Ugly, ugly, ugly. It is not inviting at all. I agree it looks like some of the drab buildings built on college campuses in the 70s. I don't see how this is something we would proudly show off the people visiting our lovely city.
The roof of the Hamilton building over the main entrance will be finished in titanium sheets just like the rest of the buliding. There were serious leaks in that portion of the roof which were fixed last year. It was decided after the repairs to leave the finished skin off through this winter until they were sure that the repairs worked.
As for the Still museum, I was present at the unveiling, heard what the architect had to say and am reserving judgement until the building is completed. I agree it has a very 1960's feel about it, but that could actually work to compliment the art. I'll just keep my fingers crossed that when built it comes across as a 21st century interpretion of a 1960's building and not a ripoff of a 1960's building.
IT'S FUGLY!!!
Thanks anonymous — I'm glad somebody else likes this building other than me. I really disagree with the idea that just because it is 2008 that concrete is off-limits. When done well, concrete buildings can be really amazing. A great recent example is the Pulitzer building by Tadao Ando in St. Louis, which is stunning.
Concrete got a bad reputation because it got overused by bad architects for nearly three decades. I really believe that (in moderation city-wide) concrete can be a really great design element.
And again, since Denver only has one minimalist building that I can think of (the new MCA), I really welcome a bit more of it in our fair city.
Also, there's another rendering here
, which is much better than the photo of the model:
Rendering
It's very 1970.
The trees look nice.
Soviet Russia would applaud! That looks like typical crappy concrete junk built in the 70s. The architech should be fired and they should try again.
It seems like from the comments no one has seen any other project designed by Allied Works.
If you are familiar with their work, this design is no surprise. It is very similar to the University of Michigan art museum addition and especially the St. Louis contemporary art museum.
Look at the pictures of the completed St. Louis museum and you will see basically what we are going to get.
http://alliedworks.com/launch.html
The early models of basically all their projects look like this one. The final results may not be everyone's personal taste, but I think they look pretty good.
In fact, I think this is going to be a nicer building than the MCA.
I kind of like it. I mean, it seems fitting of Still's work, which would probably be the most important thing when building a museum dedicated to a single artist. Let's remember the guy has tons of very minimilist (excuse me, abstract expressionist) paintings, and he died in 1980.
They could pull it off to look really cool, but they could also fail and have it look really drab and unimpressive. No matter what though, with this stoic minimalism paired next to Libiskind's loud deconstructionism twenty feet away, it should make for an interesting contrast of styles.
Buildings like this can be okay provided they are well constructed using high-quality materials, and provided that the building is then subsequently well maintained. Is this building made of gray concrete? Is it made of granite? Will the tree courtyard be cluttered up with all sorts of unnecessary stuff? Etc.
I don't know if it's fitting for the work or not.. I'd side on not as Still uses colors, more than just single black dots in a middle of a canvass if you know what I mean. Modern 'facist' type of architecture projects, you know the ones that many condos are modeled after could of been as or more appropriate. Maybe they wanted to capture the nothingness of the parking lot? I think Frank L Wright was ok, but he was far from a genius and did far more for suburban development than urban. Anyway, more urban fabric and it'll be an interesting building.. and getting a high caliber museum like this is awesome.
Tom O-
I wish that the Styll Museum would take a cue from the St. Louis Museum, because I LIKE that design. It has more windows, the space is more amplient, and the concrete is smoothed for a clean, industrial look.
This museam is very closed off, and it has TEXTURED concrete. That stuff died with disco. There's a reason it looks like crap in all those office parks and highrises in the nether-regions of aging city zones.
I feel if the textured concrete were replaced with a smooth surface, the buildng's quality would exponentially improve. Add more windows, and it would be great.
Anonymous – Good point about the textured concrete, except that if you look at the rendering I posted above, it appears to be very weird looking textured concrete, with ripples and waves and other oddities. On NPR this morning they mentioned it might have quartz and obsidian embedded in it. I picture this being poured into a custom mold which will create the texture they are talking about. I think it's going to be a really surreal and unique surface.
If it's the 70's kind of texture — concrete with brown pebbles in it — then I completely agree with your dislike for the materials. But I don't think that's what is going on here.
I agree… I think "textured" was an inadequate adjective to describe the surface. If you look closely at the second rendering, you can see the texture is exaggerated and well thought out. I bet the shadows will continually move with the sun so it never looks the same. Could even be lit up cool at night.
I don't think it's the 70's popcorn the name "textured concrete" suggests.
It blows my mind that so many people hate this building. It will be an excellent addition to the Golden Triangle.
What no one has mentioned is that not only is it a "quiet" counterpoint to the Hamilton and North Buildings of the DAM and to the technicolor DPL (not to mention the high Victorian of the Byers-Evans House across the street), it nicely echoes the design of the old Bach wing of the DAM across the street. For those of you who don't know the Bach wing by that name (does the DAM even call it anything now?), it's the one-story portion with Palettes restaurant that is directly on the corner of DAM's original property, 13th & Acoma. If I remember correctly, the original architect was James Sudler, and it was built some time after World War II as the first part of a potential new home for the museum, which up to that time had been housed in a variety of locations, including the fourth floor of the City & County Building and an old mansion on Capitol Hill.
What this argument highlights is the serious lack of education about architecture in the U.S. If you go to college, you might take an art history class to get a liberal arts credit, but those classes hardly ever go beyond painting and sculpture. I don't want to sound like a snob (I remember the last time someone spouted off in a really pretentious way, back in January or so), but come on, folks. Learn a little about the history of Modernism as not only a movement in the fine arts but also in architecture. This building, echoing the best of the 1950s, is an absolutely perfect complement to Still's works. Maybe the DAM can build yet another wing some time in the future, maybe right next door on Bannock, to house their huge collection of Robert Motherwell's works, and maybe it could be something this good.
I think the design is good (not great) and I understand why many people don't like it. And yes, historymystery, you do sound like a pretentious snob when you attribute a difference of opinion to a lack of education. I have no doubt that many of the people who dislike the design are familiar with modern architecture and Still's work. Art is subjective. As if we'd have all come to a consensus if we had remembered the name of the Bach wing. Please. Arguments of this kind are extremely unconvincing.
I'd probably be dissapointed if this was the expansion of the DAM, and no other buildings were being built for art in Denver. But taken with the MCA and the Hamilton wing and the three buildings as a whole together make a great addition to the city's public buildings. The rendering on the blog doesn't seem to be a good representation of what the building will look like either. There are several more "white" renderings that look much more interesting and pleasing. This building is a little different from the others in that it's built to hold the work of one artist.
The Hamilton is a living advertisement for Denver and the Art museum. The MCA is a deliberate slap in the face to the arrogance of the DAM. It screams out, calculatingly how modest and unobtrusive it is. Both house things that you may not really be sure of when you go in. Anyone going to the Still museum knows why they are going already.
Lastly, if you search for some of Still's work.. they look like they will be very much at home here.
Anonymous from Saturday, you're absolutely right. I thought about it after I sent it, and realized that I was being an ass. My apologies to anyone out there who was offended.
Historymystery.
I kinda agree with the argument this building is somewhat nostalgic. Maybe too soon? Or, maybe past to the back?
Maybe anything goes in this area? Or on a bigger scale anywhere. I like that better than the downtown Denver brick 3-5 story bases with "modern" tops.
I cannot wait to see the "w!"
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
YUCK! It's so blahhh. Thank God it's not too near the 16th street mall or Lodo where most of the people are.
I agree that the rendering here is unimpressive. But after taking a look at the links found in previous blogs and seeing a couple of interior pics and another exterior rendering, I am excited to see how this turns out!
First, its an art museum. The architecture should not compete with the art it holds, and it should complement the art. From the little I know of Still's work, this scheme seems appropriate. Also, what's yet to be tested is the users experience. One critical component of this is to bring in natural light properly, which from the rendering, I think it has some good attempts at daylighting (i.e. windows at the edges of the spaces to bring in non-glaring and indirect sunlight).