Originally Posted by Vangelist
the NYT really has it out for the new museum, Broad and LA once again (no surprise) :
But the entrance was removed during the design process, and what was once a more complex reading of urban mobility has been reduced to something more banal.
This isn’t just bad news for Mr. Broad.
Grand Avenue has never really worked as an idea — not only because it was elitist but also because the idea of a singular, dominant cultural hub runs so counter to the city’s nature.
Still, in many ways the avenue’s fortunes have also come to embody Los Angeles’s continuing struggle to define its civic identity in an era when its cultural status continues to rise. A successful Broad museum would go a long way toward cementing that status, which makes the possibility of its failure that much more of a blow.
What are you talking about? The critic at NY Times critically favors architecture in LA more than he does for those currently in New York.
As for the Broad foundation building, it's very NY-school in that it's very tasteful, very boxy, very white (color-wise) and fashionably modern while being a little outdated at the same time. It has the look of being interesting and should satisfy Broad's taste. That's not to say that it's a bad addition to Grand Ave, but it doesn't break Broad's bad luck with architects. At least it's leaps better than his building at LACMA.