2012年5月23日 星期三

Rod Sheard 來台灣



  1. The Website Of Rod Sheard

    www.rodsheard.com/ - 頁庫存檔 - 翻譯這個網頁
    buy discount arcoxia · tricor online without prescription · lexapro generic cost · lexapro anorgasmia · melatonin online without prescription · ephedrine for · differin ...
  2. Profile - The Website Of Rod Sheard

    www.rodsheard.com/profile.php - 頁庫存檔 - 翻譯這個網頁
    Rod is a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Royal Australian Institute of Architects and a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. He is a frequent ...
  3. Rod Sheard – POPULOUS

    populous.com/profile/rsheard/ - 頁庫存檔 - 翻譯這個網頁
    Rod Sheard. Senior Principal; London. Rod has a vision for the 21st century which will herald a new breed of bespoke sports facilities designed to attract iconic ...
  4. Rod Sheard 國際建築大師講座

    www.boco.com.tw › 研討會 - 頁庫存檔
    2012年4月24日 – 主講人:Rod Sheard 羅德‧謝爾德(2012"倫敦碗"倫敦奧運主場館首席設計師、世界頂級體育館建築師). 講座時間:2012年5月22日(二) 19:00-21:00( ...
  5. Rod Sheard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Sheard - 頁庫存檔 - 翻譯這個網頁
    Rod Sheard. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Jump to: navigation, search. Rod Sheard is a British / Australian architect and Senior Principal at Populous.
  6. 搖滾吧,建築!倫敦奧運主場館建築師Rod Sheard來台演講 - 綠‧建築家

    www.searchouse.net/op/news?nid=394 - 頁庫存檔
    2012年5月7日 – 倫敦奧運即將於七月登場,搶搭奧運風潮,行政院文化建設委員會特地邀請2012倫敦奧運的主場館建築師羅德‧謝爾德(Rod Sheard)5月22日來台 ...
     
     
     
     
    倫敦奧運主場館。
    (圖,陳宛茜攝)
    二○○四年雅典奧運主場館,鋼構屋頂像一隻巨鳥張開白色翅膀;二○○八年北京奧運主場館「鳥巢」,前衛外形同樣令人震撼。相較之下,即將舉行的倫敦奧運主場館「倫敦碗」,造形一如其名,乍看平凡無奇。
    設計倫敦碗的澳籍建築師羅德(Rod Sheard),昨應文化部「國際大師人文講座」之邀,來台演講「搖滾吧,建築!」羅德在世界各地設計了數十個體育場館,包括雪梨奧運主場館。

    倫敦奧運主場館擁有八萬席座椅,其中五萬五千席可供拆卸,建築師羅德昨天來台分享設計理念。
    記者陳易辰/攝影
    「運動是新的搖滾樂!」羅德指出,搖滾樂曾是可以跨越政治、宗教、文化的「世界性文化語言」,披頭四的一舉一動牽動全球觀眾的心弦。但從一九九○年代起,運動逐漸取代搖滾樂的地位──席丹一記頭球、林書豪一次運球上籃,全球觀眾為之瘋狂。 「體育場館是在瞬間創造英雄的舞台。」羅德曾在著作「體育館:全球文化的建築」中表示,體育場館是「勝利的象徵」,必須具備戲劇性的造形和紀念碑般的規模。
    一場奧運開幕,全球超過十億人口觀賞;體育場館等於商機無窮的立體廣告,造型愈誇張、廣告效果也愈強烈。倫敦碗卻顛覆了羅德自己對體育場館的定義。
    倫敦碗可能不是令人震撼的體育館,卻是史上最具創意的體育館。它擁有八萬席座椅,卻有五萬五千席可供拆卸。奧運結束後,倫敦碗上四層座位將拆卸,成為一座小型足球場。倫敦碗甚至沒有屋頂。
    羅德說,倫敦已是發展成熟的大都會,不需像北京、雅典,用一座前衛巨大的體育館改造城市形象。
    他將倫敦碗的設計定為「小巧、零距離、節能」。透過碗形的角度設計,觀眾和球員幾乎零距離,「你可以聞到運動員的氣息」。奧運在夏季舉辦,下雨機率不高。小巧、沒屋頂的倫敦碗節省建材,也解決奧運後淪「蚊子館」的危機。
    許多英國建築師批判倫敦碗不夠傳統、沒資格代表英國。「他們甚至說它根本算不上真正的建築!」但羅德相信,「改變的時刻到了」,他用倫敦碗挑戰「建築即永恆」的觀念,「這世界永遠需要新的想法,新的挑戰!」

     

2012年5月22日 星期二

倫敦奧運會火炬設計 a three-sided torch



Olympic Torch Sells For £153100 On eBay After Being Auctioned By ...

news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16232070 - 翻譯這個網頁
12 hours ago – An Olympic torch has sold on eBay for £153100 just one day after the first leg of the relay.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13424048




1992
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012

London Summer 2012

Photo: The torch design for the 2011 Summer Games With London hosting the Games for a third time, a three-sided torch has been created by design firm Barber Osgerby. Golden, and made of shaped sheets of aluminium alloy, each torch is perforated with 8,000 holes representing the 8,000 torchbearers taking part in the relay. At 80cm it is one of the tallest torches but also one of the lightest, weighing 800-850g including its central propane-butane burner. Its proportions will allow it to be carried easily by younger torchbears.

倫敦奧運會火炬獲設計大獎

更新時間 2012年 4月 25日, 星期三 - 格林尼治標準時間11:53
倫敦奧運會火炬
倫敦奧運會火炬的設計體現了傳統與現代的完美結合。
倫敦奧運會的火炬設計獲得了權威的 2012年英國設計年度大獎。
鋁合金材料製作的奧運火炬,是由英國設計室——Barber Osgerby的設計小組設計的。
火炬周身有8000個小孔,代表參加火炬接力的8000名火炬手。
倫敦奧運會火炬設計在89個參賽作品中脫穎而出。
大獎由主辦者,倫敦設計博物館頒發。
另一個奧運會設計,自行車賽館,獲得了建築設計大獎。
奧林匹克火炬接力將在奧運會開幕前進行70天。火炬接力線路貫穿英倫三島。
倫敦設計博物館館長蘇吉克(D Sudjic)說,倫敦奧運火炬的設計是「象徵與美麗」的勝利。
他說,倫敦奧運火炬的設計顯示了,傳統的質量與現代的形式可以完美的結合在一起。




Although harking back to ancient times, the Olympic torch relay is a modern phenomenon which began in 1936. For each Olympic Games, a new torch is designed to carry the flame on a journey to the host city.
CLICKABLE Explore the torches below to find out more.

2012年5月18日 星期五

The Barnes Foundation 2012



Art Review

A Museum, Reborn, Remains True to Its Old Self, Only Better

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
The new Barnes Foundation, in a new shell in Philadelphia. More Photos »

PHILADELPHIA — The Barnes Foundation’s move from suburban Philadelphia to the center of the city caused art lovers lots of worry.
Multimedia

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
The west wall of the main room of the new Barnes Foundation in Philadelphia, with Seurat’s “Models” over Cézanne’s “Card Players.” More Photos »
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Matisse’s Fauve masterpiece “Joie de Vivre,” in a new spot. More Photos »
Devotees of this great polyglot collection, heavy with Renoir, Cézanne and Matisse, which the omnivore art shopper Albert C. Barnes amassed between 1912 and his death in 1951, were appalled by the idea. Barnes spent years obsessively arranging his installation cheek-by-jowl in the mansion in Lower Merion, Pa., that he built for the purpose and opened in 1925, and he stipulated that, after he died, it should remain exactly as it was. 

In 2002 the foundation’s board — constrained by limits on attendance and public hours imposed by zoning restrictions — announced plans to relocate. Many people, including a group that sued to stop the move, were sure that it could only desecrate this singular institution.
Others, myself included, did not object to the move per se, but felt that faithfully reproducing the old Barnes in the new space, as promised by the trustees, was a terrible idea. To us it seemed time to at least loosen up Barnes’s straitjacketed displays, wonderful as they often were. And why go to the trouble of moving the collection to a more accessible location when the galleries were not going to be any bigger?
And yet the new Barnes proves all of us wrong. Against all odds, the museum that opens to the public on Saturday is still very much the old Barnes, only better.
It is easier to get to, more comfortable and user-friendly, and, above all, blessed with state-of-the-art lighting that makes the collection much, much easier to see. And Barnes’s exuberant vision of art as a relatively egalitarian aggregate of the fine, the decorative and the functional comes across more clearly, justifying its perpetuation with a new force.
As a result, his quirky institution is suddenly on the verge of becoming the prominent and influential national treasure that it has long deserved to be. It is also positioned to make an important contribution to the way we look at and think about art. 

Tod Williams Billie Tsien Architects, who pulled off this feat — and somehow managed to avoid the feeling of plastic fakeness that Barnes purists and Barnes skeptics alike were anticipating — deserves our gratitude. The Merion building and its 24 galleries, and Barnes’s arrangements within them, have been recreated with amazing fidelity in terms of proportions, window placement and finishings, albeit in a slightly more modern style. The structure is oriented to the south, exactly as in Merion; the same mustard-colored burlap covers the walls; the same plain wood molding outlines doors and baseboards. 

As for Barnes’s arrangements, almost nothing is out of place: not one of the hundreds of great French paintings, none of the pieces of Americana, nor any of the Greek or African sculptures, the small New Mexican wood-panel santos or the scores of wrought-iron hinges, locks, door handles and whatnot that dot the interstices like unusually tangible bits of wallpaper pattern, often subtly reiterating the compositions of the paintings. 

The only change to the installation — a big improvement — is the removal of the colorful fantasy of nudes in a landscape that is Matisse’s great Fauve masterpiece, “Joie de Vivre,” from its humiliating position on the stairway landing to a large alcove on the balcony overlooking the main gallery. 

At the same time, some major systemic improvements make everything breathe in a new way. Especially important is the lighting system, designed by Paul Marantz, which seamlessly mixes natural and artificial illumination into a diffuse, even light, and had early visitors asking if some of the paintings had been cleaned. (They hadn’t.) There is also the spatial largess: The recreated building is set within a larger structure that includes a raft of amenities, among them a cafe, an auditorium and a gracious garden court with lots of padded benches, as well as a 5,000-square-foot temporary exhibition gallery that pulses with curatorial possibility.
Barnes’s arrangements are as eye-opening, intoxicating and, at times, maddening as ever, maybe more so. They mix major and minor in relentlessly symmetrical patchworks that argue at once for the idea of artistic genius and the pervasiveness of talent. Nearly every room is an exhibition unto itself — a kind of art wunderkammer, or cabinet of curiosities — where you can spend hours parsing the echoes and divergences among the works in terms of color, composition, theme, surface and light. 

In Room 4, two Chardins flank a (school of) El Greco beneath 16th-century carved-wood reliefs from France; almost all depict women engaged in various tasks. In Room 14, painted Chinese fans hover beside Matisse’s magnificent 1907 portrait of his wife in a red madras headdress, with a folkish Surrealist painting by Jean Hugo, great-grandson of Victor, positioned above. Several American Modernists make recurring appearances, including Charles Demuth, Maurice Prendergast and William Glackens, a former high school classmate of Barnes’s who turned him on to Modern art; so, to lesser extent, do artists who taught at the Barnes. In front of several Renoirs are wonderful pots by that painter’s son, the future filmmaker Jean.
The twin poles of Barnes’s world are Renoir, represented by 181 works (the largest concentration in the world), and Cézanne, represented by 69. Barnes never seemed to tire of playing these two giants off each other, alternating the fuzzy, sybaritic pinks of Renoir’s forms — whether female or floral — with Cézanne’s anxious, angular blues, greens and rusts, played out in landscapes, still lifes and numerous paintings of bathers, early and late, small and large.
Their back-and-forth dominates several galleries, and the Renoirs are so ubiquitous that at times they seem to become a kind of background noise. That is, until you come up against a great one, like “Leaving the Conservatory,” an imposing full-length grouping of several Parisians dressed in shades of gray that hangs above a predominantly gray-blue Pennsylvania Dutch blanket chest. These wonderful chests, of which there are several outstanding examples, as well as the numerous ceramics, affirm Barnes’s appreciation of painting as a free-range language expressed in various materials, not only oil on canvas. 

There are also seemingly endless surprises, like the lone work by the postwar Italian artist Afro in Room 10, which also contains a veritable Matisse retrospective, including a small, early still life that you could swear is a Manet, and numerous works by Picasso and Modigliani.
And there are oddities everywhere that might not pass muster in a more conventional museum, like a European, possibly 15th-century, panel in Room 23, depicting a Flight Into Egypt. The colors are rich, the figures big and wonderfully drawn, but the real life of the picture emanates from the greenery, applied in loose splotches that bring to mind the brushy, sponged-on glazes of American redware ceramics. Looking at the slightly bizarre bits of green, you have no idea if they were part of the original picture or added later, but you don’t care, and perhaps Barnes did not, either. It made a point about continuities of human touch and technique, and he went for it.
In many ways the rebirth of the Barnes could not be better timed. It occurs at a point of intense public interest in art — witness the fact that since the project’s groundbreaking in November 2009, membership has jumped from 400 to nearly 20,000 — and it approaches art with an unfettered directness that is becoming rare among major American museums, of which the Barnes is now one. 

At a moment when so many museums seem bent on turning themselves into entertainment and social centers, or frequently mount dry, overly academic exhibitions, the Barnes irrefutably foregrounds art and nonverbal visual experience. The galleries are devoid of text panels and even wall labels; most works have the artist’s last name or some other cultural identification nailed to their frames, and there are printed guides stored in benches in each gallery that identify the works on view. 

Audio guides will be available, but really, there is nothing to do here but look at art and think for yourself. The dense clusters and juxtapositions provide more than enough to work with: a visual deluge of forms — in different mediums and materials, from widely spread times and places — that make looking and thinking reflexive, rapturous and liberating. 

At the same time, the relocation of the Barnes, with all its mixings and juxtapositions, comes at a time when curators of all kinds — from museum professionals to artists organizing gallery group shows — are increasingly interested in cross-cultural, cross-medium presentations of artworks. In this regard the Barnes looks utterly prescient. 

And let’s not overlook the implications of that temporary gallery, which is opening with an exhibition about Barnes’s life and the history of the foundation. This space creates the possibility of a new flexibility with regard to the meticulous re-creation of the Merion galleries. They suggest that the Barnes may be able to have its cake and eat it too, hold on to its past and also forge a new future. 

Barnes purists may consider this heresy, but Barnes’s installation should sometimes change and move a little. There are moments, especially in the upstairs galleries among the plethora of drawings and Greek and African objects, where the presentation palls and oppresses a bit, even now. The symmetrical patchwork doesn’t always come across as meticulously assembled; it can seem arbitrary and maniacally crowded. More generally, there is simply too much there for everything to remain in perpetual lockdown. 

The Barnes curators need to come up with creative ways — say for two or three months, every other year — to extract certain works from the gallery collection, walk them across the garden court and put them on view in the temporary-exhibition galleries for less encumbered viewing. Set out all the African works, for example. Give us a Cézanne or a Matisse retrospective. Or a survey of the Pennsylvania Dutch blanket chests and related Americana whose hues and surfaces Barnes was so alive to. 

Barnes did so much, more than he was capable of knowing. We can know how much only if his orchestrations are taken apart and rearranged ever so slightly and briefly, once in a while. It is great that Tod Williams and Billie Tsien, the architects, adhered to his vision so sensitively, providing a kind of unwaveringly accurate baseline. But every so often the pieces of even his most revelatory ensembles should be freed from his matrix, just as his amazing achievement has been liberated from Merion.



2012年5月17日 星期四

誰害怕中央電視台總部大樓?




中央電視台總部大樓,是北京商務中心區的一座中國中央電視台所有建築物,內含央視總部大樓、電視文化中心、服務樓、慶典廣場,由德國人奧雷·舍人和荷蘭人庫哈斯帶領大都會建築事務所(OMA)設計[3]。中央電視台總部大樓建築外形前衛,被美國時代》評選為2007年世界十大建築奇跡,並列的有北京當代萬國城國家體育場。之後,在網路上盛傳設計師庫哈斯解釋其設計初衷為男女生殖崇拜。[4] 為此,庫哈斯在網站上刊登聲明辟謠。[5]中央電視台總部大樓50億人民幣建成,而其中一座北配樓已經在2009年2月9日元宵節大火中嚴重焚毀。2009年10月底開始進行修復工作,並於2012年5月16日竣工[6]體育頻道是首先搬入新台址的部門。





誰害怕中國人?

《日報》認為,新落成的央視大樓很醜陋,與其初衷相背,成了建築藝術的恥辱。而北京的這類醜陋建築比比皆是。 《世界報》評論說,對於崛起的中國,西方缺乏政治戰略的遠景。


(德國之聲中文網)針對中央電視台新址主樓竣工,《日報》5月16日認為,"這在中國是不尋常的,通常情況下,搬進這樣一個富麗堂皇的建築,任何中國企業都會不失時機地以相應的富麗堂皇去慶祝的,特別是這幢樓關係到中國的最大國家電視台--中央電視台的新總部,而且是在北京的最佳位置。然而,星期三晚上的正式開幕儀式很節制。

"可能原因在於,這個醜陋的大建築經過一共10年的建造,吞掉了數十億美元,從4年前開始看上去似乎已經建好,從而對北京人來說不再是真正的轟動新聞了。……

"我們從而就遇到了第二個原因,這個怪異建築從一開始就沒有好風水,……其使用面積43萬平米,是僅次於華盛頓五角大樓的世界第二大辦公樓。

"然而,按照傳統的風水學說,(央視大樓)建造的尖角太多、太冷、太粗笨,從各個方面都招邪靈。也就是說,到處都有很大的穿堂風。"

"建築藝術的恥辱"

"事​​實上這個區塊對稱的樓房雖然引起轟動,讓人第一眼看到會因其傾斜的龐大建築目瞪口呆。可是這個大建築也是醜陋的,幾乎沒有一個北京人真正從心底里喜歡它。是一位出租車司機第一個將這個建築比作穿舊了的褲衩(大褲衩),從此這個名字在俗語中不脛而走。"

該報認為:"然而建築師也沒有給央視塔樓帶來光彩,德國建築師奧雷·舍仁(Ole Scheeren)與荷蘭建築師庫哈斯(Rem Koolhaas)設計的結構,並負責建築工程的完成。然而,從交通和環境政策角度來看,他們製造的是一個巨大的建築錯誤,在其它地方沒有類似的建築,也沒有歐洲建築師會再設計這樣的藍圖。

"1萬名工作人員每天從上午9點到下午5點同時進入和離開這個大樓。在北京本已擁擠不堪的這個角落,這一龐大建築恐怕會進一步導致交通完全癱瘓。"

文章指出:"……本來計劃是要作為北京的新標誌和現代化中國的象徵的,結果卻成了建築藝術的恥辱和污點。令人遺憾的是,在中國首都,由於狂妄自大,此類建築比比皆是。"

"誰害怕中國人?"

《世界報》5月16日在評介對話錄《21世紀是屬於中國的嗎? 》時寫道:"誰害怕中國人?可能有人會以為所有人都害怕,從持續衰弱的歐洲人同樣還有債台高築的美國人,到日益老化的日本社會以及與中國相鄰的國家。然而,與美國人不同的是,歐洲人沒有辦法抑制自己的恐懼。

"誰想知道,面對北京,歐洲有什麼樣的政治戰略,他只會一無所知。歐洲將中國視為出口市場,對它沒有什麼政治上的遠景。美國卻不是這樣,那裡的主要人物相當一段時間以來就在思考,下個世紀是否會是中國的世紀以及西方應該以什麼樣的方式做出回應。從要求重新振興喬治·凱南(George Kennan)針對蘇聯所設計的遏制政策,到提供廣泛的合作,各種想法應有盡有。"

評論說,該書對話者中只有哈佛的經濟史家弗格森(Niall Ferguson)"真地相信北京將在21世紀統治世界"。 "弗格森提醒說中國將利用美國人的虛弱,毫無顧忌地貫徹自己的利益。"

摘譯:林泉

責編:苗子










中央電視台總部大樓


中央電視台新總部
別名 大褲衩、智窗
建築物資料
地點 北京東三環
光華路
地理坐標 39.91347°N 116.45805°E
動工日期 2004年
技術細節
樓層數量 44
佔地面積 389079平方米
電梯層數 75
設計建設團隊
所有者 中國中央電視台
管理者 中國中央電視台
主承包商 中建
建築師 大都會建築事務所
華東建築設計研究院
開發商 中國中央電視台
結構工程師 Ove Arup & Partners
參考
[1][2]







2012年5月15日 星期二

Eisenhower Memorial

Eisenhower Memorial




Architect offers Eisenhower Memorial revisions that stress leadership over youth


Representatives of architect Frank Gehry unveiled changes to the proposed memorial honoring Dwight D. Eisenhower on Tuesday in an effort to quiet months of roiling criticism that the original failed to adequately reflect the scope of the 34th president’s achievements.
The new proposal, unveiled at an Eisenhower Memorial Commission meeting, retains the metal tapestries surrounding an urban park framework, but offers changes to the memorial core that the architect hopes will give greater prominence to Eisenhower’s stature and accomplishments.

Video
Frank Gehry talks about designing the Dwight D. Eisenhower memorial. “I fell in love with the idea of trying to represent him in this unlikely site,” Gehry said about the planned memorial.
Frank Gehry talks about designing the Dwight D. Eisenhower memorial. “I fell in love with the idea of trying to represent him in this unlikely site,” Gehry said about the planned memorial.
Gone are bas-relief sculptures in favor of three-dimensional, heroic-size statues of Eisenhower as president and general, with space for his accomplishments on the stone blocks and quotations on lintels above them. The changes address some of the original design’s focus on Eisenhower’s modesty by putting forth a more muscular representation of his leadership.
In a letter to the commissioners read by Meaghan Lloyd, Gehry’s chief of staff, Gehry indicated that he had considered the feedback and criticism generated by his initial proposal. “I love this type of collaboration,” he wrote. “It is a process that I think is vital to the success of any endeavor and one that was necessary to make sense of sometimes contradictory characterizations of President Eisenhower.” The changes help “tell the story of Eisenhower with more dignity and power,” he said in the letter.

The Eisenhower family criticized the original design as invoking images of Soviet mythmaking and Nazi-era barbarism. The family did not attend the Tuesday meeting but is expected to weigh in on the new design before the commission meets again, possibly within a week. At that meeting, the commission is expected to decide whether to send the plan forward to the National Capital Planning Commission.

Planners hope to break ground on the four-acre memorial this year. Projected to cost an estimated $110 million, the memorial would be bisected by Maryland Avenue SW, just south of the Mall and would be situated in front of the Education Department and across from the National Air and Space Museum — buildings that tie in with Eisenhower’s legacy.
The design features large, see-through metal tapestries bordering three sides of the monument, depicting outdoor scenes from Eisehnower’s boyhood home of Abilene, Kan. The original core featured a young Eisenhower sculpted to look out onto bas-relief forms representing his dual military and presidential careers.

Much of the criticism from the family, conservatives and architectural traditionalists focused on the tapestries and their portrayal of Eisenhower’s humble roots. Critics thought the emphasis on his rural boyhood came at the expense of his later accomplishments as World War II Supreme Allied Commander and, especially, president.

Some attacked Gehry’s designs as too modern and self-aggrandizing. In December, Eisenhower’s grandson, David Eisenhower, resigned from the commission. At a March congressional subcommittee meeting, Eisenhower’s granddaughter, Susan Eisenhower, critically compared Gehry’s design to Communist-era decorations that honored “Marx, Engels and Lenin.” The metal tapestries were likened to fences in Nazi death camps. She called for a total redesign.

Gehry’s supporters, including commission member Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), countered with a March letter from the Eisenhower Memorial Commission expressing its “unqualified support” for Gehry. The new and possibly final design features portrayals of Eisenhower with soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division before the invasion of Normandy and the 1966 Yousuf Karsh “Elder Statesman” photo of Eisenhower as 9-foot statues. Proposed inscriptions detail his military accomplishments and the “Peace and Prosperity” of his presidency.

After the Tuesday meeting, critics said the new design still did not address key conceptual and aesthetic concerns. Justin Shubow, president of National Civic Art Society, says the memorial “still portrays Eisenhower as an unrecognizable boy or young man, which is at its core.”
Milton Grenfell, vice chairman of the civic art society and a classical architecture advocate, said the new design remained overscale, “with huge iron curtains,” and called the inscribed stones perched atop one another “willful” and “anti-aesthetic,” giving a feeling of “something that’s not going to last.” He said he hoped Congress would have a chance to weigh in.
Commissioner Alfred Geduldig said the group had been working on the memorial for about 12 years “to make sure all bases are covered. We’re at a point, looking at these very impressive models, where we really can feel it.”
Related stories:
Interactive: Experience the Eisenhower Memorial plans
The Eisenhower Memorial design: Gehry’s plan and what went wrong


They met in the offices of Sen. Daniel Inouye, in one of the ornate rooms of the old Capitol that are among the perks of office for the president pro tempore. Members of the Eisenhower Memorial Commission sat around a heavy round table, while their staffers crowded in from the sides. A March fire blazed in the fireplace.
They were looking for a way forward. More than a decade after the commission had been formed to create a memorial to the 34th president of the United States and the man who led Allied troops to victory in Europe in World War II, the Eisenhower Memorial was suddenly in the news, attacked from all sides, including by the grandchildren of the man it was meant to honor.