NY Times obituary

I enjoyed his writing. Too young.

This is a parody of Muschamp's writing style that made the rounds immediately after the release of the first designs for ground zero after 9/11.


>A Critical Appraisal
>Special to The New York Times
>
>Striding down the row of design proposals for the World Trade Center site,
>balefully eyeing each inert mien and artificially enhanced plan, I was
>reminded of the scene in Showgirls where the choreographer grimly surveys
>his topless charges. Flicking a feather across their assembled nipples, he
>scolds, "Girls, if you are not erect, I'm not erect."
>
>Ladies and gentlemen, I've seen the master plan proposals from the Lower
>Manhattan Development Corporation, and, to put it mildly, I'm not erect.
>
>My heart sank as I watched John Beyer of the architectural firm Beyer Blinder
>Belle attempt to describe these hapless proposals. I was painfully reminded
>of another much more casual presentation one glorious autumn on Capri. The
>visionary Rem Koolhaas was holding forth on urban planning, shopping, life,
>and the smell of fresh basil. Wearing beautifully tailored trousers and a
>tight, cropped black top (need I add it was by Prada?) he gestured
>energetically as he spoke. With each gesture, his shirt rode up ever so
>slightly, revealing a tantalizing sliver of tan, taut tummy.
>
>It is this kind of energetic gesture that those of us who care about
>contemporary architecture hunger for so desperately. Beyer Blinder Belle's
>work is occasionally competent: certainly their by-the-numbers renovation of
>Grand Central Terminal pleases the hordes of moronic commuters who stream
>through it each day, but it will come as no surprise that this recidivist
>pile of marble is of little interest to the infinitely more important
>audience of attractive young European architectural students who make
>pilgrimages to our city each year and can barely choke back their tears of
>disappointment. John Beyer, whose exposed torso would be unpleasant for even
>the more adventuresome New Yorker to contemplate, must shoulder the blame for
>this catastrophic failure.
>
>It is now time to list these names: Frank Gehry, Peter Eisenman, Zaha Hadid,
>Elizabeth Diller and Ric Scofidio, Tod Williams and Billie Tsien, Steven
>Holl, and, of course, Rem Koolhaas. There.
>
>Is a little daring, a little excitement, a little sexiness too much to ask
>for on this sacred site? Lower Manhattan Development Corporation chairman
>John Whitehead and New York governor George Pataki would do well to rent a
>videotape of "All About Eve" and examine Bette Davis's behavior before the
>big party scene. Her character Margo Channing reaches into a candy dish and
>hesitates again and again before finally popping a candy into her mouth.
>This tantalizing motif "impulse, surrender, gratification" is the central
>one of the twenty-first century. It alone must provide the ideological
>blueprint for all architectural work being done anywhere in the world,
>including lower Manhattan. If this fails to make sense to the theme-park
>obsessed corporate apologists for big business, so be it.
>
>In the interest of full disclosure, my proposal for the site will be revealed
>at a time and place of my choosing. Fasten your seatbelts, New York.
>

What were the supposed to do? Hang toilets and orange flags?

Just kidding. I think he wrote a very interesting article recently on the Blue condo downtown, where he sheepishly admitted that he liked it.

Oh dear. I didn't even know he was sick.

I can't look at a building without thinking what he might say about it.

Oh that is sad. I didn't know he was ill, either. I always enjoyed his writing. And yes, too young.

I still remember reading his review of the LVMH tower on 57th street designed by Portzemparc which he loved. I think about it whenever I walk by.

Sheepishly? The surprise would have been if he didn't like it.

Maybe it wasn't him, although I'm pretty sure it was the Times.
I have to admit, the main way I following architecture is by looking out my window and cursing.

Not to diverge from the subject, but when the concrete infrastructure of a 40 or so story building is up, why must they leave 1,000 lights on all night? Just to get the neighborhood used to how annoyed they'll be when they look in the direction of the building?

I finally read the obituary this morning. Just wanted to quote this paragraph from it:

-------------------------------------------------

In a 5,900-word essay last year in the paper’s Arts & Leisure section, he explored the subversive character of 2 Columbus Circle — Edward Durell Stone’s lollipop building — and its connection to in the city’s gay subculture in the Sixties. He described his generation’s experience this way:

“We were the children of white flight, the first generation to grow up in postwar American suburbs. By the time the ’60s rolled around, many of us, the gay ones especially, were eager to make a U-turn and fly back the other way. Whether or not the city was obsolete, we couldn’t imagine our personal futures in any other form. The street and the skyline signified to us what the lawn and the highway signified to our parents: a place to breathe free.”