http://www.calendarlive.com/media/photo/2006-01/21257318.gif

ARCHITECTURE
A light touch
Disney Hall is aglow now at night. That's not as simple as it sounds.



By Scott Timberg, Times Staff Writer


It's twilight on an early winter night downtown, and in front of Walt Disney Concert Hall, a few Angelenos stroll by on their way to dinner. A scattering of visitors, seeing the building for the first time, stop to take in its undulating curves. An out-of-town architect raves about the striking use of disparate materials. Two young tourists from Thailand photograph each other.

Ask about Frank O. Gehry's hall, which has evolved from a long-delayed white elephant to an architectural landmark, and these Grand Avenue pedestrians may hail the graceful surfaces or complain about the way the building's interior and exterior don't seem to speak to each other.


But what most of them need pointed out to them is that the only reason they can see the hall tonight, to praise or bury it, is that a new lighting system, a year in the making, was switched on at the beginning of the Los Angeles Philharmonic's current season. That system has been making the building visible to nighttime commuters only since the end of daylight saving time in late October.

In short, people continue to argue about Disney Hall's daring architecture more than two years after its appearance, but the building's lighting already seems to most like common sense. Which perfectly fits the ambitions of James Schipper and Mark Flaisher — lighting designer and project manager, respectively, of the plan commissioned by the Music Center.

"What they basically asked us to do," Flaisher says, "was to illuminate the building for presence, so you could see it at night — and really no more than that."

Despite what might sound like a simple assignment, the idiosyncratic nature of Gehry's building, clad in more than 6,000 stainless steel panels, made the execution a challenge for the two men, both of whom work for Culver City-based Kinetic Lighting, which lights such events as movie premieres, fashion shows and corporate parties. (The firm previously did "theatrical lighting" for the hall's opening and its galas, which required a vastly more colorful, extroverted effect than the permanent scheme.)

"If it was simply a blank white-box building, it would have been much more straightforward," adds Schipper, who says the project required something akin to artistry.

"What I enjoy about it," he says, "is that when you walk down Grand Avenue, just as the architecture doesn't look the same from any one location, neither does the lighting. The highlights and shadows and different surfaces really come into play."

The pair's goal when choosing angles, intensities and color "temperatures" — light that seems white covers an enormous spectrum, from the very warmest to the very coolest — was to respect the building and its subtlety.

"We found that what everyone liked most was a color temperature that resembled moonlight," Flaisher says. Technically, that means lights set at about 4,000 degrees Kelvin — the standard measure of color temperature — or somewhere between a relatively warm indoor incandescent bulb (about 3,000 Kelvin) and relatively cool high noon (roughly 5,500 Kelvin).

Similarly, the electricity was kept relatively low, at 400 watts for each light. "If we went any higher, it would have lost some of the architectural detail," Flaisher says. "It would have looked like you were going to a stadium or something."

Limmy Park, an Angeleno showing off the building to some friends from upstate New York, is among those who approve. "They're not too strong," she says. "If they were too strong, the shape would be too strong too. It's very smooth."

That doesn't means a mellow white light is always mellow or always white. In the early stages of the testing process, Flaisher and Schipper took a single light and projected it onto several different parts of the building, which is highly reflective of the ambient light in the area.

"There was this odd red glow coming from one of the panels," Schipper recalls. "We couldn't for the life of us figure out where it was coming from — until all of a sudden it changed into a green glow. It turned out to be a street light a few blocks away."

A few adjustments, and the lighting went back to being white.

As with any such project, restrictions were imposed from the beginning. No lights could be affixed to the hall itself or set on its grounds. What are called dark-sky government regulations, designed to keep the stars above visible, had to be observed. Neighbors who complained when the sunlight refracted off the hall's exterior virtually microwaved their condos and offices could not be hit with excessive glare.

The solution was to perch lights on five existing lampposts across Grand Avenue from the hall and to put fixtures on the roof of the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion to shine across 1st Street. This combination of floodlights and spotlights, Flaisher says, was about balancing aesthetics with function.

For most observers, the balance seems to have worked; some even speculate that the greater illumination on the surrounding sidewalks could be good for downtown's on-again, off-again street life. Times music critic Mark Swed has gone on record as a detractor (he wrote in a concert review of "banal lighting that diminishes the steel's sensuality"), and Gehry, who mused in an interview many years ago that metal buildings are tricky to light, has not returned Times calls for comment.

There is one person, though, who spends a lot of time at Disney Hall and doesn't buy the talk about understatement and balance.

"I think if they lighted the whole building, it would be much nicer," says Sean Eskandar, a Disney Hall parking valet. He points to the way, as the building rises, the light fades, leaving the top of the uppermost metal panels dark.

"It's silver — it would shine."

I think the building was very ugly at night becasue you could,t even see it. But now, this is all it needed. Can't wait for Grand Avenue Project to be right in front of it.

The thread's title should be rephrased as Los Angeles' new greatest architectural urban landmark. Not America's. That would make a better sense.

Here we go again, don't start anything.

The thread's title should be rephrased as Los Angeles' new greatest architectural urban landmark. Not America's. That would make a better sense.


It surpasses America's. It will go down as one of the most striking architectual statements of the 21st century in the world. Hell, even the Eiffel Tower was hated in the beginning!

and the Twin Towers were hated in the begining too and then everybody liked them.

yea but everybody's like wdh from the beginning so does that mean we'll endup hating it lol.....anyways i think silverlake is going a litle to far in his title,best maybe greatest NO.

who gives a crap about the tittle. Btw now you people are just looking for a mistake Silverlake makes to start something. Damn, keep it down!!!

I think the joker does it on purpose actually. Nobody is really that naive.

And to be honest I believe Calatrava's work of art on Milwaukee's lakefront is far more critically acclaimed.

Seriously, it will be a point in time where every major city has a Gehry that is comperable to that. There are a handfull of cities that already have the flowing ribbon design. There is nothing utterly unique to the Disney Hall to say that it THE masterpiece landmark of America in the last 20 years. I also agree with the poster above that the Calatrave piece in Milwaukee is far more bold and unique and easy on the eyes. Some here probably don't know where Milwaukee is though so its maybe you are not even aware of the piece.

You're right. No one fifteen miles from Lake Michigan has heard of the Caltrava but everything must look better when you are sloshed on Old Milwaukee,

^

He didn't say "no one" has heard of it... he said some people here. You know, guys like klamedia and silverlake who couldn't point to Milwaukee on a map. As far as I know the Calatrava is world renown and has been written in the NY Times, etc. If you are even remotely into architecture, you have definetly heard of it and know what it looks like.

You're right. No one fifteen miles from Lake Michigan has heard of the Caltrava but everything must look better when you are sloshed on Old Milwaukee,

Calatrava?! Calatrava?! The man's amazing, svs! Turning Torso, 80 South Street, Fordham Spire, WTC transit center....He's as big as they get.

I do like the Disney Concert Hall, though. :)

klamedia: I'm loving the sig! :lol:

Calatrava is indeed as big as you get when it comes to starchitects.

By the way, I am not dissing the Disney Hall is not nice. It looks real nice (though not really my style but I could easily see why it catches others eye). It is just that Gehry has so repeated his signature look that his projects have become repetitive and not very orginal. It is the same reason I was a bit dissapointed when he was chose to build the new music pavillion in Millenium Park in Chicago. It looks real nice but it has the same charechteristics and look to all his other flowing ribbon designs.

Calatrava runs the same risk in a way with his twisting buildings as well. While I like his idea for the FS in Chicago I could likely never give it the ultimate praise for the same reasons as I can't give Gehry too much praise for his ribbon design.

I realize that everyone in Chicago is going nuts about this guy because he wants to build another tall one near the loop. Not really my taste but I admit I was overly nasty in my post because of the attitude coming through from the anti-la crowd as well as the fact that it looks like Texas justed ended USC's winning streak. I apologize for the sarcasm.

One indication of Calatrava's stature at the top of the pile of starchitechts is the fact that the Metropolitan Museum of Art dedicated a special exhibit to him -- an honor accorded no other living architect since Marcel Breur, who was featured in such an exhibit in 1972. The Quadracci Pavillion in Milwaukee is nothing to be sniffed at or dismissed lightly. It is one of Calatrava's greatest works.

^

He didn't say "no one" has heard of it... he said some people here. You know, guys like klamedia and silverlake who couldn't point to Milwaukee on a map. As far as I know the Calatrava is world renown and has been written in the NY Times, etc. If you are even remotely into architecture, you have definetly heard of it and know what it looks like.

Yeah, where the fuck is "Milwaukee"?? I think it's a suburb of Chicago.......somewhere in the "rusting" belt, right????

The thread's title should be rephrased as Los Angeles' new greatest architectural urban landmark. Not America's. That would make a better sense.

you should watch what you say. you never know. :cool:

I was curious to check this thread about so-called landmark. To my disappointment, nothing in this article indicated Disney Hall is being heralded as the greatest architectural urban landmark in America. That is why I stress the thread title should be rephrased. It talked about improved lighting.

Yes, the girth of the article is about the lighting of the building, illuminating the facade. It was "Silverlake" who righteously heralded it as 'America's greatest architectual achievment'. This isn't altogether untrue, since post after post agreed with "Silverlake" ,including myself. In this forum, greatest cities, and greatest buildings and greatest etc.'s are based on gut reactions, opinions, emotions of whatever the forumer is trying to "big up", not on what the Metropolitan Museum of Art deems what is "good" and "respectable", and I hope it stays that way.

On the other hand if we go by these starched shirt organizations like the GaWC you'd probably have a hard time explaining why a city like Chicago with all of its history, stunning architecture and uber-urbaness has only made it to second tier status of Alpha cities along with no-culture, mini-mall riddled, sprawl addled LA.

So if "Silverlake" thinks Disney Hall is the greatest thing since fallopian food blogging, wots it to yah?

I was curious to check this thread about so-called landmark. To my disappointment, nothing in this article indicated Disney Hall is being heralded as the greatest architectural urban landmark in America. That is why I stress the thread title should be rephrased. It talked about improved lighting.

read the national and international reviews of it from a couple of years ago.

Well I hope more tourist notice this incredible piece of architecture now. I feel Disney Hall has been underrated.
The goes another stupid Chicagoan thrying to start something. Some of them don't get it. Let me spell it out G-E-T space O-U-T space O-F space H-E-R-E space !

^

If you notice the only time someone from Chicago posts is when Silverlake says something totally ridiculous. The LA is #1 BS has got to stop. This is a public forum with people from all over the country that read it and for being such an international, well rounded city, guys like Silverlake need to step up to the plate and actually act like they are from there. The very fact LA is always "dominant" in everything just shows tremendous insecurity and a completely myopic international view, which is the opposite of what LA stands for. And the fact that many Chicago forumers read this forum but apparently some of you guys never hop on over to the Chicago board demonstrates which forum is at least acting more global.

This is my last post ever in this forum though. It's just not worth the time because there is no discussion... Believe me I would actually like to discuss architecture and development... but there are two sides here: There is "LA is #1" and then there is reality. Reality always wins in the end but how can you discuss anything with a guy who's sig is "We are young. We look to the ocean. The coasts are always changing." Everything this guy does is a dig at somewhere other than LA, and everything about him is trying so hard to be like New York City it is pathetic. He is easily the most insecure person I have *ever* seen on ANY Internet forum, and I know this guy couldn't have possibly EVER been to NYC the way he talks, let alone outside of California!

And this is easily the most dead subforum on Skyscrapercity and for the 2nd biggest city in the country, that is pathetic. It says nothing of LA, but it says that clearly this forum has been ruined and it has not been ruined by Chicago forumers. Chicago forumers come in here when Silverlake posts something ridiculous like a thread who's purpose is to show just how much more LA is becoming like New York because people are starting to pay for parking!?

You need only to look at your very own Silverlake to know why this forum is so dead. I mean look at this guy's sig, his messages. I'm willing to bet everything I own he has never even been outside of LA. And then you have partners in crime like Vanstripp who is in HIGH SCHOOL and makes fun of people who are poor! What a joke. The rest of you seem reasonable but you have let your pride get the best of you because you haven't put Silverlake in reality, and his messages just make all of LA look horribly myopic and insecure, and that is something most of you guys aren't...

This is my last post ever in this forum though. It's just not worth the time because there is no discussion... Believe me I would actually like to discuss architecture and development... but there are two sides here: There is "LA is #1" and then there is reality. Reality always wins in the end but how can you discuss anything with a guy who's sig is "We are young. We look to the ocean. The coasts are always changing." Everything this guy does is a dig at somewhere other than LA and NYC. He is easily the most insecure person I have *ever* seen on ANY Internet forum, and I know this guy couldn't have possibly EVER been to NYC the way he talks, let alone outside of California!

And this is easily the most dead subforum on Skyscrapercity and for the 2nd biggest city in the country, that is pathetic. It says nothing of LA, but it says that clearly this forum has been ruined and it has not been ruined by Chicago forumers. Chicago forumers come in here when Silverlake posts a thread who's purpose is to show just how much more LA is becoming like New York because people are starting to pay for parking!?

You need only to look at your very own Silverlake to know what this forum is so dead. I mean look at this guy's sig, his messages. I'm willing to be everything I own he has never even been outside of LA. And then you have partners in crime like Vanstripp who is in HIGH SCHOOL and makes fun of people who are poor! What a joke. The rest of you seem reasonable but you have let your pride get the best of you because you haven't put Silverlake in reality, and his messages just make all of LA look horribly myopic and insecure, and that is something most of you guys aren't...

Silverlake doesn't speak for all of us and most certainly doesn't portray how I personally feel. I'm sorry you feel that way.

No worries Westside.... it is guys like you who probably gave up on this guy long before I even came on here for the first time that are the true LA. The international, the global, the well travelled who doesn't waste your time with this nonsense. That is the Los Angeles I know.

Later dude...

I ask all Chicago forumers and every other city to do the same and just ignore Silverlake from now on. It's just not worth our time.

Id ignore him, thats all you can really do. As someone said earlier, he doesn't represent none of us or Los Angeles.

Id ignore him, thats all you can really do. As someone said earlier, he doesn't represent none of us or Los Angeles.

We need moderator in LA forum as called "Big Angelino King". :cheers:

good job yoyoniner,you really expressed some of the things i wanted to say...

as to the la forum,sorry but you guys are a joke to ssc other than some forummers on the la forum most of you guys seem to be around just to talk about how great la is and talk about crap that has no point in being in a forum about architecture or skyscrapers...again some of you are ok but alot of you guys are just around because you have nothing better to do then boost your city.

Back off, guys... This forum's fine. :)

Nah, Silverlake is right about architecture and urban but he just talk about stuff in our own city. Who cares with architecture and urban in other cities and we aren't talk about architecture and urban in other cities, it's LA forum. If writers or other person said that LA has new urban landmark with great architecture is just part of their opinion, don't bashing on their opinion. I only know that LA has best modern architecture in US and found early modern in 1920's. I don't including with classic architecture but Tokyo is just urban with modern architecture, LA is just next to their way, LA don't need be Chicago or NYC with bunch of brick buildings. Some forumers from east coast including Chicgoans need to leave Silverlake alone, just let him to post whatever he want. Most LA forumers and I had never complain about him though.

^Nobody's complaining. They're simply encouraging him to get a grip on reality.

^Nobody's complaining. They're simply encouraging him to get a grip on reality.

I know, I just saw him to bash on Chicago for no reason too but I thought he already got over it.

I think for the most part most of the people on the LA forum are good. I know I'm trying to support my city but no one seems to be interested in LA. I guess that can explain why some of you think it is a waste of space on this site.

I think the cause of some of the animosity and insecurity on the LA forum is because we feel that our city isn't getting as much attention as it deserves. I also think that happens because outsiders to LA just aren't that fascinated with this city because it hasn't clearly discovered itself yet. LA isn't an easy city to be in. And I think that when you visit here or move here, you'll have a hard time understanding what makes this city special. LA does feel like a cluster of suburbs. LA really isn't a city but a culture. You really need to get to know LA first before you can truly understand its importance and that's why some of the people on this site act the way they do and think the way they do.

nevermind

I think the cause of some of the animosity and insecurity on the LA forum is because we feel that our city isn't getting as much attention as it deserves.

Us Chicagoans now how you feel. While NY and LA get much of the media's attention, Chicago is left like the middle child.

I'm sorry, but the greatest architectural landmark in America would be the Empire State Building.

Us Chicagoans now how you feel. While NY and LA get much of the media's attention, Chicago is left like the middle child.


So YOU feel that Chicago isn't getting as much attention as it deserves? It's certainly getting more than LA! But you don't like it when Silverlake bashes Chicago. So how do you think we feel when people stereotype our city?

Enough of this Chicago vs. LA bullshit. Just ignore people who start shit for no apparent reason.

I'm sorry, but the greatest architectural landmark in America would be the Empire State Building.


That's your opinion.

the greatest architectural landmark in America would be the Empire State Building.
I agree with you. The ESB is truly gorgeous and worthy as one of the wonders of the world.

I agree with you. The ESB is truly gorgeous and worthy as one of the wonders of the world.

i like the statue of liberty more even though it's not really considered architectural.

Enough of this Chicago vs. LA bullshit. Just ignore people who start shit for no apparent reason.

That's what I'm talking about.......... Hopefully we don't get more annoying dumb fucks on our threads. :guns1:

And to be honest I believe Calatrava's work of art on Milwaukee's lakefront is far more critically acclaimed.

It isn't. I'm an architectural buff and I remember Quadracci got positive reviews, but nowhere near the level of acclaim that Disney Hall got. Very rarely does something like Disney Hall come along where it gets almost universal praise from the critics. And deservedly so.

Frank Gehry isn't going to reinvent the wheel. Neither is Calatrava. To expect that they do with every building is being facinated with novelty rather than trying to understand the language that the architect is trying to express. Picasso got the same type of undeserved criticism.

But I'm willing to bet that Disney Hall goes down as atleast his second if not best work, and that's saying a lot from someone who is proclaimed as the world's most famous current architect.

Enough of this Chicago vs. LA bullshit. Just ignore people who start shit for no apparent reason.


No doubt. This thread had absolutely nothing to do with Chicago, but for some reason, Chicagoans get all bent out of shape.

I called this the New Greatest architectural urban landmark in that it is the 21st Century ESB.

A landmark building built by the nation's most famous architect since frankL wright in the heart of America's second largest city. All of those factors fuse to make this a landmark of a landmark. If it is built in Milwaukee, or Fresno or Topeka it is an interesting work of architecture, but the fact that it is in LA makes it monmumental. Just like if the ESB was built in Baton Rouge or Topeka. It would be a grand building but that fact that it is NY, where the focus of the world is, makes it a "greatest" landmark.

No doubt. This thread had absolutely nothing to do with Chicago, but for some reason, Chicagoans get all bent out of shape.

I called this the New Greatest architectural urban landmark in that it is the 21st Century ESB.

A landmark building built by the nation's most famous architect since frankL wright in the heart of America's second largest city. All of those factors fuse to make this a landmark of a landmark. If it is built in Milwaukee, or Fresno or Topeka it is an interesting work of architecture, but the fact that it is in LA makes it monmumental. Just like if the ESB was built in Baton Rouge or Topeka. It would be a grand building but that fact that it is NY, where the focus of the world is, makes it a "greatest" landmark.

^No.
Calatrava's work in Milwaukee was his first in the US. When he built it, he hadn't designed the new WTC transit center, or the Fordham Spire in Chicago. The Museum addition in Milwaukee was internationally acclaimed, and that's a fact.

Gehry's work in LA is what, his 10th in the US? Didn't he build a campus building in Cleveland or something? He's not the most famous architect in the world, he's the most critisized.

I love LA, and I think it's the national forerunner for modern architecture. That being said, Disney Hall is beautiful, but it's just another Gehry.

The term "landmark" denotes originality and boundry-breaking. A quick glance at Disney Hall resembles Gehry's work in Bilboa, or any other work he's completed.

Btw wew would talk more about the LA dt projects, just that we don't have any new information. Why do people say this is a ad forum?, it's just a forum that has lots haters, and some out-of-towners that really want to help LA. It's just that a little spark lights up a bad discussion. I mean you guys don't have to leave just bare with wath Silverlake says. Some of you guys were a good addition to the LA forum.

I think the cause of some of the animosity and insecurity on the LA forum is because we feel that our city isn't getting as much attention as it deserves. I also think that happens because outsiders to LA just aren't that fascinated with this city because it hasn't clearly discovered itself yet. LA isn't an easy city to be in. And I think that when you visit here or move here, you'll have a hard time understanding what makes this city special. LA does feel like a cluster of suburbs. LA really isn't a city but a culture. You really need to get to know LA first before you can truly understand its importance and that's why some of the people on this site act the way they do and think the way they do.


you guys would probably get more attention if the discussion were more ontopic in myopinion

It's imagine it's probably hard to stay on topic when there are so many incendiary trolls.