I recently had the opportunity to visit Milwaukee, WI, for the first time (thank you FUEL Milwaukee!). And visiting cities for the first time, to me, is particularly exciting. Arriving for the first time is a pure and unadulterated experience. First impressions matter and how a city presents itself to a first-time visitor is very important. I learned this from my friend Charles Landry.
Milwaukee Art Museum
I arrived via the airport with the typical location outside of city. My host takes the highway toward the city. As we approach the Hoan Bridge, we pass amid the Port of Milwaukee. On both sides, there are mountains of bulk materials and cranes. While not beautiful, there is the appearance of activity and a muscularity that says “we work here.” As we crest the bridge (with its own very strange design element) I am startled because the city presents itself there in panorama. The city in the hills to the left, the waters of Lake Michigan to the right. And to the right, near the lake, your eye is drawn to the white sails of the Santiago Calatrava masterpiece at the Milwaukee Art Museum. It looks so different and unexpected in the tableau that one cannot help but to stare. Unexpected because this is the Midwest where modern iconic design is not the norm and that is not a shot; I am originally from the Midwest! More photos click here.
While many question the value of “starchitects” and iconic design, I have to say that my impression of Milwaukee was and is shaped in no small part because of that building. It is different and it says something about Milwaukee that no amount of advertising and marketing could equal. It says in a profound way “we are not what you expect” and that Milwaukee is looking to the future and beyond the beer brewery image of its past. The building says it in a visible and demonstrable way that one cannot deny.
Cities that are arguing over the cost/benefits of such iconic architecture should consider the context in which the new building will occur. In starchitect-rich Singapore, one more Calatrava or Libeskind is just keeping up with the crowd. In cities with a dearth of quality architecture (lots of those) or cities that need to redefine themselves in the 21st century, a new building can be a catalyst for new design and a whole host of other values.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:10 am
I may agree with you, but after the building, what next?
Everyone in Europe was mad about Bilbao and the Guggemheim by Frank Gehry. Ok, the concept is fantastic, but try to ask somebody if there is anything else in Bilbao.
Generally there is a long silence and the guy turn to another subject.
I really think that this kind of architecture must follow a real economic activity. The best exemple for me is the Eiffel Tower – it was at the time some kind of advertising for ironing and technical matters and it is still in place and is choosen as the Paris’Icon.
We in Nantes(Western France), are thinking to build a strange project named “l’arbre aux hérons” (herons’tree-30m high). If we develop an eco-industry strategy, this symbol will be very useful and a real icon. If not, this will be another merry-go-round and nothing else.
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:21 am
The Guggenheim in Bilbao changed the city. Bilbao was a dirty, poor city with nothing. Now it’s the place to be in Northern Spain.
Nearby St.Sebastian was the beautiful coast town with it’s medieval city center. It lost big time from Bilbao.
The Guggenheim was the starting point, the turning point, to move up. Of course Bilbao had everything to attract the creative class and to get it moving. The Guggenheim made it happen. AJ
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
I agree with both Maurice & Albert that these are starting points not an end unto themselves. That is the danger of iconic projects. Some people think that the work is done once the building or monument is erected. The real pay off comes from using that intervention to launch substantive changes that might not have gotten attention were it not for the iconic project.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:28 am
Breathtaking now, but I wonder how long it will remain so? My question in spectacular architecture like this is it’s longevity. In that sense I agree with Maurice. It must be more than just a really neat building, it must be defining. If it isn’t I fear it runs the risk of soon becoming a liability.
Great photos though!
Sid
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:02 pm
As pure branding, you’re right- cities can use an icon or two, and buildings like museums and city halls are rightfully iconic. Would Sydney be considered a world class city without that opera house? What strikes me when reading your description is that is entirely about the panorama. The problem is that much attention gets paid to the grand statement and not to the perspective of the person on the ground. Your entire perspective above was through a windshield. In my visit to Milwaukee, I was struck by how far apart everything is, and how the city was only succeeding in a few pockets that had been densified.
December 21st, 2009 at 4:07 pm
As a native Milwaukee resident, I have never had the opportunity to experience this city from a newcomer’s perspective. But thanks to Peter for his statement that Milwaukee is looking to the future. As mentioned in other comments, an iconic structure needs to be followed by real economic development, and having been witness to this region’s continued efforts, I’m confident we’re well on our way.
Tim, I’m sorry to hear that you only saw success in a few “pockets” and were struck by the distance between everything. I don’t know the nature of your visit or your experience. But, from one who traverses the various sections of the city on a daily basis, I can assure you that success is widespread, development is ongoing, and the entire city is accessible by less than a twenty minute drive. Hopefully, with projected improvements to our public transportation systems and the proper tour guide, your next visit will leave you with a different impression.
December 30th, 2009 at 11:09 am
How about The Public in West Bromwich, UK?
Iconic architecture is meaningless without cultural, political and economic activity to go inside it.
Then, if there is the cultural, political and economic activity already, then iconic architecture is merely luxurious and extravagant bourgeois bollocks.
January 7th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Yes its all well and good to say that iconic architecture alone cannot rebuild, redefine, and rebrand a declining city. However, Milwaukee is not laking in the ingredients necessary needed to resurect it into a vibrant metropolis. Nor is Milwaukee continuing the steady downward spiral experienced by many of its rust belt peers.
Milwaukee if anything has been on the upsurge in reccent years. Its local politicians have been committed towards revitalizing it (with mixed success at the state level) Its economy has managed to diversify itself into both healthcare and insurance, while still maintaining much of its industry (much is a relative term) It has stopped hemoraging people, and its population is at last growing again. This is due both to its economic as well as social cultural successes in turning the city into a desirable place for young professionals.
It will be very interesting to see what effects HSR will have on the cities future, particularly the high priority connection towards chicago.
September 15th, 2010 at 10:59 am
While I wholeheartedly agree that iconic architecture can change a first impression of a place (I live in NJ- just take a look at the atrocious visuals you get when you land in Newark), I think that Daniel Carins said it that it is meaningless without the cultural, political, and economic activities to go along with it. I’m looking forward to the times when aesthetics are coupled with sustainable design and environmental sensitivity. In the meantime, I’d rather see a building that looks like a lego block, but functions as an icon of human development.