Whipped Cream Difficulties

This one’s for Lawrence.

The House Committee on Natural Resources has called the proposed Eisenhower Memorial “a five-star folly”. That’s actually the title of their report, which is subtitled (just in case you didn’t get the point), “An Investigation into the Cost Increases, Construction Delays, and Design Problems That Have Been a Disservice to the Effort to Memorialize Dwight D. Eisenhower”.

This has been going on since 1999. So far, according to the report, “Approximately $41 million has been spent or obligated so far, including almost $16.4 million for the designer and more than $13.3 million to the multiple parties responsible for managing the design process and providing administrative support.” And there’s basically nothing to show for it.

Except for the design itself, which lots of people don’t like. Including the Eisenhower family.

Congress subsequently withheld construction funds for the memorial two years in a row, and this month, the House released a draft budget that also zeros out operating funds and calls for a new design competition. In April, the National Capital Planning Commission voted 7 to 3 to oppose the design. The House committees on oversight and appropriations are also investigating the memorial.

The designer? Lawrence’s favorite living architect, Frank Gehry. To be fair to Mr. Gehry (who I actually kind of like), this wouldn’t be the first time a controversial memorial design in DC has turned out okay. And I’m not clear on what exactly the objections are:

Mr. Gehry’s original concept to honor the World War II military leader and 34th president called for a four-acre site partly enclosed by transparent woven metal tapestries displaying images of the Kansas plains, where Eisenhower grew up. The most contentious element initially was a statue of the young Eisenhower sitting on a low stone wall, a characterization inspired by a photograph of him at that age and by a homecoming speech he made after the war in which he recalled his days as a “barefoot boy.”

That doesn’t sound too awful or disrespectful to me.

In response to objections that this was insufficiently respectful, Mr. Gehry replaced the child with Eisenhower as a 20-year-old West Point cadet and changed his depictions of two famous photographs into statues instead of bas-reliefs. But family members still expressed concerns that the design was costly, undignified and would require too much maintenance.

Yeah, I don’t get the “undignified” thing, either. But I haven’t seen anything other than the photo in the NYT. I do find it interesting that, according to the congressional report, the initial jury thought all of the submitted designs were “mediocre” and wanted a second round of submissions. Whoever was in charge overruled the jury and picked Gehry’s design.

And there’s other boondoggles, too. Sole source contracts, paying $1.4 million to fundraising firms (which have managed to raise about $500,000), questions about ongoing maintenance costs, etc. etc. etc.

I like Ike. But I have serious questions about our need for an Eisenhower Memorial outside of the Eisenhower Presidential Center and about the design process for this one.

…aka “My one reader who is a Frank Lloyd Wright fan and doesn’t read Balko’s blog“:

Frank Lloyd Wright’s doghouse design.

I wonder how many architects have done doghouses; I know that a few years back, Frank Gehry offered a doghouse design in a benefit auction, but I can’t find out it if was built, or if his design is online anywhere.

Back in November of last year, we made note of the grand opening of the Ohr-O’Keefe Museum of Art in Biloxi, Mississippi.

So how’s the museum doing? The NYT tells us: not so great. As in “almost out of cash” not so great. Major problems:

• Insurance, “which is exceptionally expensive for a building that houses irreplaceable art just yards from the Gulf of Mexico”. Gee, that sounds like a problem someone should have thought about.
• Climate control. “Simply trying to keep the galleries below 30 percent humidity to protect art in a climate where the humidity can reach 90 percent costs thousands of dollars every month.” Ditto.
• The museum apparently isn’t getting the level of “support” (that is, money) from the city that they expected. The city says, in so many words, “We don’t have any extra money to give to the museum. We’re broke.”
• The cost of building the museum went from $15 million to $45 million. You know, when it went up to, say, about $20 million from $15 million, I think I would have said, “Whoa! Let’s scale back a little here.”
• Oddly enough, it seems that there just aren’t that many people interested in visiting a museum mostly devoted to the work of “the self-described ‘mad potter of Biloxi’ who died in 1918 and is regarded as a forerunner of the American modern art movement.”

I missed this one until Tam linked to it (with her usual dose of snark):

NYT architecture critic Nicolai Ourossoff reviews 8 Spruce Street, a new residential tower designed by WCD’s favorite living architect, Frank Gehry.

Speaking of Gehry, I can buy Frank Lloyd Wright Legos; where are my Frank Gehry Legos? Wouldn’t you buy a Guggenheim Bilbao set? I know I would. I’d buy a Disney Concert Hall, too, except I think it would be hard to get Legos that shiny.