> That Paris’s Pompidou Centre is to close for four years from 2023 for yet more maintenance comes as no surprise. Weeds have long sprouted from its ultra-finicky superstructure, while the job of keeping it scraped free of pigeon poo and painted in the prescribed infrastructural colour palette – red for people, blue for air, yellow for electricity and green for water – rivals the Forth Bridge for unrelenting laboriousness.
It sounds like the Centre has maintenance problems nearing the coastline-paradox variety...
> ‘There were two options,’ France’s culture minister Roselyne Bachelot told Le Figaro. ‘One involved renovating the centre while keeping it open, the other was closing it completely. I chose the second because it should be shorter and a little bit less expensive.’
It's interesting that this logic somehow misses or skips the weighty symbolic aspect of shutting down a cultural landmark. Presumably this is most of why the news is newsworthy.
Maybe everybody hates the place, but still. Closing down completely sends a pretty big message in the primal sense in which things are alive or dead, usable or not, up or down, and what you typically aim for at worst is a set of circumstances that strike a balance between those aspects.
It's also going to be a slower option in terms of visitor access, which is kind of funny in that it's a near-reversal of the logical benefit one would rationally want. This makes me wonder if the budget gets any benefit at all from visitor payments...(I've worked with cultural sites that flat out told me: We don't want more guests here, and we definitely don't want more membership-holding guests)
Definitely not everybody hates the place. It's one of the most visited attractions in France and is considered an architectural and cultural icon of the city.
It also has a terrific permanent collection, hosts amazing world-class exhibitions, and features an enormous art resource library for research as well as a huge art bookstore.
It will be a real loss to Paris and to the world to have this closed for any period of time.
I've been living in Paris for years and whine the city has a lot of down sides, this museum isn't over of them, it's been my favorite part of the city since I laid my eyes on it even I was younger than ten.
I feel I'm not alone in that case, as it's a very common place to hang out.
Part of the collection is great (the modern art part, with their beautiful Kandinsky, Mondrian, Brîncuși etc collections), while most of the rest is contemporary drivel (oh look, a huge room filled with felt which mostly dampens sound, with a piano in the middle! Amazing!). The building itself is extremely divisive, but I think most tend to hate it - I certainly did.
You're probably thinking of the rotating exhibition hall. I didn't see the piece you describe while I was there.
I found it exhilarating and the first time I understood the journey of art from impressionism to today, when artists realized that "Most perfect/accurate representations of reality" (the high water mark reached during of the renaissance) was no longer the way to move art forward. And with the imminent arrival of photography, they were right.
I myself spent 3 decades of my life thumbing my nose at "modern art" with the typical criticisms ("If i can't tell if an artist or a toddler did it, is it art"?)
This museum was the first to show me the evolution of art and I got "it".
I was referring to an installation by Joseph Beuys [1] that is part of the permanent collection.
I do know exactly the journey that you're talking about in art. It actually clicked for me after visiting Florence and seeing the Uffizi museum's collection of Renaissance art - that's when I realized that there was really nothing more to add in terms of faithful representations of humans and nature after the masters of that time. The increasing levels of abstraction in later movements, from impressionism through cubism to things like Pollock or Mondrian or Chagall - those make sense to me and generate similar feelings as the great Renaissance masters. When I visited a few weeks ago, this was mostly the uppermost floor of the Pompidou, which I loved. I was explicitly refering to this when I said modern art - to Modernism, the artistic current.
However, it's the art that comes after that which I think turned more to grift and self-importance - like most other aspects of post-modernism. Large installations, larger than most paintings or sculptures you'd get in any previous eras, with mostly simple ideas to tell (the whole point of that felt room is the warmth and sound dampening, and it only takes ~50m² to tell its point). Repurposing everyday objects, as if the Dadaists haven't done everything that could be done on this. Lots of self-referential questioning of what is art, or shallow shock value references to topics of the day.
The contemporary collection (mostly on the 4th floor in my visit) reinforced my opinion that the plastic arts are almost entirely a grift today. I'm still hopeful some new artistic current will rise again in the future and come back to creating esthetically pleasing art, even while keeping away from simple representations of nature. I don't think everything that could be said in those styles has been said, but sadly attempts to improve on the works of the 1920s have mostly been abandoned.
I seem to remember a very similar realization as you, only I thought that was 90% of the museum with only 10% dedicated to "weird spinning abstract structure that is impossible to grok without reading the plaque".
Perhaps I was mistaken!
The one thing I do remember making a shocking impact on me was a massive installation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Klein_Blue. It truly did feel like something imposing and evoked genuine emotion that is impossible to represent on a computer screen.
> the weighty symbolic aspect of shutting down a cultural landmark
I’ve been travelling quite a bit in Europe over the past 5yrs; you’d be surprised how many cultural centres are in a continuous status of renovation. It seems to take forever for any of them to be “done”.
Crazy, it was opened in 1977, already closed for a couple of years (1997 to 2000) for maintenance and rebuild, and after 20 more years it requires yet again 5 years of work? That's really a terrible building.
To be fair, some of this is because of how the French government operates. This in the culture that invented the word "bureaucracy." Many normal, profit-driven businesses could probably maintain such a building without so many silly closures.
I don't assume it would stay 'just' so high, I just accept that some designs are higher maintenance than others.
Let's stay focused on market-oriented countries since that was the claim here - that the "market" could magically figure out how to maintain any given building cheaply. I'm pointing out that it's far more likely that the market would just give up. Why optimize the crazy building instead of replacing it with a boring easy one? Since you want to be snarky, though: ever wonder why there is such a thing as "historical preservation" status for certain buildings? It's because we know that not every building makes economic sense, but sometimes we want to keep them around anyway, even though if wholly under the control of a profit-motivated organization they'd be gone and replaced with something in the name of efficiency.
Yes that "more" is stealing more money / contracting more debt from french taxpayers to renovate constantly an ugly building that is promoting a politician (Pompidou was president and prime minister)
There are a lot of parallels to the Thompson Center building in Chicago. It’s more or less Helmut Jahn’s prototype for the Sony Center in Berlin and housed government offices. The government couldn’t keep up with maintenance, let it rot, and finally sold it to Google who are planning to make it into a showcase office building. So we get to see if a profit-driven business can maintain such a building!
> It was the first major example of an 'inside-out' building with its structural system, mechanical systems, and circulation exposed on the exterior of the building. Initially, all of the functional structural elements of the building were colour-coded: green pipes are plumbing, blue ducts are for climate control, electrical wires are encased in yellow, and circulation elements and devices for safety (e.g., fire extinguishers) are red.
Was it because of this? I can see that causing some issues.
Having all these easily accessible on the outside of the building (instead of having to open up walls or floors) sounds like it should make maintenance easier, not harder. Although the "structural system" certainly sounds like something that should be weatherproofed.
Perhaps it was complicated by aesthetic concerns: when you put these internals on the outside, there's some pressure to arrange them in a nice- looking way rather than in the most functional configuration.
> Having all these easily accessible on the outside of the building (instead of having to open up walls or floors) sounds like it should make maintenance easier, not harder.
Accessibility is improved, but lifespan is sacrificed. When the systems are on the outside they're subjected to much greater swings in environment (humidity, pressure, temperature, thermal expansion, and so on) that don't happen when they're inside the climate-control envelope of the building.
Indeed, I learned during my degree that this building was designed so that maintenance and refitting would be easier. Turns out it was just an Architectural excuse for the aesthetics of it
> Having all these easily accessible on the outside of the building (instead of having to open up walls or floors)
Don’t buildings like these usually have access panels for maintenance? Plus a lot of “fake” paneling, especially on ceilings, that’s easy to remove to access all the piping it hides?
But when these things are outside, now you need a crane instead of just ladders.
Even without access panels, opening and replacing some segments of drywall sounds pretty easy compared to working on a building’s facade.
Make the crane part of the building. In this case it would not even be an awkward necessity you try to make as invisible a possible, it could be a proud highlight integral to the the design language. Or rather could have been, if it's added now it would be a highlight extension to the design language.
Would that approach change the original design? Absolutely. But I'd see that as a positive. Not because I don't like the original design (I do) but because it would make a nice teaching example: if architects don't want their designs to be messed with, they'd better start making "how will it look and perform after x decades of use and weather" much more a factor in their decisions than they do now. I'm so tired of seeing new architecture that makes pristineness (while new) it's central design statement and has absolutely nothing to show for once that new car smell is gone.
"The architects believe in buildings, which are able to change and adapt in answer to technical and/or client needs, not only in plan but in section and elevation. They believe in a framework which allows people freedom to do their own thing, the order, scale and ‘grain’ coming from a clear understanding and expression of the process of building; in the optimization of each individual element, its system of manufacture, storage, transportation, erection and connection, all within a clearly defined and rational framework; in a giant meccano set rather than a traditional static transparent or solid doll’s house."
Does that all sound familiar to folks building backend systems? That is 'microservices' for architecture, a counter to 'monolithic' structures, using almost precisely the same motivations, and, running into the same exact problems: operational complexity.
It is the standard post-modern circle jerk where mundane things have to be cast in exalted grandiosity so that pseudo-intellectuals can feel important.
Frank Lloyd Wright structures are known for their high maintenance costs, eg. the cantilevers of Falling Water House are insufficiently braced and prone to sagging and have been repaired more than once. The furniture became impractical to insure as collectors made them museum pieces etc.
There's a well established history of high(er)cost of operation attached to artistically noteworthy architecture.
To be honest the Japanese have it right. Tear down buildings after 50 years and build something new. Ofcourse they had the luck of frequent earthquakes and fires (buildings made of wood when the Netherlands switched to masonry in the 16th century).
Yes it is cute and adorable that the Dutch Parlement is situated in a building complex that can be traced back 1000 years (I wish I was kidding). The tourists love it. The symbolism is marvelous. And it costs hundreds of millions to keep it from falling down.
Or learn to build well. There are still standing roman buildings much older than that, that only require sporadic maintenance after earthquakes and such. The Pantheon in Rome is a brilliant example, as is Hagia Sophia in Istanbul. The latter being built in all of 5 years!
> Or learn to build well. There are still standing roman buildings much older than that, that only require sporadic maintenance after earthquakes and such.
Hope you like domes, because that's pretty much the only thing you can build in that fashion. (And even that only works in climates where the temperature never goes below freezing).
a mausoleum for the remains of distinguished French citizens, modelled on the Pantheon in Rome which had been used in this way since the 17th century. The first panthéonisé was Honoré Gabriel Riqueti, comte de Mirabeau, although his remains were removed from the building a few years later.
Most buildings in Japan are very ugly because nobody invests that much in them, because of this mentality that they're all temporary.
More interesting is that many temples in Japan - which are a lot more attractive than the minecraft rectangles that dominate the streetscapes - are completely torn down and rebuilt periodically.
That quip doesn't really work like it does for its more usual target, the Eiffel Tower, because unlike the tower you also can't see the Pompidou Centre from pretty much everywhere in Paris, except right next to the Pompidou Centre
Incidentally, also said[0] about the Eiffel Tower and the Tour Montparnasse. (I agree with this last one, both at height and at ground level. I've long said that if I were a billionaire, I'd buy the tower just to tear it down.)
Montparnasse is a perfect example of cities in France going "on a second thought, let's not build more skyscrapers right in the middle of cities" in the 70s. See also: Part-Dieu, Tour Bretagne, Pleyel.
It's obviously hard to pin down, but apparently it took Parisians about 20-30 years to go from hating the Eiffel Tower to loving it. Tour Montparnasse hasn't managed to achieve that in the 50 years since it was built.
still better than the De Young in SF, which looks like someone asked MidJourney to combine an abandoned mall parking structure with a concentration camp tower
For architecture geeks, this is a fairly comprehensive critical look at the Centre from 1977.
‘Pompidou cannot be perceived as anything but a monument’
Reyner Banham discusses the roles of Megastructure, Archigram and modern technology in Pompidou’s design, 1977
"The Centre reflects the supreme moment of technological euphoria in Western society: the moment when we genuinely believed that ‘freedom’ was to be got by providing ourselves with endless power-supplied facility: with servicing which would be so elaborate and so heavily duplicated that you could do anything you want, any where, at any time. We are wiser now; for we know that even if our resources allowed this sort of indulgence, the political machinery we would have to forget to operate it would be so offensive that it would remove true freedom from the face of the earth."
> the structure has weathered significant damage since it was first built in the ’70s
Another case of the architect getting ahead of the materials and engineering available. Frank Lloyd Wright, who designed much more aesthetically pleasing structures than this monstrosity (judging by pictures, can't recall it I saw it the one time I was in Paris), is notorious for leaking roofs.
Maybe, but it was already repaired after 20 years or so, spending at the time something like half the original construction costs (without considering inflation):
To all of the armchair experts on HN who want to criticize this project and its maintenance costs: you better make sure you understand the (very French) politics that made this an utter pain for everyone involved, along with the constraints of the time at which this was designed and built.
The engineering work done by Arup to make this project work was utterly amazing. I suggest this as a small bit of weekend reading that might kick off further exploration:
The renovation is budgeted at 262 million euros per TFA.
The museum originally cost 993 million francs (1977). Adjusted for inflation that would be about 4.3 billion francs today. Converting that to euros gives about 655 million.
Inflation calculators and currency converters are easily found online if you want to double check my approximate figures.
It was after that renovation (after which it also started to charge an entrance fee. Before that it was free to visit) when I realized what a fantastic and innovative building it actually is.
Alas, a lot of commenters seem to strongly disagree.
It seems very much: Love it or hate it. But there's not much middle ground.
Contrastively I really enjoyed the museum’s collection and also the rooftop restaurant! Perhaps the art wasn’t to your taste?
These renovations are expensive yes, but they provide good jobs and economic stimulus. It’s been a while since I’ve been to Paris but when the renovation is complete I’ll be sure to return.
> The new timeline also means the museum will not reopen in time for its 50th anniversary in 2027.
If you take a break from doing something, those years don't count. The anniversary for "being a public museum" gets pushed out by just as many years as you're closed.
> The museum also promised a total rehang of its collection, as well as more “phygital” experiences (offered in physical or virtual format) and a refurbished library.
“phygital” is one of the more ridiculous conjugated neologisms I’ve come across.
I've considered launching a crowdfunding to buy this Centre Pompidou and just destroy it to remove its ugliness from the face of Paris. It could be a long-term effort actually, since several buildings need removal, including Tour Montparnasse.
I prefer cities where more and more is public space.
None of us really care about the paintings hung on the walls of museums so much as the space to walk around and suck in history, take time out.
We don't want parks for the flowers but to walk and rest, sip coffee or hear nature. The buildings themselves don't need to preen or be fabulous. They don't need to be markers for the egos of architects or politicians - they need to just be human, be part of the space we are trying to share.
So much of what makes civilisation worthwhile is not greatness, but the act of sharing the greatness with others. Publics space is part of that, as might be facebook or youtube. But public spaces are nicer :-)
The Pompidou Centre takes up the lesser part of a huge public plaza that is full of people enjoying themselves much of the time, and which also has other unique features such as the Stravinsky Fountain.
Speak for yourself. I hate parks that don't have flowers, and nice buildings are a massively important part of what makes a city livable. Aesthetics is an extremely important part of a good life.
> That Paris’s Pompidou Centre is to close for four years from 2023 for yet more maintenance comes as no surprise. Weeds have long sprouted from its ultra-finicky superstructure, while the job of keeping it scraped free of pigeon poo and painted in the prescribed infrastructural colour palette – red for people, blue for air, yellow for electricity and green for water – rivals the Forth Bridge for unrelenting laboriousness.
It sounds like the Centre has maintenance problems nearing the coastline-paradox variety...
> ‘There were two options,’ France’s culture minister Roselyne Bachelot told Le Figaro. ‘One involved renovating the centre while keeping it open, the other was closing it completely. I chose the second because it should be shorter and a little bit less expensive.’
It's interesting that this logic somehow misses or skips the weighty symbolic aspect of shutting down a cultural landmark. Presumably this is most of why the news is newsworthy.
Maybe everybody hates the place, but still. Closing down completely sends a pretty big message in the primal sense in which things are alive or dead, usable or not, up or down, and what you typically aim for at worst is a set of circumstances that strike a balance between those aspects.
It's also going to be a slower option in terms of visitor access, which is kind of funny in that it's a near-reversal of the logical benefit one would rationally want. This makes me wonder if the budget gets any benefit at all from visitor payments...(I've worked with cultural sites that flat out told me: We don't want more guests here, and we definitely don't want more membership-holding guests)
https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/outrage/outrage-...