"The muses are not amused"

I thought that a lot of the points that Silvetti made in this article were actually valid – and he made an effort to present both sides of the argument wherever possible. So, in fact, this article did not particularly enrage me or upset me. One thing I thought was interesting though was the comment that the time period he was focusing on was “bracketed by the exultant irruption … in our imagination of the Guggenheim Bilbao and by the wound to our affects left by the physical consequences of the September 11 attack, the disappearance of two buildings we did not know we would miss so much.” In the remainder of the article he criticizes various types of form making – of which I think he could have given more specific examples – however he doesn’t address the cultural impact that buildings might have despite of how they were formally designed. I think that understanding the impact that a building has in its environment is essential in understanding its success.
For example, while the Bilbao may be an example of blob architecture it has become so instrumental in the revitalization of the city. It has increased tourism there to the point that most people associate the two together. It is an example of how sometimes form alone can be what brings success to architecture. The instance of the World Trade Center is interesting for the opposite reason. While it was standing, it was not praised for its form and its impact on the city in the way that the Guggenheim in Bilbao might be; rather, it faded into the background. If it was praised, it was as a feat of engineering more than for its architectural qualities. The public spaces it made were pretty isolated and sterile, and the aesthetic as you looked up at it was monotonous – at least this was the impression that the general public got. The buildings have had more of an impact now that they are gone because people have realized how big their influence was, even with such straightforward designs (about as far from the Bilbao as you could get). Both of these examples provide interesting views on how form should be looked at in terms of its cultural impact in addition to its architectural merit.

After I wrote this, I thought about it some more, and I don't think it came out the way I intended it to. I was not trying to say that Silvetti's descriptions were neglecting to take into account the cultural impact that form might have, but rather that the article made me think of that as another important influence and consideration when determining form.