Kunstler and Civic Art

“Does the modern profession called urban planning have anything to do with making good places anymore? Planners no longer employ the vocabulary of civic art, nor do they find the opportunity to practice it- the term civic art itself has nearly vanished in common usage.”

            -J.H. Kunstler, The Geography of Nowhere, page 113

Throughout out his book The Geography of Nowhere, James Howard Kunstler does a magnificent job of breaking down and reasoning through American’s addiction to sprawling communities. The history of architectural styles, the love-hate relationship Americans maintain with nature, and debilitating zoning codes are among the many factors Kunstler feels have contributed to the current state of American urbanism. Of the many factors in the state of American urbanism that Kunstler addresses, what he perceives as a distinctly American aversion to civic art is among the most frequently lamented.

Civic art is definable at multiple scales. Viewed from a holistic perspective, the term civic art defines the summation of urban design, architecture, and public monuments, to produce places recognizable as an art form (http://www.civicart.org/aboutus.html). Alternatively, a smaller scale approach to civic art defines it simply as art observable in public space; a use of urban form as flexible canvas from which an artist may gain recognition from a piece as large as a sculpture or as small as a subway station mural. The multiple perspectives from which civic art may be viewed agree on a common goal for the implementation of civic art, the beautification of the urban landscape.

In The Geography of Nowhere, the beautification of the urban landscape is considered paramount to creating urban spaces that Americans can care about and actively care for. Blaming the tendency for American urban land use to be dictated by the treatment of land as a resource to profit from Kunstler laments, “American cities flourished almost solely as centers for business, and they showed it. Americans omitted to build the ceremonial spaces and public structures that these other functions (other than business and profit maximization) might have called for.” (Kunstler, 33) The public structures Kunstler feels are missing from the American urban landscape and the civic art that they attract, are unquestionably influential in developing a sense of place for a city; however, it must be noted that the development of public structures and ceremonial spaces on a grand scale alone is not a panacea for the problems American cities are faced with today.

Architectural critic and professor of urbanism Witold Rybczynski, who is referenced several times in Kunstler’s text, addresses the relationship between grand architectures and vibrant communities in his book Makeshift Metropolis. Using the example of the Frank Gehry designed Bilbao extension of the Guggenheim Museum, Rybczynski attempts to answer the following question: Can an “architectural icon” act as a catalyst for urban renewal (separate from the planning trend of the mid-20^th century) (Rybczynski, 134)? The answers, Rybczynski found, were mixed. The opening of the Bilbao Guggenheim, a strikingly original structure of oddly shaped metal forms coincided with a massive upturn in the fortunes of the city of Bilbao, Spain. Long dwarfed by the larger Spanish cities of Barcelona and Madrid, the Guggenheim has aided considerably in attracting 4 million visitors since its opening, improving Bilbao’s economy, widening its tax base, and transforming it into a regional destination (Rybczynski, 134). However, the erection of the Bilbao Guggenheim did not occur in a vacuum. As Rybczynski notes, the city benefited greatly from infrastructural improvements, chiefly to the city’s subway system, and the construction of a new airport.  

The perceived success of the Bilbao Guggenheim in revitalizing a city inspired several similar efforts around the world. The majority of these efforts were failures. A pertinent example is found in the Experience Music Project (now the ESP museum). Commissioned by Microsoft executive Paul Allen, designed by Frank Gehry (again), and aiming to take advantage of Seattle’s deep association with rock and roll (Jimmy Hendrix and Nirvana are two of the most recognizable bands from the area), the rock and roll museum seemed guaranteed for success similar to that of the Bilbao Guggenheim. Alas, the project failed miserably. The building’s form was unpopular with locals and the museum struggled to maintain patronage. The situation became so dire that the museum had to lease half of the facility to a science fiction museum. Similar failures are evident in Steven Holl’s Bellevue Arts Museum and Rafael Vinoly’s Kimmel Center, where Vinoly was sued for making an insufficiently remarkable building (Rybczynski, 139).

Figure 1: Abandoned Bronx Borough Courthouse in New York City (http://www.policeny.com/bui/Abandoned%20Bronx%20Borough%20Court%202%20JJJVM.jpg)

The link between the failures of grand architecture to revive decaying neighborhoods is the absence of accompanying infrastructural investment. In each case, a big name architect was chosen to create a building of significance, a public space citizens and visitors alike could identify with, care for, and care about. Despite differences in Architectural taste, the buildings discussed represent a modern manifestation of the grand buildings Kunstler suggests are missing from the civic art starved metropolises of America. Yet, all but the Bilbao Guggenheim, where infrastructural improvement was emphasized, failed to create public places residents cared about. 

There is an argument that architectural styles may have contributed to the failure of the public places described above. Gehry’s structures aside, the Kimmel Center and Bellevue Arts Center both exhibit the post-modern architectural forms that Kunstler pans for their ignorance of street life and uninviting appearance. However, the failure of the visually impressive Experience Music Project and the sustained vacancy of more classically inspired buildings such as the old Bronx Borough Courthouse in New York City suggest grand architecture and civic art go only so far in the creation of neighborhoods and cities that people care for and about. Rather, if the example of Bilbao is to be heeded, consideration of public infrastructure, particularly related to transportation, is far more important to the formation of creation of neighborhoods that people care for and about. Kunstler reflects in The Geography of Nowhere that “Human beings love focal points.” (Kunstler, 127) In creating neighborhoods and cities that people care about, focal points are a logical necessity. They define a place for visitors and act as a source of pride for residents. However, they do not become places worth caring about by themselves. An analysis of any great place, in any city in the world will likely find that these focal points are supported by public infrastructure that makes access to these spaces not only viable, but also convenient to frequent.