And so the Govan/Zumthor/LACMA PR juggernaut thunders on, steamrolling over those skeptical eyes looking over their shoulders from near and far, critics and other local scolds (and possibly its immediate neighbors), to say nothing of its own Board of Trustees, the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County and its 10 million citizens or for that matter the Museum’s own membership and core constituencies.  Also niftily coopting the hometown press in the process by looping in the Los Angeles Times’ architecture critic, Christopher Hawthorne, a seemingly neutral third party, whose objectivity might be presumed (and trusted) by most of these parties—with the further validating presence of professional/critical colleagues and distinguished (and local) architects. 

I’m not faulting Hawthorne either for his opinions or for giving Govan this forum.  The forum – which was part of a series of forums, panels and lectures, dubbed (by Hawthorne himself) “Third Los Angeles,” intended to focus attention on the urban evolution of Los Angeles, and in particular what Hawthorne views as the third distinct epoch or stage in this evolution – had apparently been organized and scheduled long before this late March evening.  I actually think I’ve learned more about Hawthorne the past couple days than either the LACMA Zumthor project, Michael Govan, or the urban evolution of Los Angeles – about which I have my own theories and opinions.  Among other things I learned that in addition to being the Los Angeles Times chief architecture critic, Hawthorne is also a professor in the Urban & Environmental Policy Department of Occidental College (hence Occidental’s sponsorship of the series; KPCC-FM is also a sponsor).  Whatever my reservations about his critiques and opinions, I can only applaud what he’s trying to do; I wish I had the time to audit one of his classes.

Whether further spurred on by yesterday’s L.A. Times’ coverage, which was based on reporting that included telephone interviews and extensive conversation with both Govan and Zumthor, or simply his own determination to head off potential scrutiny or hedge new criticism the ‘evolving’ structure might come in for, Govan took the podium like Rahm Emmanuel on the offensive for his municipal fiefdom.  It was like an architecture history lecture on steroids – but then that might be a good description of the development of urban (and suburban) Los Angeles.  I was grateful to have missed the first 10 minutes or so of this, both because most of this stuff is depressingly familiar to me, and again, I really don’t need to hear another specious gloss on this history. 

Govan then pivoted to his personal (after a fashion) architectural history – the projects he has had some role in overseeing or steering through public-private partnership (another buzz-phrase) to completion – e.g., MassMOCA and, that finest of architectural moments, the Guggenheim Bilbao.  (Always nice to enjoy a moment in the sun before you jump into the black tar.)  From there he moved on to address the original plan of the building and the proposed changes already sketched out in Hawthorne’s L.A. Times coverage in a kind of PowerPoint presentation:  the elimination of public entrance through the plinths or support columnar elements that were once envisioned as visually accessible art storage units that the public might move through as they proceeded to the galleries, and consequent shift (and reduction) of the entrances to north, south and/or west sides of the structure; the reining in of the ‘blob’-like curvature into a slightly more trapezoidal massing pivoting westward towards the west side of the LACMA campus, curving in and over Wilshire, before fanning out (again somewhat squared off) eastward.  In other words, the Googie shape is now more of a Gumby shape (not necessarily a tragedy, for those of us already inclined to be nostalgic about the original Zumthor blob) – perhaps with a little Richard Serra Tilted Arc thrown in (just so we know that it’s good for us).  The interior plan continues to evolve:  the interior ‘rat’s nest’ maze broken up and streamlined into six somewhat more coherent trapezoidal sections – alas pushed somewhat away from the circulation – the once mooted ‘verandah’ gallery – around the curvilinear perimeter of the structure; the dozen or so essentially white double-plus height galleries that will penetrate what was once viewed as an unbroken horizontal line; that and other possible variations to what was also originally visioned as a solid black (solar panel) roof and perimeter outline of the curving structure. 

Throughout Govan stressed that this was not really a serious break with his original emphasis on the horizontal sprawl of the structure, returning again and again to the point, putatively borrowed from commercial consumer psychology, that visitors are decreasingly inclined to ascend to successive levels in multi-storey cultural (or commercial) facilities – conveniently ignoring the obvious fact that the structure as currently designed demands that visitors ascend to the first gallery level.  (Always interesting how much attention is paid to such theoretical points, even as the actual effect is usually some reduction of movement or access – or choice – for the consumer.)

Given some of the remarks he’s made in the past, I have to wonder if Govan’s insistence on the one-floor/one-stop shopping scheme has as much to do with setting things up so he can build yet another ‘satellite’ museum somewhere else.  (Last night he mentioned Inglewood – I hope he’s let the Metro transit people know where he wants the next subway line extension.)

He took some pains (or maybe the audience did) to emphasize that these changes reflected, not simply Zumthor’s and the museum’s respect for the La Brea tar pits and the public spaces around the Miracle Mile/Wilshire Boulevard location, but Zumthor’s consistent sensitivity to site.  He also took note of Zumthor’s standard modus operandi – moving away from sketches or renderings to actual models and fitting the model with the site.  The bottom line is that with Zumthor, you don’t know what you’re getting until you’ve gotten it – not necessarily a bad idea in theory, if you compare it, say, to a fashion designer working directly off the body of a fit model.  The only difference is that a standing human body takes up two or three square feet.  Here we’re talking about six acres of prime urban turf in the middle of L.A.’s Wilshire Boulevard, including infrastrucure.  There can be unintended consequences.  (I always wondered what the back story was on the planned museum in Berlin that actually broke ground but was demolished long before completion.)

It was all about the evolution of museums and public spaces.  The changes go “on and on” at art museums, he stressed, again completely sidestepping his insistence that the changes stop at his piano nobile mono-level museum; all about – summing up again in bullet points – Transparency, Accessibility, Efficiency, and Sustainability.  (In theory, there is a net return of energy to the city’s power grid from the all solar-powered zero-energy structure.) 

After Govan had finished powering through this propaganda barrage, Hawthorne got back up on stage to probe tentatively at some of the main points and possibly ‘put a human face’ on them.  He had put out the word on the forum to a few architecture/design colleagues some time before the panel/presentation to elicit comments and responses and he read from the commentary he received from design critic Alexandra Lange, which for me was the highlight of the evening, both as a critique of the ‘evolving’ ‘blob-to-blot’ structure, and an eloquent essay on the LACMA/museum experience and cultural experience generally – addressing aspects of the museum experience Govan’s presentation seemed to all but ignore.  Lange’s commentary took the point of view of the casual observer, wandering in and out of doors through some of the landmarks of the site, the solitary art encounter framed by the sensual experience of the sights and sounds of the randomly (human) activated architectural space, its materials and atmospherics.  Hawthorne then introduced the panel – his Los Angeles Times colleague, the seasoned art and architecture reporter, writer and critic, Carolina Miranda, architectural historian Alan Hess, long-time architecture critic and curator Greg Goldin, and architects Sharon Johnston and Mark Lee (of Johnston-Marklee) – which took the stage without Michael Govan, who then returned to his seat in the front row on the left side of the auditorium. 

There was something slightly awkward about this transition – as if an appellant advocate had made his argument, and the case handed over to a panel of judges to arbitrate or come to some definitive decision.  It was a difficult case to argue and a difficult decision to make; and if the panel ultimately did come to some consensus, it was not exactly what we would call a clean precedent….

[TO BE CONCLUDED IN THE NEXT POST]