Dallas News Blog

The Wyly is hideous and I shan't be convinced otherwise. Still, it's an "ambitious failure" (aesthetically). Something to be said for that.

The Winspear is much better, but it still reminds me of a giant Ludwig drum. Not a bad thing, just not particularly operatic.

Is it just me, or was the Winspear a brighter shade of red during construction? It was almost a fire-engine red, but now it's much darker, and not nearly as cool looking IMHO. I'd think I was imagining it, but a friend mentioned the same thing.

btw, Wired magazine had an article about the reconfigurable guts of the Wyly. But I just don't get the Wyly at all -- if I didn't know better, I'd assume it was a utility building containing the air conditioning and heating systems for the Winspear.

Daniel is indicative of lack of knowledge and taste that so pervades this town and will forever keep it from being a "World-class City". Architecturally speaking, the Wyly is head and shoulders above the Winspear, with its neo-classical bent that is so prevalent around here and the south in general. It was that kind of thinking that allowed the Ballpark to look like a cheap knock-off Stockyards replica. A true shining turd in the middle of the prairie, apropos to nothing.

Having said that, neither building is flop. But one is clearly superior to the other.

Neo-classical bent in Dallas? Dallas has had a mania for modernism for at least a half-century. I think you're thinking of Fort Worth.

Look, I'm no architectual critic, but nor am I entirely ignorant. You don't need a Ph.D. in biology to know an ugly woman when you see one. I called it an "ambitious failure," noting there's something to be said for that -- i.e., I'll take it over the singularly unimaginative Bass Hall any day of the week. It's still ugly, and I stand by that. Your point seems to be that it's architecturally significant. That doesn't make it attractive.

Plus, I'm not following you thesis that "A world-class city needs daring modern architecture; Dallas recently christened just such a daring modern structure, and will ergo never be world-class. By way of making this statement even more airtight, witness Daniel, the man whose thinking gave us the Ballpark in Arlington and the South ion general." Huh?

I actually agree with your cultural observations, though I stubbornly maintain that the Wylie is ugly. Disclaimer: I haven't seen it at night yet, and I suspect it might look a good deal cooler with some dramatic lighting elements.

Yes, Dallas hires some of the most expensive architects in the world in order to lend our burg prestige, without having much true innate appreciation for aesthetics. It's all about sitting at the big boys' table, while privately thinking My six-year-old could do that. I believe the term is nouveau riche, and it will indeed continue to stand in the way of Dallas being "world-class" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean, anyway). Within this context, it hardly matters whether I find the Wylie unattractive, or you find it attractive.

I'm no Philistine, though, thanks, and I won't be tyrannized by critical consensus into praising a building I find off-putting. If I did, that would be ... well ... nouveau riche.

It's all wonderful to me.... I appreciate all the new venues (including Jerry's World in Arlington) from Dallas' glorious new Audubon Center to the Winspear to the Wylie and on to the new Calatrava bridge across troubled non-waters. It's a great privilege to be debating the virtues of venues other cities could scarcely imagine in this tough economic times or even great ones. Let alone pay for.

I for one would like to applaud the whole lot of 'em and have no taste nor time for nitpicking any of them to pieces, especially considering how much of our actual Dallas new architectural voilas….unlike the Cowboy Stadium….were privately financed.

And when on earth has any city in memory had so MANY new and significant architectural projects opening within months of one another. With others like the Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge waiting in the wings. Also heavily funded by private contributions, namely Hill's. It's unprecedented.

I do have to say that if some private donations would go to building a world class university here in Dallas it would do a lot more good for the city than all of these buildings and bridges combined. It's great that private dollars can do so much, but I keep wondering - where is Dallas's Andrew Carnegie or Johns Hopkins? Dallas could sure do a lot with a school of the calibre of those and other privately founded institutions.

I'm not one to tell anyone else how to spend their money. It definitely seems to me though that how they choose to reflects our collective priorities as a culture here in North Texas. I'm not against all the shiny new buildings, or beautiful architecture. But I guarantee that Pittsburgh (Carnegie Mellon), Maryland/DC (Johns Hopkins), Boston (you name it), San Francisco (Stanford) will get more out of those universities than Dallas will ever get out of any of these beautiful structures. Whether someone chooses to act on that (which I believe to be a clearly provable fact) has nothing to do with me. As I stated, I have simply "wondered".

And I don't think it's entirely unfair or inappropriate to wonder. As we consider the generosity of these donors, I think we should ask ourselves if there is some greater purpose that we can value highly enough as a society to get some movement on. After all, these are largely the product of vanity, as with many human endeavors (if not it would just be "the opera house"). If we place a high enough value on that which may not be instantly shiny someone will get behind it and want to make it their legacy. So do we value the prospects of a world class university or school system as highly as we do a new opera house or bridge?

As for UT Southwestern you are correct. It is an excellent school, but also a public university...kind of separate from the point I was making.