Comments on: Your daily Letter(s) to the Editor — Nov. 8, 2012

By: John Wilburn

John Wilburn — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 06:25:32 +0000

When I see an unusual building that has a functionally different shape, I want to go in and see why. The Taubman is just wierd for the sake of wierd and I have never had any interest in going inside.

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 02:14:23 +0000

I have tried hard to like the Taubman design. It is so obviously a vanity piece with no thought to the surroundings that it is nearly impossible to get past the “boil on the butt” reality.

If Advance Auto is sold and those jobs leave Roanoke, no amount of money will untarnish the Taubman name.

By: dave

dave — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 22:06:14 +0000

The Taubman museum, sitting in the midst of a new area in a city where there was other architecture of a similar nature would probably be a beautiful asset. If it had been built in the midst of a park created out of the Countryside property, it would be an asset. If it had been built at the top of Mill Montain overlooking the valley, it would be an asset.
But the incongruity of it amongst the traditionasl architecture of downtown and its skyline make it appear tawdry. I think the problem with it is where its located.

By: Kristen

Kristen — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 21:33:15 +0000

The Guggenheim in NYC did not open to universal acclaim for its architecture either. And it was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright.

By: E. Duane

E. Duane — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 20:50:26 +0000

J.M. White, I could not agree with you more about the Guggenheim….I lived in NYC….The building is as much art as what the building was built to house. An excellent observation to the, as I like to call it…Tub-men.

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 20:27:53 +0000

also, I left you a present…

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 20:26:55 +0000

hey J.M.,

I’m willing to estimate the figure of a cool $6 mil as being randall stout’s fee to design that monstrocity.

By: william quesenberry

william quesenberry — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 20:26:01 +0000

the building is an eyesore that whenever i visit roanoke to enjoy some of its finery it kind of makes me nauseous

By: Other John

Other John — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 20:09:03 +0000

The Taubman Museum is like a Transformer and an Airstream trailer mated, and out popped that building.

By: J.M. White

J.M. White — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 19:21:09 +0000

Wow. Some of these people sure do love their eyesore. Dan, you sure know how to stir up a hive.

Frankly, I think the Taubman is just god-awful. I’m not one of the “purists” who needs it to match or blend with the existing architecture of the area, but you shouldn’t be driving down 581 and say, “What on Earth is that monstrosity?” I don’t look at it and think that I’d like to go in there, which is what the design of a modern museum is supposed to do. Instead, it looks like some architect finally got his life’s vanity project and got P-A-I-D to do it. The ribbon-cutting ceremony should have been named “The Hand That Strokes The Ego”.

I’ve heard comparisons to the Guggenheim… yeah, well… no.

The Gug is a testament to form for function in architecture – its very design is a part of its function as a museum. The Taub is tens of thousands of dollars in wasted glass and energy inefficiency that in no way streamline or enhance the museum experience. It’ll be less than ten years before there are some major maintenance issues with the roof alone.

The Guggenheim is simple, elegant and mimics nature = form for the sake of function.

The Taubman looks too chaotic and like someone tried to cram as many angles as possible into one building = form for the sake of form.

No amount of self-flattering, wishful comparison is going make that building any less hideous.