Richard Meier offers to design for PO site

game changer.

Is he doing it for free?

What are the intellectual property issues?
Will the developer get to use the design elsewhere? They may not want to sign off on restrictions on use. It may not be enough for them to execute a Meier building.

And what if Meier's design doesn't fit? Yeah, jump all over me in classic MOL style. Just because he's a great and understands the issue, doesn't mean that what he'll give us for free will make everyone happy.

You think parking is bad now, what until the hoards come to view it. You'll be wishing for those left hand drivers...

The developer may balk at the plans as well. It may increase his costs.

What to do with the PO site is a very complicated issue. All aspects need to be considered. Not just the views from one or two groups.

Now flame away.

for how much?

Lots of good questions. It's worth exploring the answers.

I'll bet he does it Pro Bono.

This is more appealing in theory than reality. Do a google image search for "Richard Meier" and then tell me you want a building like that in the PO spot. If the Engage Maplewood people come out in favor of this idea then that gives lie to the whole notion that they're fighting to preserve the character of the village.

Also, what would be his timetable for designing this? He's hugely in demand. Would he drop everything to design this? Or are we going to be waiting years for him to get to it?

Sarah: That isn't exactly what happened. A person speaking during the hearing for the Post Office Site Development at last evening's TC meeting mentioned having been in correspondance with Mr. Meier after the Ideas Festival Conversation in which Mr. Meier participated, and having received a reply from Mr. Meier that he would be happy to design the building that would replace the old post office building. The exact wording of the statement from Mr. Meier was not read from that correspondance. We do not know precisely how it was worded, the spirit in which it was said, or what conditions if any that he would place on such an offer if it was in fact made at all. It should also be noted that this was an unofficial correspondance. It is quite likely that Mr. Meier knew that the person with whom he was corresponding was in no position to make any sort of offer on behalf of the town. The discussion will only shift if the town makes an official query of Mr. Meier in this regard and if Mr. Meier accepts under mutually agreeable terms.

No mention was made by the person offering this testimony of Mr. Meier having asked to be put in touch with the site's developer. This rather rash, in my opinion, approach came from a proposal by the TC to require that the developer consult with Mr. Meier as a condition of the consultant being awarded the contract. That leap of logic was made by ther TC in response to a simple statement by the person who initiated and then reported on her personal correspondance, not as a result of any official discussion with Mr. Meier himself. The TC may wish that a valid offer has been made but it is too soon to assume that this is in fact the case.

Edited to address my comments to the OP.

This is really interesting, but not clear if Meier proposes to design a new build or repurposing the P.O.

I think it's a great idea -- I admire his work a lot. But is everyone clear on the fact that he would design a *Richard Meier* building for the site? It would not be in keeping with the character of the village; the current developer would probably not be interested in building it; and my guess is that many of the people clamoring for change would be horrified.

A few more samples of his work:

Certainly worth pursuing. When two world class architects spend 10 minutes explaining why the old Post Office Building should be retrofitted and another offers to furnish a design there is something in the wind.

We can choose between mediocrity or potential greatness.

I realize that art is subjective, but those buildings are charmless cement boxes. Not even remotely Maplewood.

@Joan Crystal's clarification of what actually happened at the TC meeting certainly puts a different spin on things.

I am not a fan of modern architecture. At least, I wasn't until I visited The Getty Center. It is the most uplifting, inspiring, transportative and absolutely beautiful structure I have ever experienced. The photos do not do justice to the experience of being inside those buildings. It is like the difference of looking of something in a black and white photo and being there in person.

This is from Richard Meier's website

Design Philosophy

The principles that guide our work are rooted in timeless, classical design issues such as Site, Order, and the use of Natural Light that are not unique to period, style, or context. Modern architecture provides us with an optimistic view of contemporary life, while complementing its context with the exploration of other essential values that are of our time: Program, Technology, Sustainability, Collaboration, and Image. With these basic issues in mind we strive to create works of beauty and elegance that enhance any environment.

Site & Context
Our primary site goal is to create a strong sense of “place,” by enhancing or transforming the existing site in a unique and provocative way. Whether urban, suburban, or the open landscape, we search the context of each project individually for clues that inspire a formal idea about issues of organization, scale, and location that provoke a strong dialog with its setting.

Program
Great buildings have simple rational diagrams that are the essence of their organization. That diagram is a catalyst for all subsequent design decisions and development. We focus on clear organization of public and private spaces, reinforcing it with an emphasis on primary and secondary circulation systems. Special emphasis is given to unique elements of the program by form and placement. Those ideas are refined in the massing and façade composition, rationally integrated structural systems, and using natural light in ways that reinforce a strong sense of order.

Order/Geometry
Harmonious proportion and scale are fundamental considerations in our work. Underlying a fluid imaginative conceptual approach to any project is the rational organization of building components based on geometric proportioning systems derived from the golden section employed by the Greeks and the Romans. An underlying building grid based on the scale of the human body and common building materials is then organized into larger building units that yield primary and secondary systems that regulate the design of structure and basic rhythms in elements such as facades and the massing of the building as a whole.

Image

Every project has its own unique opportunity for expression. Regardless of the site, program, and budget issues that may vary with any project, our primary goal is to create beautiful things – simple expressions of the essence of the Program and Vision. A limited palette of materials is used, with an emphasis on lightness, transparency, and precision assembly.


Light

Natural light is a most fundamental element central to all our work, and is as much a building material as concrete and stone. It is manipulated to shape space, lend spirit, mark the passage of time and presence of the sky, all elements essential to a rich architectural experience. Our obsession with light simultaneously includes an ambition to utilize the immediacy of natural light and to integrate both proven traditional methods and new technologies to harvest it.


Technology and Sustainability

Decades of work in Europe, with stringent regulations governing natural ventilation, daylight, and energy consumption has long inspired us toward energy and environmental performance in our design process. The development and application of new materials and technologies are driven by the economic realities of each project, yet we consider sustainability and new building technology extremely important issues. We make intelligent use of the world’s limited natural resources, including those freely available as the sun’s warmth and light, natural breezes for ventilation and cooling, and the integral nature of landscaping and its influence on a site’s micro-climate.

Having a celebrity architect design the building doesn't make the economic development issues that are driving this dispute suddenly disappear. Let's face it, at the core of this controversy is the fact that the opponents don't want a large building with high-density housing built on that site. Appending Meier's name to the project doesn't suddenly make a fencing academy augmented by tables with umbrellas economically viable at that site.

Meier could design a museum for the space, like an architectural museum for instance. With synergy with the SOMA schools and the library for educational purposes: an institution that will serve the community at large. Retail could be an art bookstore, museum shop and cafe and restaurant.

The museum will make historical sense for Maplewood, as incredibly, two of the most prominent architects of this era went to Columbia High School.

I understand this will be slammed because of financing. But surely, with the prestige of Mr Meier's name, one could find a way.

Maplewood would get a beautiful building that would serve and inspire the Maplewood community.

rastaquere said:

Meier could design a museum for the space, like an architectural museum for instance. With synergy with the SOMA schools and the library for educational purposes: an institution that will serve the community at large. Retail could be an art bookstore, museum shop and cafe and restaurant.

The museum will make historical sense for Maplewood, as incredibly, two of the most prominent architects of this era went to Columbia High School.

I understand this will be slammed because of financing. But surely, I'm sure, with the prestige of Mr Meier's name, one could find a way.

Maplewood would get a beautiful building that would serve and inspire the Maplewood community.

I'll take a few turf fields in exchange for the cost of building a museum. Because I guarantee you those turf fields will be used by our soccer, lacrosse and football players.

I've mentioned this before, but the building Meier designed in West Hartford for the Seminary was horribly out of character for the historical, residential neighborhood. Agree that the Getty is stunning, but I don't think his trademark "refrigerator" style is appropriate for the Maplewood location.

maybe we can borrow the Tau from South Orange to try on the style for awhile.

A museum! Just when you thought things couldn't get any wackier...

how about a bowling museum? with a big reading lounge.

I have some very strong opinions about all of this but I am going to wait until the dust settles a bit before I comment. I worked for many years for a "starchitect" and I know all of the great things that could happen - I also know reality often rears it's ugly head when limited amounts of money is involved.

No matter who ends up working there, whether it be a historic preservationist, a "dime a dozen" NJ property developer or a star architect, there needs to be continued input and watchfullness by residents.

Everyone must be willing to compromise. In the end all the work will pay off when the the most important qualities are included in the future building. (The details may not make everyone happy though.)

Now is the time to get a crystal clear consensus on what is MOST important to Maplewood village:
Financial gain (or lack of loss)? Contextuality (or individuality)? Form follows Function-ality (or work around what we have already)?

Think about it!

I like the idea of an architecture museum. The first exhibit can be:

"Renderings for the Maplewood Post Office Redevelopment: 700 Ideas, 2012-2047"

kmk said:

I have some very strong opinions about all of this but I am going to wait until the dust settles a bit before I comment. I worked for many years for a "starchitect" and I know all of the great things that could happen - I also know reality often rears it's ugly head when limited amounts of money is involved.

No matter who ends up working there, whether it be a historic preservationist, a "dime a dozen" NJ property developer or a star architect, there needs to be continued input and watchfullness by residents.

Everyone must be willing to compromise. In the end all the work will pay off when the the most important qualities are included in the future building. (The details may not make everyone happy though.)

Now is the time to get a crystal clear consensus on what is MOST important to Maplewood village:
Financial gain (or lack of loss)? Contextuality (or individuality)? Form follows Function-ality (or work around what we have already)?

Think about it!

couldn't agree with you more regarding the need for watchfulness combined with a willingness to compromise.

kmk, agree in theory, but think it is impossible to get a "crystal clear consensus." There always will be varied opinions, and some will be against any proposal simply because they personally oppose the TC. I also don't think there's any risk of losing continued input and watchfullness by residents.

you are also correct that complete consensus is not likely. but those who refuse to come to consensus by refusing any and all compromises will also run the risk of marginalizing themselves.

If be glad to not have another building designed by the guy who did the one near the station.

orzabelle said:

If be glad to not have another building designed by the guy who did the one near the station.

Exactly, sometimes the best we can do is to prevent something worse from happening.

The "BEST" design can not even begin to be created until priorities are set.

Just as you might ask a chef to cook you his "best" meal only to be dissappointed that it contains sardines and peanuts. One you don't like and one you are allergic to!

The (vocal) people of Maplewood need to start talking about what they want, what they need, what they want to avoid and what is absolutley unacceptable.

The design process is not black and white. It is a broad spectrum of shades of gray. Blur your eyes, and the overall look of the finished project should make you happy.

There are museums and arts centers(ahem SOPAC) that are still failing to support themselves . Just not a reasonable idea at all.

Very few ( none that I know of except maybe the Vatican Museums) museums support themselves. The MET, the MoMA, the Frick, The Montclair Museum, Newark Museum and every other museum I have ever encountered is either entirely state supported or depends on massive donations from a long roster of very deep pocketed donors.

I assumed the post suggesting the museum was a joke.

Actually, in all seriousness, and I say this as a lover of Modernist and Post-Modernist architecture, a Meier-designed Museum of Modern Architecture in our town would be amazing. If its purpose is to act as both a museum AND a grand example of the form, I don't believe it would matter so much that it didn't fit in with the rest of the Village, as it would be meant to stand out. Parking in the town would suck, of course, and it would need to take either more space in Ricalton Square than the current footprint OR be at least 3 floors, but it's completely doable and I would welcome it.

Of course, someone has to buy the land, develop it, and then run the damn museum, which is a bigger problem.

Why in the world are we even talking about a museum?

SMH