Pictures of this building were in my art history textbooks in the 00's. I've never been under the impression that it's a minor work of Pei's at all, even on an international scope. My read is people have been using his name only for shorthand, as these debates are often brief, and that in art conversations usually the artist's name, if they are significant to history, is the first descriptor of the work. The equivalent of something like this today doesn't exist and could not be made. I don't think there is a clear answer given the fragility of the building, but I do think it would be a considerably consequential thing to tear down, and I wonder if it would garner a whole new inauspicious and infamous legacy for Dallas were we to destroy it- especially given that it was built in more optimistic and prosperous times.
You make a lot of valid points. My fear is that if we let go of this property we may never again have an actual City Hall. If I'm wrong about that, please explain how the city could meet the expense of leasing space, plus come up with the money for land and a new building.
Agreed. Mark Lamster to the contrary notwithstanding, as a civic building, it's always sent a dystopian message: "Draw nigh citizens, and we will crush you!"
Pictures of this building were in my art history textbooks in the 00's. I've never been under the impression that it's a minor work of Pei's at all, even on an international scope. My read is people have been using his name only for shorthand, as these debates are often brief, and that in art conversations usually the artist's name, if they are significant to history, is the first descriptor of the work. The equivalent of something like this today doesn't exist and could not be made. I don't think there is a clear answer given the fragility of the building, but I do think it would be a considerably consequential thing to tear down, and I wonder if it would garner a whole new inauspicious and infamous legacy for Dallas were we to destroy it- especially given that it was built in more optimistic and prosperous times.
You make a lot of valid points. My fear is that if we let go of this property we may never again have an actual City Hall. If I'm wrong about that, please explain how the city could meet the expense of leasing space, plus come up with the money for land and a new building.
Good post!
Agreed. Mark Lamster to the contrary notwithstanding, as a civic building, it's always sent a dystopian message: "Draw nigh citizens, and we will crush you!"