Gianni Alemanno, Rome's new mayor, has come in with a bang, announcing on the popular Porta-a-porta TV show that he wants to remove Richard Meier's new Ara Pacis Museum from Rome's city center.

More information here .

Good.

That building is hideous, but Ara Pacis deserves to be seen. It does NOT belong in a suburb or boxed up in scaffolding. Better inside that hideous building than boxed up somewhere. Whose idea was that building?

What's done is done. It will cost money to demolish the building. Concentrate on restoring the Mausoleum of Augustus

It is tough for me to understand why this particular building attracts such dislike. I think Meier, all in all, successfully completed his design task and produced a building with some aspects of supreme beauty and some of thumping banality.

The project is really in three parts: the entrance plaza, the main exhibition hall where the Ara Pacis is housed, and the rear of the building, with the conference center. This latter part to my eyes is completely unsuccessful, boxy and ugly. It could (should?) be lopped off the main building; ity was added to Meier's original idea, an always fatal plan in commissioning new buildings: we're building an ice rink, lets have library, too.

The main part of the building, again to my eyes, is a total triumph. Elegantly,it displays the Ara Pacis to perfection. It is especially sublime at sunset, with the altar glowing through the glass. I haven't seen any arguements that convince me that the Ara doesn't look perfect it this serene room.

The entrance plaza is more problematic. I think the walls could have been lower. But all in all, the walls, platforms, and fountains tame a difficult site well. Nicolai Ourssoff, the NYTimes architecture critic, hated the building, famously calling it "a flop." One of things he objected to was the way the walls on the piazza cut off the views of the two church facades "as you drove by." Nick is showing his LA roots: Rome isn't exactly a city one best sees through the windshield of a car, is it?

And if it is torn down, then what? I just google-imaged the old pavilion. Man, that was ugly. Surely no one wants that rebuilt. And Meier's building does have the climate control found to be necessary in the Ara's latest restoration. So for what, five, ten, years, the Ara Pacis will have to be dismantled and stored away out of sight, while people argue over what kind of shelter it deserves. They will probably end up with something quite like Meier's current building.

Sorry to go on so long.

Yrs, Robert

(Minor typo edited as indicated by Robert.)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Doru,

robert,
i agree with you.
and i think richard meier is a genius.

I also thought the building was stunning and a fantastic showcase for the Ara Pacis.

The new mayor is quite mad.

(And Robert, your point was worth repeating!)

Sandra

quote:

Originally posted by Robert Santa Monica:...and the rear of the building, with the conference center. This latter part to my eyes is completely unsuccessful, boxy and ugly. It could (should?) be lopped off the main building; ity was added to Meier's original idea, an always fatal plan in commissioning new buildings: we're building an ice rink, lets have library, too.

Thanks, Robert: Now I know why that area felt so wrong. Excellent insight. But I hope they leave the rest, because I liked the building.

I think what links the building to its so very different surroundings is the waterfall. Water is timeless, universal, embraces all forms.

quote:

I think what links the building to its so very different surroundings is the waterfall.

Doru, do you mean the fountains? I don't recall a waterfall. Here's a photo I took when we visited in 2006, soon after the museum opened. I have more pictures of the exterior and interior here.  I liked the building too.

- Roz

I have pictures of my visit to Ara pacis also
http://www.slowphotos.com/photo/showgallery.php?cat=4051
I was thrilled to finally on my third trip to Rome to be able to view it. I had wanted to see it for over 20 years. This is why they shouldn't tear the building down so that others can see it and appreciate it.

Hi Roz,
The waterfall about which Doru spoke is not functioning in the photo that you posted. In fact, it looks (from the buckets and brooms in the photo) like they were cleaning it when you took this phot.

Water runs down the concrete wall that's on the left side of your photo, then down the "drain" that runs along the left side of the step, and into the pool below.

People, I have had to delete a few political postings this morning. Please remember Slowtrav's Guidelines and Rules of Service--No political postings or comments.

There have been changes in Italian politics of late, which can be read about and discussed in plenty of other places. Thank you.

One of the reasons why (I guess) Alemanno dislikes the Ara Pacis museum is that, like most Italians, he is extremely conservative in architectonical tastes. To most Italians (and unfortunately specially our administrators, whatever political side they are from: right, left, center, above, below, in front or in the back), the only worthy acrchitecture is the ancient one: a building is as beautiful as it's old, regardless of its actual beauty; besides, Italians tend to abhor mixing styles, and thus adamantly refuse to build something gorgeous and new by the side of anything gorgeous and old, and thus they prefer to build something totally anonymous and not-so-new-looking beside something old and nice, thus mkaking also the old stuff look drab. Italy, in a sense, is doing the opposite of what London does: More London has ome gorgeous modern buildings but just a few steps from it you can hit ancient buildings, while Italian cities tend to all have a uniform and quite boring look and no skyline at all. Alemanno adhers to this dogma even more than his predecessor and is not ready even to accept the presence of a modernist building (a style that is neither exactly unknown in Rome, just think of the EUR area, and not even particolarly new, since modernism dates back to almost one century ago) in the older center of Rome.

I think that they should think more about Ara Pacis and having it displayed and less about the building that it is in. Augustus was the greatest son that Rome ever produced. He lifted Rome to heights tha that not been seen before in the history of civilization. His stabilization of Rome's government is thought to have greatly delayed Rome's collapse to the barbarian hordes. Displaying Ara pacis honors his memory especially being near where his mausoleum is. To shutter one of his greatest monuments or to send it to the suburbs after all the work to reconstruct it and stabilize it is disrespectful to his memory.

Did I miss some part of this discussion? I don't see anything even remotely political being discussed here. Isn't this a discussion about styles of buildings? Or does the fact that a new mayor wants to change things make it political?

Beebee, the political stuff was deleted.

Thanks for the confirmation Shannon.