Scrutinizing LACMA’s Redesign

I understand that there is now a trend, among American museums, to create new space that integrates (markets?) a museum’s identity with its collections.

However, it is astonishing to me that the Rem Koolhaas design (or any other) would be unanimously agreed upon by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art’s board of trustees (“Methodical Process, Radical Result,” by Suzanne Muchnic, “Art in a Proper Setting,” by Christopher Knight, March 3).

Los Angeles continues to be one of the world’s most enigmatic cities, and I suppose its architecture should reflect this. Controversy has a long history with architecture.

However, I suspect that the Koolhaas design, if built in Paris, Rome or London, would be embraced as a bold statement reflecting the city’s future. Los Angeles, aesthetically poor and always defining its future, doesn’t need such statements--for better or worse, Los Angeles lives the future every day.

Are there no enlightened citizens to demand that a respectable art collection be enhanced by something better than concrete and Mylar?

It will take years to gather the $300 million-plus in private funds. This allows time to search for ways to keep the Mylar tent from discoloring in the intense sun and dirty air of Los Angeles.

While we are at it, make it pedestrian unfriendly by raising the galleries from the original design to an even higher level off the street, symbolically making art even more elitist.

THOM CAMACHO

Los Angeles

*

So LACMA paid $200,000 per architect in its design competition to come up with Koolhaas’ taut wires and opaque circus tent?

Tell you what, for 20 bucks, LACMA can have 10 minutes of my time and need merely provide me with a pen and some bar napkins. I’ll guarantee you I can design a much better museum that fits the character of the city and is a better showcase for art than the pretentious designs being considered.

JEFF SOFTLEY

West Hollywood