Israel

October 5, 2011

Jerusalem Museum of Tolerance architects threaten to quit

By Tom Tugend

Tweet

Share

The architects of the Museum of Tolerance in Jerusalem have threatened to resign, two weeks before the scheduled start of construction.

Bracha and Michael Chyutin, the two architects, charged that the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, sponsor and funder of the $100 million project, “drove the architects crazy. They asked for daily briefings and nagged them to death,” according to a Jerusalem city official quoted by the Israeli daily Haaretz.

The company running the project, Tafnit Wind, also quit about a month ago, following differences of opinion with the Wiesenthal Center, Haaretz reported.

In a statement to The Journal Wednesday, Wiesenthal Center officials confirmed that “We are involved in a financial contractual dispute with Chyutin Architects. We are committed to try and resolve it as soon as possible.

“However, we want to make it very clear that the construction of the Museum of Tolerance project is going forward as scheduled and this financial dispute will have no impact whatsoever on the progress of the project and on the construction timeline. We will file all permits on time and will begin construction after the High Holidays.”

As to the “nagged to death” charges, a center spokeswoman replied that the project was funded by private donors, so “our guys were just doing their due diligence.”

When completed, the Center for Human Dignity- Museum of Tolerance is to include an exhibition space, theater and education center in some 150,000 square feet of space, as well as outdoor gardens and an amphitheater.

Originally, the museum architecture was conceived on a much larger and more elaborate scale, at a cost of $250 million, by architect Frank Gehry. This concept was attacked by some Jerusalem residents for its grandiose design, as well as the claim that the building site was on top of an ancient Muslim cemetery.

After years of litigation, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that construction could go ahead. However, for financial reasons, it was decided to downsize the design by Gehry, who then resigned from the project.

Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Wiesenthal Center, said the new museum would not infringe on Yad Vashem’s mission of Holocaust remembrance, but rather focus on human rights, as well as genocides and war crimes throughout the world.

---

Post your comment below!

Click here to return to the homepage.

COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

With Yad Vashem established in Jerusalem this new museum is an absolute waste of money. $250 million that could be going to scholarships for needy families to give their children a Jewish education or to feed the hungry. If the supporters of the MOT want to do due diligence let them correct the exorbitant salaries of the Hier family.  Nearly $1 million for the father, wife and son. Oh I forgot, after honoring Scientologist Tom Cruise the MOT already demonstrated that the ends justify the means and you can hold hands with the devil. Shame on them.

Comment by Dr. David Edwards on 10/05/11 at 6:34 pm

I’ve dealt with these kinds of projects for many years. Each party has their part to play. But many times people with money and no expertise want to tell experts what to do. And experts can get arrogant and lose sensitivity. Grown men and women act like children. Is that the case here? I don’t know. But it smells of very big egos butting heads. May they choose the path of Teshuvah.

Comment by David on 10/05/11 at 7:58 pm

The museum has always been a bully in everything they do. “Never again” to them has meant “my way or the highway.” 

Simon was a wiser and gentler man. He would be appalled if he knew.

Comment by The Logician on 10/05/11 at 10:43 pm

And just why do we need this museum in Israel?  Rather than waste money on some monument to egotism, why not actually take action to bring about tolerance in Jerusalem.  I know erecting a building that wealthy patrons can come visit and see their names up on a wall can be very satisfying, but will it accomplish anything?  “Well, we built this beautiful institution, but nobody’s behaving any better. What’s wrong with them?”

Comment by Jeffrey on 10/06/11 at 12:07 am

These folks have bullied and intimidated all opposition in their home community. They are not good neighbors. They do not play fair. They do not live the values they preach.

Comment by Steven Mandel MD on 10/06/11 at 1:45 am

So the architects, acting like children, threaten to quit because The Simon Wiesenthal Center, which is the sponsor and funder of the $100 million project, asked for daily briefings?... Accountability? Imagine that! Well, let them quit! Other more mature architects would be glad to take the job, and give as many briefings as needed, with a project of this magnitude.

Comment by bill on 10/06/11 at 9:59 pm

Bill—

$100 million is no longer a big project, sorry.

Every business has customary practices based on generations of experience, and daily briefings are likely only rarely needed.

To those of us on the outside, it sounds like MOT and Hier just being very controlling, paranoid or both.
Bully is a frequently used descriptor as well.

Comment by The Logician on 10/06/11 at 10:24 pm

When some of us, me being a good example, get too arrogant G-d hits us on the side of the head with a 2x4 or maybe drops a house on our head. It’s quite a humbling experience. I suggest that all of these giants in our society choose to humble themselves before G-d does it for them. Losing everything is not an easy path. May everyone have a meaningful Yom Kippur.

Comment by David on 10/07/11 at 6:43 am

Logician-
My point was not as to the amount of money.

It doesn’t matter if the budget is $1,000 dollars or 200 million dollars. Whether it is to build a museum or to paint a house, If I, or my association, hire someone to do any work, it is my money, (or my association’s funds) and our rules. If I want to inspect daily or monthly, just the same.
If the person doing the project doesn’t like it, and feels micro-managed, then nobody is preventing him/her from leaving.
That’s the problem nowadays with the lack of transparency, over-budgets and supervision of funds for any project. Maybe “generations of experience” and lack of frequent briefings, just doesn’t cut it anymore…...

Comment by bill on 10/07/11 at 3:59 pm

Bill—

You make a good point that the amount of money shouldn;t matter.

But here’s something that matters more.  Designing and building anything, from a bookshelf is a collaboration…it’s a relationship.  Transparency is essential as you point out.

But trust is built in both directions, and the employer or client has to respect the demands placed on the contractor or vendor.  This relationship is spelled out in advance by a contract.

But relationships are dynamic and projects change and evolve.  MOT has repeatedly shown itself to be stubborn and arrogant by refusing to listen to other points of view, playing out the Holocaust victim card whenever useful.

Comment by The Logician on 10/07/11 at 4:32 pm

An architect is not an interchangable cog. When you hire an architect you are not hiring an employee. This is a design professional and depending on the Architect’s style and way of doing business… It is like buying a covette and never driving over 25 mph. You have to allow a race horse to be a race horse. You also should allow an architect to be themselves and do things their way. Otherwise why did you hire this particular architect. It sounds like in this case there wasn’t enough research done or the right kind of research done prior to contracting. Hopefully everyone will learn from this and act on what they learn.

Comment by David on 10/07/11 at 4:40 pm

Logician -

I agree with you when you say Designing and building anything, from a bookshelf is a collaboration…it’s a relationship. And trust is built in both directions, and   The relationship is spelled out in advance by a contract.
However, something is wrong when requests for frequent briefings upset the architect.

This may be off topic a bit, but if more frequent briefings would go into the projects like LAUSD school buildings, where money is spent and buildings can not be utilized because of faults that could have been prevented had more briefings taken place…..

Comment by bill on 10/07/11 at 5:00 pm

Bill—

Another point well taken.  But I believe the complaint was daily meetings, not a refusal to meet.

If there is sufficient trust they may not be necessary.  They are not fighting a war, but working to a common end, and the main crisis of the work was its legality and cost…not much design or construction issues once they had approval and accepted the less ambitious plans.

My point is that MOT does not know how to be a real mensch.  It’s lesson for everyone.

Comment by The Logician on 10/07/11 at 5:24 pm

We cannot allow the leader of a country to cover up genocide going on.

Civilocity is the one and only solution to make sure the leader of a country cannot cover up genocide going on. Civilocity is a form of government where the people watch the ruler entirely amongst their reign. Every single other way they fought genocide doesn’t work, because genocide is still going on today. Every other way to make sure the leader of a country is not covering up genocide going on doesn’t work and is wrong. Killing is wrong. Preaching peace is wrong. Civilocity is better than peace it works.

How to make sure the holocaust doesn’t happen ever again might be right under your nose.

Comment by Nathaniel Wenger on 10/09/11 at 9:28 am

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?