1674-2 Morris Lapidus Lloyd Wright who, in 1956,described the Fontainebleau as looking "like an anthill."28 T19vhich
Lapidus responded: "I wish I could have explained that I am flattered. I built it for ants." Lapidus
voiced his own opinions, told his critics to go to hell sand,like the obscure Moderne and Streamline
architects of years earlier,endured to be exonerated,extolled and practicalllyy deified.Th
relationship with Novack,tolerable though tenuous,w to fall apart shortly-thercaft r when
Lapidus agreed to design the Eden Roc hotel immediatorth of the Fontainebleau. Novack
considered it a traitorous act because the Eden Roc was being built by his former—and estranged
—partner Harry Mufson. Novack was so upset that he swore never again to speak to Lapidus or
to allow him to enter the Fontainbleau.When Novack built a 14-story rectangular annex north of
the curved building, Mufson charged that it was done with the sole purpose of casting a huge
daylong shadow on the Eden Roc's pool and/Cabana areas. With Mufson,Lapidus ran into
another strong-willed builder. Harry wanted luxury and glitz to top the Fontainebleau next door.
_Ka . I talian Renaissance was suggested-bythe-arelriteet but Mufson was against the use of heavy
avc,"" 0,
citut " ornamentation. "You mean the Baroque influence,Harry'?" Lapidus asked. "I don't care if it's
Baroque or Brooklyn,just get me plenty of glamouand make sur its screams luxury.29 Mufson
ht turned out to be easier to deal with than Novack; tl - lrten g t along and even `ent on a buying
trip to Europe together,kyen before the Eden Roc opened in 1955,Lapidus wls contacted by
brothers Larry and Bob Tisch about designing a hotel in Bal Harbour. Lapidus surely was on top
of the architectural world: three major hotels in three years! In his past were the days of designing
shoe stores, of being assistant architect,of pleading for a chance to design a building of his own.
Now,people were beating a path to his door for his services.He remained controversial,not only
for his elements of design, but for what he said. By 1955, some of his thinking had changed. He
pronounced modern architecture to be out of date: "...too stark, too severe, too functional."30 He
was scorning some of the very elements he hai used in his earlier designs: windows, glass walls,
indirect lighting and chairs with pipestem legs. His penchant for controversy was equalled by the
lv.�criticism that stormed around him; particularly after the completion of the Tisch,B'roth rs'
Americana(now4Sheraton Bal Harbour)Hotel in Bal Harbour. At a 1963 convention of the
American Institute of Architects held at the Americana Hotel,Lapidus came under criticism from
heavy hitters in the industry. Taking the podium,San Francisco architect Robert Anshen said the
Americana"is built of chin,cheap improbable materials. It is incompetent,uncomfortable and a
monument to vulgarity."31 This brought Lapidus out of his chair and toward the platform. Before
he got there, however,St. Louis Post-Dispatch art critic George McCue asked the audience: "We
must ask ourselves what is the function of this hotel. It obviously was not designed to provide
privacy. I twice answered my phone when the ringing was in my neighbor's room and when he
flushes I feel I should run for high ground..." By now,Lapidus had worked his way to the
microphone. "I want to pose the question of this hotel which is not an architectural masterpiece but
18-8