Alright... seems like the 'general public' is speaking to us and --like always-- we're too stuborn and just plain DUMB to listen and take advantage of their sentiment.
Time magazine recently published some kind of "great buildings of the world" issue, and nearly ALL of the buildings included within had some degree of 'structural/formal spectacle' going on. From pyramids to calatrava to TWA terminal to bilbao to the WTC...
People are sick of cheap boxes... thats what their telling us. When the "unenlightened" see a box, they think "boring... and it will look like the storage facility/target/jiffy lube across the way"... and reject it outright.
(Unless you are working in Basel because apparently even the Jiffy Lube's in Basel have silkscreened double-skin Pilkington curtain walls.)
When they see the 'modern box' they have no choice but to suggest something "nicer... more like my grandma's house".
When in doubt, they always go for "nice".
"Nice" to them is something with mouldings and shutters and faux-brick. All plastered onto a box... because its cheap.
I'll take Calatrava's "structural study of a horse fucking a dog in the ass" over "nice" any day.
Most people look at his (admittedly formulaic and stylized and gaudy) building's and thing one thing: "Cool."
From the frat boys to your grandma to Joe Local 151 Sixpack... everyone seems to have a soft spot for the structurally heroic. Throw a little bit of 'elegance' into the mix and you have quite a popular peice of architecture.
ANd no, your understated cantilevered box doesn't get their motor running... make it big and bold with lots of fins and pointy bits and you're on your way...
My point (if their was one) is that we should capitalize on this fondness for heroic structural form (see Zaha at wolfsberg... or Miralles... etc...), rather than simply writing off Mr. Santiago as an unfortunate success story.
do you see us criticizing zaha or miralles in the same way? those are structurally impressive structures, getting the "cool" from the public you talk about, but theyre also designed well.
I think of Calatrava as a kind of large scale pastry chef.
He is certainly an engineer with a 'flair for design' (in a very 'pastry-chef' kind of way) but in my mind isn't really an architect. Architects must contend with a much greater range of scales and spaces and programs (not to mention materials and construction techniques).
Maybe my point was not very clear... a lot of architects poo-poo Mr. Calatrava because he works outside the discourse of architecture (i.e. the schools, the magazines, THIS WEBSITE, etc). He makes things that he likes to make. There must be a certain pleasure in winning competition after competition, prize after prize...
Like I said... I don't like his work much, but I think there is something to be learned from the successes he has had, and continues to have.
It seems that somewhere in our discourses on complexity, the bold, dumb energy of structurally ambitous form/space seems to have escaped us (for instance, my dad knows all about calatrava... has no idea who Cecil Balmond is :).
(<== these are all just thoughts, not meant to challenge anyone... live and let live folks)
No one can stand something Mies like these days, so all the more power to architects willing to push the limits, even if that means being lambasted for creating something sculptural.
12 Comments
c'mon, how many more cities are going to buy this cheesy a-spatial spectacle?
a lot of his buildings have the same massing, how many bird like buildings can you do ?
remember this?
laughable
i think i'm going to get sick.
Alright... seems like the 'general public' is speaking to us and --like always-- we're too stuborn and just plain DUMB to listen and take advantage of their sentiment.
Time magazine recently published some kind of "great buildings of the world" issue, and nearly ALL of the buildings included within had some degree of 'structural/formal spectacle' going on. From pyramids to calatrava to TWA terminal to bilbao to the WTC...
People are sick of cheap boxes... thats what their telling us. When the "unenlightened" see a box, they think "boring... and it will look like the storage facility/target/jiffy lube across the way"... and reject it outright.
(Unless you are working in Basel because apparently even the Jiffy Lube's in Basel have silkscreened double-skin Pilkington curtain walls.)
When they see the 'modern box' they have no choice but to suggest something "nicer... more like my grandma's house".
When in doubt, they always go for "nice".
"Nice" to them is something with mouldings and shutters and faux-brick. All plastered onto a box... because its cheap.
I'll take Calatrava's "structural study of a horse fucking a dog in the ass" over "nice" any day.
Most people look at his (admittedly formulaic and stylized and gaudy) building's and thing one thing: "Cool."
From the frat boys to your grandma to Joe Local 151 Sixpack... everyone seems to have a soft spot for the structurally heroic. Throw a little bit of 'elegance' into the mix and you have quite a popular peice of architecture.
ANd no, your understated cantilevered box doesn't get their motor running... make it big and bold with lots of fins and pointy bits and you're on your way...
My point (if their was one) is that we should capitalize on this fondness for heroic structural form (see Zaha at wolfsberg... or Miralles... etc...), rather than simply writing off Mr. Santiago as an unfortunate success story.
do you see us criticizing zaha or miralles in the same way? those are structurally impressive structures, getting the "cool" from the public you talk about, but theyre also designed well.
"structurally impressive structures"...sorry
Netizen:
Not EXACTLY sure who "us" is here...but oh well.
I think of Calatrava as a kind of large scale pastry chef.
He is certainly an engineer with a 'flair for design' (in a very 'pastry-chef' kind of way) but in my mind isn't really an architect. Architects must contend with a much greater range of scales and spaces and programs (not to mention materials and construction techniques).
Maybe my point was not very clear... a lot of architects poo-poo Mr. Calatrava because he works outside the discourse of architecture (i.e. the schools, the magazines, THIS WEBSITE, etc). He makes things that he likes to make. There must be a certain pleasure in winning competition after competition, prize after prize...
Like I said... I don't like his work much, but I think there is something to be learned from the successes he has had, and continues to have.
It seems that somewhere in our discourses on complexity, the bold, dumb energy of structurally ambitous form/space seems to have escaped us (for instance, my dad knows all about calatrava... has no idea who Cecil Balmond is :).
(<== these are all just thoughts, not meant to challenge anyone... live and let live folks)
No one can stand something Mies like these days, so all the more power to architects willing to push the limits, even if that means being lambasted for creating something sculptural.
That's pretty far from "pushing the limits". If you don't mean pushing the limits of how many will be fooled in buying the same design, of course...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.