In defense of engineers, myself included- Frany Lloyd Wright was an engineer. Shigeru Ban was an engineer. Piano's parents were engineers. Engineers aren't all bad. Oh, and there's no ASCI steel manual. It's ASCE.
That being said, Calatrava does engineering for engineering's sake- not good. But some engineering is essential. Falling Waters started cracking as soon as it was built. Frank Lloyd Wright complained that it cracked from the addition of rebar that wasn't in his original design. He was a crap engineer.
paper- FLlW's buildings crack because he knew jack crap about mixing good concrete. I've seen several Wright buildings up close and they bear many signs of poor mixes- crumbling, inconsistant texture, incredibly diverse aggregate sizes. And analysis of the Freeman House shows that the aggregate was not washed. I don't know if this qualifies as an engineering error. That's specs, which are something we all should know enough about to avoid that sort of thing. FLlW was crap at getting his designs built properly.
Calatrava should stick to doing scultural artwork and bridges, not architecture. His buildings lack programming and integration with their surroundings. Specifically, the Museum in Milwaukee...God, talk about a building looking for function! You could tell that the outer form was devised before the programming layout or the needs of the building. The interior rooms are not designed for the artwork they contain and the long hallway stops abruptly at a stone wall below Saarinen's War Museum.
I'll admit he is a talented engineer, but there is a reason why engineering and architecture are two different professions.
Having said this, I realize that FLW had an engineering background, but he used his engineering skills to complement his architectural work, not take it over. If Calatrava wants to do good architecture, he should look to FLW for guidance.
ah yes, let us not criticize the great works of Gehry or Calatrava or anyone else who's ego is bigger than their buildings! far be it for architecture to be about good design instead of who can build the biggest piece of eye-candy for the masses to "ooo" and "awe" at. the only reason we have these architects names fused into our brains is because "good architecture" is rewarded upon those who can make it look pretty, not those who can make it function well.
Amen to that. These ass clowns take away from the true talents in the field. The only reason they get as much attention as they do is that the layman sees them in time magazine and CNN as being the greatest architects of our time, sad but true. Also don't forget meier in this list, he gets far more credit than he deserves
I admired S.C's early works which were clever and had modest programs. His bridges were nice, while probably carrying as much design as such simply-utilized strutures can withstand.
Unfortunately I find his his recent occupiable work to be really desperate. He really doesn't know when to turn it off, or when a design is finished.
Problems / He tends to make:
- Objects, not buildings
- Ever more literal bird skeletons. Yep... a colonade can be reimagined as a rib-cage. Check... got it. And thanks to his overuse, I'm not allowed to forget it.
- World's fair architecture / designed to have immediate impact but provide powerfully little staying power; the work looks sillier and sillier (more and more indulgent) the farther one gets from the moment they first saw it. Instead of letting you discover a nice detail, he pounds you over the head with the entire building. Subtle, schmubtle!
- Buildings that do not contribute to the life of the mind. What does one say after saying this is "brilliant" and "romantic?" (thud) "...Where do you want to have lunch?" "Stand in front of it, I'll take your picture"? These works are shallow, discourse killers... theoretical dead ends.
You can see he's trying to continue the "engineer as romantic" vector forged by Saarinen and others, but his formal ideas are soooooo corny. His buildings are clunky, over-designed gee-gaws. In his effort to acheive greater and greater dynamism he resorts to bankrupt nineteenth century compositional ideas; when he shifts scale you get something like the Valencia suite which is easily his worst work, but also gets my vote for the ugliest, crappiest, most unfortunate building I've ever seen. The opera house is a scaled-up bicycle helmet with a feather taped to it.
I think he falls asleep at night panicking that there might be a square meter left in one of his buildings that he forgot to shoehorn more "design" into. He makes architectural pornography. I look at each new project, check the list above for conformity, and roll my eyes. I think he's the absolute worst celebrity architect.
"The opera house is a scaled-up bicycle helmet with a feather taped to it."
Brlliant. There is more engineering finesse and grace in Heatherwick's Rolling Bridge, than any of Calatrava's recent work. Although the same process of cartoony degeneration could happen to him too.
Personally, I have never been inside any of Calatrava's buildings, so I cannot judge. BUT my question is, how is the function of his building? I ask this because, most of the people who love his work only say, "his work is so beautiful", or "it's just amazing" - they are only describing the form - Thus I am getting the impression that his works (well only "buildings") are ALL FORM BUT NO FUNCTION.
I think many of you understand when I use the word "function", but let me elaborate - well this question goes out to the people who have been inside his buildings - how did you feel inside? Did you feel as if you were moving with the buildings (i.e. like FLW's Guggenheim, assuming people start from the top of the museum and go down.)? Was everything Accessible and/or could? Did you gain the correct atmosphere?
i like him, but then again i'm open to you trash talking him. it's you own opinion. we can't all like everyone or this world would be full of sugar-coated bullshit.
though i wouldnt at all consider calatrava someone i greatly admire, i dont have nearly as much a problem with him as so many people up here do.
ive not seen any of his buildings up close either, so i cant be overly supportive or critical.
i think a lot of these criticisms are useless though. Saying Calatrava's work is a theoretical dead end is like saying Britany Spear's albums lack the depth of Radiohead.
People should realize for a second that pop music is pop music, pop architecture is pop architecture... stop trying to make calatrava and ghery and the like into carriers of the progressive torch... they have a job to do, and thats to provide populist work.... its the same job Pink, Creed, and 50 cent have.
as for the chicago spire... i dont think its retarded at all. i think there will be many, many more meaningful buildings, worthy of deep analysis and study... but i also think its an incredible form which will become an immediate icon for the city skyline, as well as accurately providing a snap shot of the current state of chicago, the us and to a large extent, new building culture.
Lletdown - my uncle is a surveyor for it, if any archinectors want to get a small trip to view the underground work, let me know. We could get down there on a saturday when hes locating caisons and caps.
Caltrava - I can't be the only one who thinks his buildings suck
In defense of engineers, myself included- Frany Lloyd Wright was an engineer. Shigeru Ban was an engineer. Piano's parents were engineers. Engineers aren't all bad. Oh, and there's no ASCI steel manual. It's ASCE.
That being said, Calatrava does engineering for engineering's sake- not good. But some engineering is essential. Falling Waters started cracking as soon as it was built. Frank Lloyd Wright complained that it cracked from the addition of rebar that wasn't in his original design. He was a crap engineer.
paper- FLlW's buildings crack because he knew jack crap about mixing good concrete. I've seen several Wright buildings up close and they bear many signs of poor mixes- crumbling, inconsistant texture, incredibly diverse aggregate sizes. And analysis of the Freeman House shows that the aggregate was not washed. I don't know if this qualifies as an engineering error. That's specs, which are something we all should know enough about to avoid that sort of thing. FLlW was crap at getting his designs built properly.
fair enough.
Balmond's all over the Rem's Kunsthal in Rotterdam
hey paper,
there may be no ACSI steel manual, but there IS an AISC steel manual. it's green. i think all arch students are required to buy it at some point.
shigeru an engineer?
he never said so. he studied at sci-arch and cooper union SOA. these are engineering schools?
technically speaking, architects in germany get engineering diplomas (dipl. ing) but they aren't engineers, either.
eitherway, calatrava's new projects in seville blow like the yankees.
THANK YOU! finally someone says it!
Calatrava should stick to doing scultural artwork and bridges, not architecture. His buildings lack programming and integration with their surroundings. Specifically, the Museum in Milwaukee...God, talk about a building looking for function! You could tell that the outer form was devised before the programming layout or the needs of the building. The interior rooms are not designed for the artwork they contain and the long hallway stops abruptly at a stone wall below Saarinen's War Museum.
I'll admit he is a talented engineer, but there is a reason why engineering and architecture are two different professions.
Having said this, I realize that FLW had an engineering background, but he used his engineering skills to complement his architectural work, not take it over. If Calatrava wants to do good architecture, he should look to FLW for guidance.
Most of ya'll've got problems/issues. Regarding Gehry, Calatrava, or anyone else, I say this respectfully: Go design something better & shaddap.
ah yes, let us not criticize the great works of Gehry or Calatrava or anyone else who's ego is bigger than their buildings! far be it for architecture to be about good design instead of who can build the biggest piece of eye-candy for the masses to "ooo" and "awe" at. the only reason we have these architects names fused into our brains is because "good architecture" is rewarded upon those who can make it look pretty, not those who can make it function well.
ah yes
Amen to that. These ass clowns take away from the true talents in the field. The only reason they get as much attention as they do is that the layman sees them in time magazine and CNN as being the greatest architects of our time, sad but true. Also don't forget meier in this list, he gets far more credit than he deserves
I admired S.C's early works which were clever and had modest programs. His bridges were nice, while probably carrying as much design as such simply-utilized strutures can withstand.
Unfortunately I find his his recent occupiable work to be really desperate. He really doesn't know when to turn it off, or when a design is finished.
Problems / He tends to make:
- Objects, not buildings
- Ever more literal bird skeletons. Yep... a colonade can be reimagined as a rib-cage. Check... got it. And thanks to his overuse, I'm not allowed to forget it.
- World's fair architecture / designed to have immediate impact but provide powerfully little staying power; the work looks sillier and sillier (more and more indulgent) the farther one gets from the moment they first saw it. Instead of letting you discover a nice detail, he pounds you over the head with the entire building. Subtle, schmubtle!
- Buildings that do not contribute to the life of the mind. What does one say after saying this is "brilliant" and "romantic?" (thud) "...Where do you want to have lunch?" "Stand in front of it, I'll take your picture"? These works are shallow, discourse killers... theoretical dead ends.
You can see he's trying to continue the "engineer as romantic" vector forged by Saarinen and others, but his formal ideas are soooooo corny. His buildings are clunky, over-designed gee-gaws. In his effort to acheive greater and greater dynamism he resorts to bankrupt nineteenth century compositional ideas; when he shifts scale you get something like the Valencia suite which is easily his worst work, but also gets my vote for the ugliest, crappiest, most unfortunate building I've ever seen. The opera house is a scaled-up bicycle helmet with a feather taped to it.
I think he falls asleep at night panicking that there might be a square meter left in one of his buildings that he forgot to shoehorn more "design" into. He makes architectural pornography. I look at each new project, check the list above for conformity, and roll my eyes. I think he's the absolute worst celebrity architect.
"The opera house is a scaled-up bicycle helmet with a feather taped to it."
Brlliant. There is more engineering finesse and grace in Heatherwick's Rolling Bridge, than any of Calatrava's recent work. Although the same process of cartoony degeneration could happen to him too.
wow, this is an old thread!
i'll add my 0.220014741 pesos:
i think his bridges are great. i really like the one in argentina that pivots to let ships pass by.
his buildings, on the other hand, i really dislike. although i've never visited one in person, they seem monstrously over scaled to me.
I think post like these are fot for people just trying to get Attention...
Like Me.
Typo I know....(the Usual suspect)
just for people trying to get attention.
Like ME
you should download mozilla firefox.
it's got an integrated spell check and dictionary/thesaurus!
No you are not alone !!!
I think Calatrava would have been a great choice to continue Gaudi's Sagrada Familia.
Personally, I have never been inside any of Calatrava's buildings, so I cannot judge. BUT my question is, how is the function of his building? I ask this because, most of the people who love his work only say, "his work is so beautiful", or "it's just amazing" - they are only describing the form - Thus I am getting the impression that his works (well only "buildings") are ALL FORM BUT NO FUNCTION.
I think many of you understand when I use the word "function", but let me elaborate - well this question goes out to the people who have been inside his buildings - how did you feel inside? Did you feel as if you were moving with the buildings (i.e. like FLW's Guggenheim, assuming people start from the top of the museum and go down.)? Was everything Accessible and/or could? Did you gain the correct atmosphere?
I've been inside his building in Milwaukee. Like the rest of that city, it should be pushed into Lake Michigan and started over from scratch.
i like him, but then again i'm open to you trash talking him. it's you own opinion. we can't all like everyone or this world would be full of sugar-coated bullshit.
The Chicago Spire is absolutely retarded
haha, the chicago spire
it looks like one of those old frozen ice-pops
though i wouldnt at all consider calatrava someone i greatly admire, i dont have nearly as much a problem with him as so many people up here do.
ive not seen any of his buildings up close either, so i cant be overly supportive or critical.
i think a lot of these criticisms are useless though. Saying Calatrava's work is a theoretical dead end is like saying Britany Spear's albums lack the depth of Radiohead.
People should realize for a second that pop music is pop music, pop architecture is pop architecture... stop trying to make calatrava and ghery and the like into carriers of the progressive torch... they have a job to do, and thats to provide populist work.... its the same job Pink, Creed, and 50 cent have.
as for the chicago spire... i dont think its retarded at all. i think there will be many, many more meaningful buildings, worthy of deep analysis and study... but i also think its an incredible form which will become an immediate icon for the city skyline, as well as accurately providing a snap shot of the current state of chicago, the us and to a large extent, new building culture.
Its a Rococo twisted column
the only redeaming value is the mega engineering.
Lletdown - my uncle is a surveyor for it, if any archinectors want to get a small trip to view the underground work, let me know. We could get down there on a saturday when hes locating caisons and caps.
Also - without the actual spire antena its just so bland. Sorry I cant enjoy it the way you do Lletdown. I wish I could.
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.