That is really beautiful. It's so hard to do simple well but when it is achieved it's just sublime. Love it. In fact, I may steal it (bits of it - the wood spacings) for my own house.
chris-chitect
Oct 13, 17 2:53 am
I kinda like it, but a shame they didn't capture this in better lighting conditions. The play of shadows would be interesting to see.
This takes it up a notch.
Volunteer
Oct 13, 17 6:44 am
Not to be Debbie Downer, but where do the people visiting the park retreat to when a rain shower comes along? Isn't 'shelter' one of the expected attributes of a pavilion?
geezertect
Oct 13, 17 8:53 am
My reaction exactly.
Donna Sink
Oct 13, 17 7:18 am
Shelter from rain needn’t also provide shelter from sun, and vice versa.
geezertect
Oct 13, 17 8:54 am
So you're advocating one shelter for rain, another for sun, maybe another for wind, etc.? Sound silly to me, but it's one person's opinion. This thing is pretty but essentially worthless.
randomised
Oct 14, 17 4:59 am
It's a pavilion, calm down :)
archi_dude
Oct 13, 17 9:36 am
Ah the typical result of hiring an architect, a very expensive pointless structure. BUT the shadows!
Wilma Buttfit
Oct 13, 17 9:46 am
I did something similar in 3rd year of architecture school except mine had a dome built up from sticks and spaces with similar shadow play.
JLC-1
Oct 13, 17 10:29 am
-What do you do?
- I do "pavillions".
Peter Normand
Oct 16, 17 8:58 pm
How many famous architects did a pavilion or two? I bet it is a long list.
Miles Jaffe
Oct 13, 17 11:28 am
Big waste of materials and labor to accomplish nothing except interrupting a nice site.
If this was the winning entry wither the other entries were even worse or the judges are deaf, dumb, and blind.
JonathanLivingston
Oct 13, 17 11:36 am
I think the heels of my shoes would not like walking across those boards spaced like that.
chigurh
Oct 13, 17 11:41 am
lets not confuse a folly and architecture with a capital A.
randomised
Oct 14, 17 5:00 am
Exactly
randomised
Oct 13, 17 1:33 pm
A bit heavy on the symbolism for my taste with that crucifix plan and temple-like section but love the spacing of the sticks and would really like a drone capture if it would burn...
two different and opposite cosmogonies - I like FABRIC's too.
randomised
Oct 13, 17 2:13 pm
Had to google 'cosmogonies', nice one for crits and pin-ups, will hopefully remember it.
JLC-1
Oct 13, 17 2:19 pm
I wanted to say two ways of approaching reality, one bi-axial, rigid, straight - and the other multi-directional, playful, adventurous; cosmogony is a bit much, but it fits.
Kevin Wagner
Oct 13, 17 2:18 pm
A solution to something that didn't have a problem. It looks awkward, like dropped there to be placed somewhere else later. Lots of "whys" here. I keep thinking of splinters.
geezertect
Oct 13, 17 3:27 pm
Looks like a chicken coop before frame inspection.
And the verbal description in the link about the rhythm of the supports versus the rhythm of the trees! Puhleeze.
sameolddoctor
Oct 13, 17 3:27 pm
As architecture it is a failure.
As a sculpture, it is OK (but still meh)
archietechie
Oct 13, 17 4:06 pm
How to salvage it: Add glass panels above
JLC-1
Oct 13, 17 4:07 pm
or bring to burning man....
randomised
Oct 14, 17 2:13 am
Why salvage it, it's meant as a cheap temporary pavilion. It doesn't make any sense to cover it with glass.
archietechie
Oct 14, 17 12:45 pm
Because then it'll be a failure - in terms of functionality; in terms of cost. Least with glass, the shadow
effects are mitigated.
randomised
Oct 14, 17 3:08 pm
It's not a failure, it's a folly.
Everyday Architect
Oct 13, 17 6:40 pm
My thoughts immediately went to, "This wouldn't comply with accessibility requirements in the States."
Also, "It's a shame it was an overcast day when they took the photos."
I see it. A ramp doesn't make it accessible. The walking surface is broken and therefore it is not accessible at least by US standards. Why wouldn't they ramp all 4 ends? Only one end being ramped looks like an afterthought.
randomised
Oct 15, 17 11:35 am
Well, therefore it's a temporary pavilion, it doesn't need to be accessible, just like the yearly Serpentine Pavilions.
Everyday Architect
Oct 15, 17 12:48 pm
First off, I saw the ramp. I still made my comment. Thanks for seeing it too Tinbeary. It's frankly embarrassing that others don't understand that putting a ramp on it doesn't make it accessible. Second, your argument that it doesn't need to be accessible because it is a temporary pavilion ignores the fact that my original comment was specific to meeting accessibility codes in the states. This is in Copenhagen and obviously wouldn't need to meet any US accessibility codes regardless of being a temporary pavilion. Third, while legally it may not be required to meet accessibility guidelines because it is temporary (not sure what Copenhagen's laws would require or allow), I think there is a larger argument that as art, or even architecture, it should be accessible ... allowing as many people to experience it as they are able to. So, some off hand remark that there is a ramp seems to have missed the point on many levels.
randomised
Oct 15, 17 3:57 pm
Maybe it simply meets Danish accessibility codes, and why isn't it accessible with that floor? You can simply step on the beams only or roll over them in a wheelchair. Also check out the Serpentine Pavilions, don't think Herzog de Meuron+Ai WeiWei's, Smiljan Radic', Sou Fujimoto's or Bjarke Ingels' pavilion were 100% accessible. Or what about Tschumi's La Villette follies etc. I sometimes think lots of the (American) accessibility or safety codes are quite paternalistic in nature and denying the resourcefulness of people leading to boring and uninspiring architecture and bitter architects. Should we pave over our sandy / rocky beaches because they're not accessible either? I think some people are (a bit) overreacting here and only looking to find a stick (!) to beat the dog. Maybe it's their frustration that they have to make everything up to code themselves all the time and can't stand it when people are freely experimenting spatially and getting praised for it.
Everyday Architect
Oct 15, 17 8:57 pm
ICC A117.1 Section 302.3 Openings is why it isn't accessible with that floor. Sorry if my comment really bothers you randomised. I didn't make the codes, I'm just pointing out that this wouldn't meet them (in the US). It was just an observation. It didn't mean that I don't find the pavilion interesting or meaningful. It was just where my mind first went.
randomised
Oct 16, 17 1:22 am
Your comment doesn't bother me at all, it just seems strange to me that people bring up code issues with pavilions, it seems like a projection of their daily frustrations which I feel sorry for ;-) Comparably, the first comment on international fora about Japanese houses is often a complaint about the missing handrails on stairs or something else insignificant. Different cultures, different codes.
Donna Sink
Oct 14, 17 1:46 pm
As a person inhabiting a human body, I find walking along under a colonnade to be a lovely experience. I don't *also* need every colonnade to keep me warm, or have a locking door, or provide space to change my oil filter, or contain a well-equipped NICU, or elevate me 30 stories in the air.
As randomised said: It's a pavilion. Calm down.
I don't understand why you all are being so nasty about this. Oh wait, I do: Someone expressed an undisguised and unembarrassed pleasure in someone else's accomplishment, which Toxic Masculinity perceives as a red flag screaming "WEAKNESS DETECTED!!" causing the attack instinct to prevail in an effort to stave off their own unacknowledged fear of irrelevance. Got it.
Miles Jaffe
Oct 14, 17 2:07 pm
If the colonnade was made of statues of naked women I'd probably have a different opinion.
Peter Normand
Oct 16, 17 9:01 pm
The statures as columns thing has been done, next!
sameolddoctor
Oct 14, 17 7:39 pm
Donna, it's ok to like things that are beautiful, for the sake of being beautiful, which is of course, subjective. However it is not architecture, for most of us. That's all there is to the comments, nothing to do with feminism. lol.
Donna Sink
Oct 14, 17 8:36 pm
You're wrong.
Wilma Buttfit
Oct 14, 17 10:09 pm
Saving a copy of Donna's rant for future use. Well done.
Wilma Buttfit
Oct 14, 17 10:41 pm
Somebody was talking about doing 2x4 closely framed spacing just a few days ago. Here we go.
Wilma Buttfit
Oct 15, 17 2:23 pm
Yes, I pictured closer. Like butcher block or gluelam turned 90 degrees. That would be great.
Volunteer
Oct 15, 17 7:11 am
Well first off it's not a pavilion it's a pergola. A pergola without the flowering vines on the roof that would add some rain protection and dapple what sunlight did come through. Also the flooring seems designed to injure any women who happened to be wearing high heels, as in attending a wedding or other formal occasion.
randomised
Oct 15, 17 9:13 am
The floor of the pavilion is equally fit for high heels as the grass it sits on. And why would anyone want to block the sun in Copenhagen in autumn? If there's any place that could benefit from some rays of sunshine it is Copenhagen in autumn before the dark depressing winter sets in.
Volunteer
Oct 15, 17 12:25 pm
So, the thing is to be used only in autumn? And you really think the 'tank trap' for high heels floor is the same as walking on grass? Really.
randomised
Oct 16, 17 12:50 am
Yep, it's a late summer early autumn pavilion and who goes on high heels for a stroll in the park can easily take of the high heels to walk on the soft grass or on this floor for an extra sensory experience. Stop whining ;-)
archietechie
Oct 15, 17 11:53 am
sighhh Donna, aren't you a'lil too mature for liberal arguments?
Volunteer
Oct 16, 17 7:48 am
There is nothing necessarily 'ephemeral' about a pavilion. There is a 'rustic modern' pavilion in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park made of stone and wood that dates from the early 1960s which means it has outlasted a lot of Brutalist concrete buildings.
The design of the Barcelona Pavilion is 88 years old. It was reconstructed in the 1980's and is still going strong on the original site.
It has shelter from the elements for the visitors, a floor you can walk on, a water feature (two, in fact), and was designed around a sculpture (so much for 'ornament is a crime'), and the iconic Barcelona chairs to sit in.
randomised
Oct 16, 17 9:24 am
And your point is?
Volunteer
Oct 16, 17 11:00 am
I dunno, maybe an 88 year-old design is more elegant, modern, user friendly, and enjoyable than a lumber-drying shed without a complete roof?
randomised
Oct 16, 17 2:55 pm
Potato tomato
Miles Jaffe
Oct 16, 17 9:04 am
To fictional's comment:
As this project is not architecture it can only fail when looking at it from an architectural point of view. Looking at it as 'art' leaves it open to interpretation.
From an architect's perspective one tries to compare it to similar building types based on definition, design, or structure.
Stick frame makes it look incomplete. The structure has no apparent historical or cultural reference and ignores strong traditions of Danish wood working. Maybe I'm missing something here ... ? Religious references have been questioned.
As architects we bring our own architectural references for comparison. Mine was Fushimi Inari, which has both cultural and symbolic references (and is an example of historical craft as well). Here there is no apparent cultural reference. Fusimi Inari is a path that leads to a multitude of destinations, this structure is a single object that leads nowhere. I don't see a colonnade (St. Peter just locked the gate) and I don't consider the Barcelona Pavilion to be relative in any way.
I do see an echo of the park's paved walkway, which would have been a natural place for this construction - except for its dysfunction, which would have negated the use of the walkways. In that placement at least it would have made a statement. Placing the structure in a single quadrant of the park makes the structure a sculpture and the site a pedestal for it - off to the side, framed by a quadrant of lawn - makes it 'art', not architecture.
If it's not architecture (even though it incorporates architectural elements) it must be art. My response to it as an artist is what a waste of wood.
Donna Sink
Oct 17, 17 10:10 am
It's not art, but we can judge it through the lenses of installation art, architecture, follies in the landscape...so many aligned disciplines and endeavors.
Internet culture in a nut shell - everyone has an opinion and feels the need to share it. (Mostly to shit on someone else.)
Miles Jaffe
Oct 16, 17 9:30 am
Thanks for sharing yours.
won and done williams
Oct 16, 17 9:42 am
I'm here to serve.
geezertect
Oct 16, 17 7:53 pm
Who is being shit upon?
randomised
Oct 16, 17 9:36 am
^
go do it
Oct 16, 17 10:51 pm
Yes that was an insightful comment fictionalChristopher
Let's not try to read to much or over analyze every piece of architecture sometimes it is just nice to appreciate the simplicity and organization of structure.
I have been loving me some Japanese architecture lately and this reminded me of that. The simple materials and precision layout is masterful. There is a book called "Wabi-Sabi" by Leonard Koren which tries to explain the Japanese concept of Wabi-Sabi and he does a pretty good job.
Wabi-Sabi- Is a beauty of things imperfect, impermanent, and incomplete. A beauty of things modest and humble. A beauty of things unconventional. Simplicity, economy of means. I feel this building is full of Wabi-Sabi. And because of the material used the longer it stays there the more Wabi-Sabi it becomes.
I humbly disagree that this is purely art and not architecture. definition It is a building, unconventional yes but a building.
Is this art or architecture
To me this is most definitely architecture, in its form, use and execution. It does what good design is supposed to do make you think and forces you to experience the space.
I would imagine..
Once you enter the building you immediately are forced to look down because you are not sure of your footing and what do you see grass through the slats. The building has not been separated from nature but is still a part of it. Continuing on you are more comfortable with walking but you are still aware of the slats. You are being guided to feel the building. The simplicity of the building disguises it's complexity. How the roof slats are centered on the post and are not touching at the peak. And how the floor slats are spaced perfectly at the intersection of the wings to abut the post on layout.
I would spend hours at this place
x-jla
Oct 17, 17 1:14 pm
I've always had a problem with the term "function". What does this mean. Does something have to make life more convinient or have a utilitarian value to qualify? Doesn't the present "function" of Giza supersede its originally intended function as a launch pad to the afterlife? Why can't structure or space or place be enough? A garden can be filled with non-edable plants and have paths to nowhere and still be functional to some deeper human needs.
Donna Sink
Oct 17, 17 8:34 pm
1. No, lack of function doesn't make something art and 2. sometimes delight *is* the function of a piece of architecture.
Marc Miller
Oct 17, 17 7:30 pm
-
randomised
Oct 18, 17 12:54 am
Exactly!
Volunteer
Oct 18, 17 6:31 am
Except that the rustic Eden pictured has ground you can walk on and a covering from the rain and sun. The Copenhagen structure is 0 for 2 in that regard.
randomised
Oct 18, 17 8:14 am
Wrong! You can still walk on the floor of the Copenhagen pavilion and there is no covering from rain or sun in this Eden pictured, they are sticks or branches only and you can clearly see the tree behind it and even the dark and light tones of the drawn sticks or branches suggest openings for sunlight coming through.
randomised
Oct 18, 17 8:19 am
Branches form an incline that CAN be covered with leaves and moss. So they can be covered, they don't have to be covered, the CPH pavilion CAN also be covered with leaves and moss.
Laugier theorizes that man wants nothing but shade from the sun and shelter from storms—the same requirements as a more primitive human. "The man is willing to make himself an abode which covers but not buries him," Laugier writes. "Pieces of wood raised perpendicularly, give us the idea of columns. The horizontal pieces that are laid upon them, afford us the idea of entablatures."
Branches form an incline that can be covered with leaves and moss, "so that neither the sun nor the rain can penetrate therein; and now the man is lodged."
Laugier concludes that "The little rustic cabin that I have just described, is the model upon which all the magnificences of architecture have been imagined."
-------
They forgot the leaves and moss.
Marc Miller
Oct 17, 17 10:40 pm
Or they’re setting up the story...
randomised
Oct 18, 17 12:59 am
...primitive architects won't understand. All they see is the "missing" drywall.
Volunteer
Oct 18, 17 8:44 am
Why would you have a wheelchair ramp on the Copenhagen structure when it is obvious that anyone who tried to turn around stands a very good chance of having a wheel slip through the slats?
Miles Jaffe
Oct 18, 17 9:28 am
Indicative of the general level of thought given to this.
randomised
Oct 18, 17 10:34 am
It depends on the gap and the width of the tires, you could always reverse or turn at the cross point, duh...
Miles Jaffe
Oct 18, 17 10:38 am
.
JLC-1
Oct 18, 17 10:38 am
turn here?
geezertect
Oct 18, 17 10:52 am
The more you look at this thing the more ridiculous it is.
BTW, I am still trying to figure out how the spacing of the posts is reflecting the rhythm of the trees. Maybe I really need new glasses.
randomised
Oct 18, 17 12:52 pm
Yes exactly turn there if you really can't elsewhere, you obviously never had to use a wheelchair.
JLC-1
Oct 18, 17 1:04 pm
You are right, I haven't - but I have designed and built bathrooms, landscape paths, hotel lobbies, etc under close scrutiny from building officials that wouldn't even look at a stupid pavillion like this if it wanted to be built for people to use and not just a masturbatory academic exercise producing a bunch of nicely arranged sticks. take your outrage where it belongs.
randomised
Oct 19, 17 2:33 am
I'm not outraged at all! I'm not the one who brings up Amercian(!) code issues with a Danish temporary pavilion that's probably already dismantled by now.
Miles Jaffe
Oct 19, 17 9:03 am
One can only hope ....
randomised
Oct 18, 17 1:20 pm
Looks perfectly navigable by wheelchair to me...
JLC-1
Oct 18, 17 1:29 pm
302.3 Openings. Openings in floor or ground surfaces shall not allow passage of a sphere more than 1/2 inch (13 mm) diameter except as allowed in 407.4.3, 409.4.3, 410.4, 810.5.3 and 810.10. Elongated openings shall be placed so that the long dimension is perpendicular to the dominant direction of travel.
randomised
Oct 18, 17 1:36 pm
But it's built in Copenhagen...
Everyday Architect
Oct 18, 17 2:07 pm
This is where randomised has doubled down on the accessibility argument. They still can't decide on whether or not they want to make the argument that it is accessible (there's a ramp, and you can turn your wheelchair in the center), or that it shouldn't be accessible at all (it's a pavilion, and it's not in the states).
randomised
Oct 19, 17 2:38 am
It doesn't have to be accessible for all, but if people do want to make that argument, all I say is that that ramp and distance between sticks is perfectly navigable by wheelchair. People are using strange arguments (American code issues or that it's open to the elements) for a purposely open temporary structure. They are simply the wrong sticks to beat the wrong dog, that's all I'm trying to indicate.
Everyday Architect
Oct 19, 17 11:56 am
First of all, don't beat dogs with sticks. Don't beat dogs at all. That's cruel. You're ignoring the argument that was made much earlier in the thread ... slapping one ramp on this does not make it accessible. The open gaps in the floor and wheelchair tire width is only one issue with that argument.
randomised
Oct 20, 17 3:58 am
There is no argument, it's a folly.
Wilma Buttfit
Oct 18, 17 2:27 pm
There are more ambulatory assistance devices than wheelchairs... crutches, canes, and walkers, for instance. Ramps =/= accessibility!!! The ramp is a tack-on.
randomised
Oct 19, 17 2:47 am
Sure there are more, but anyone on crutches or with a walker that is able to reach that pavilion in the middle of a 12 hectare park is in such great shape they'll probably don't even need such devices in the first place.
Everyday Architect
Oct 19, 17 11:58 am
Site plan actually shows this quite close to the perimeter of the garden.
randomised
Oct 20, 17 4:03 am
Ah well, there's nothing a little offered arm for support won't fix. I helped a lady on and off the train the other day who was using a walker. Sure she could have contacted the train company for them to roll out the ramp with all bells and whistles, she chose to just go for it and trust in humanity. Worked like a charm.
Wilma Buttfit
Oct 20, 17 10:21 am
anyone have a spec section for placing a gentleman on every corner? ;)
https://divisare.com/projects/...
That is really beautiful. It's so hard to do simple well but when it is achieved it's just sublime. Love it. In fact, I may steal it (bits of it - the wood spacings) for my own house.
I kinda like it, but a shame they didn't capture this in better lighting conditions. The play of shadows would be interesting to see.
This takes it up a notch.
Not to be Debbie Downer, but where do the people visiting the park retreat to when a rain shower comes along? Isn't 'shelter' one of the expected attributes of a pavilion?
My reaction exactly.
Shelter from rain needn’t also provide shelter from sun, and vice versa.
So you're advocating one shelter for rain, another for sun, maybe another for wind, etc.? Sound silly to me, but it's one person's opinion. This thing is pretty but essentially worthless.
It's a pavilion, calm down :)
Ah the typical result of hiring an architect, a very expensive pointless structure. BUT the shadows!
I did something similar in 3rd year of architecture school except mine had a dome built up from sticks and spaces with similar shadow play.
-What do you do?
- I do "pavillions".
How many famous architects did a pavilion or two? I bet it is a long list.
Big waste of materials and labor to accomplish nothing except interrupting a nice site.
If this was the winning entry wither the other entries were even worse or the judges are deaf, dumb, and blind.
I think the heels of my shoes would not like walking across those boards spaced like that.
lets not confuse a folly and architecture with a capital A.
Exactly
A bit heavy on the symbolism for my taste with that crucifix plan and temple-like section but love the spacing of the sticks and would really like a drone capture if it would burn...
I personally prefer the pavilion from 2013:
http://www.fabrications.nl/por...
two different and opposite cosmogonies - I like FABRIC's too.
Had to google 'cosmogonies', nice one for crits and pin-ups, will hopefully remember it.
I wanted to say two ways of approaching reality, one bi-axial, rigid, straight - and the other multi-directional, playful, adventurous; cosmogony is a bit much, but it fits.
A solution to something that didn't have a problem. It looks awkward, like dropped there to be placed somewhere else later. Lots of "whys" here. I keep thinking of splinters.
Looks like a chicken coop before frame inspection.
And the verbal description in the link about the rhythm of the supports versus the rhythm of the trees! Puhleeze.
As architecture it is a failure.
As a sculpture, it is OK (but still meh)
How to salvage it: Add glass panels above
or bring to burning man....
Why salvage it, it's meant as a cheap temporary pavilion. It doesn't make any sense to cover it with glass.
Because then it'll be a failure - in terms of functionality; in terms of cost. Least with glass, the shadow effects are mitigated.
It's not a failure, it's a folly.
My thoughts immediately went to, "This wouldn't comply with accessibility requirements in the States."
Also, "It's a shame it was an overcast day when they took the photos."
There's a ramp...
Not sure if serious ...
It probably doesn't have to if it's art.
Am dead serious, here's the ramp:
http://www.archdaily.com/880213/kings-garden-pavilion-krupinski-krupinska-arkitekter/59c566e4b22e384b4c0003c1-kings-garden-pavilion-krupinski-krupinska-arkitekter-section-plan
This photo shows it pretty clearly... https://images.divisare.com/images/dpr_1.0,f_auto,q_auto,w_800/fe5l7n8pbnwosplut0ex/krupinski-krupinska-arkitekter-king-s-garden-pavilion-ii.jpg
I see it. A ramp doesn't make it accessible. The walking surface is broken and therefore it is not accessible at least by US standards. Why wouldn't they ramp all 4 ends? Only one end being ramped looks like an afterthought.
Well, therefore it's a temporary pavilion, it doesn't need to be accessible, just like the yearly Serpentine Pavilions.
First off, I saw the ramp. I still made my comment. Thanks for seeing it too Tinbeary. It's frankly embarrassing that others don't understand that putting a ramp on it doesn't make it accessible. Second, your argument that it doesn't need to be accessible because it is a temporary pavilion ignores the fact that my original comment was specific to meeting accessibility codes in the states. This is in Copenhagen and obviously wouldn't need to meet any US accessibility codes regardless of being a temporary pavilion. Third, while legally it may not be required to meet accessibility guidelines because it is temporary (not sure what Copenhagen's laws would require or allow), I think there is a larger argument that as art, or even architecture, it should be accessible ... allowing as many people to experience it as they are able to. So, some off hand remark that there is a ramp seems to have missed the point on many levels.
Maybe it simply meets Danish accessibility codes, and why isn't it accessible with that floor? You can simply step on the beams only or roll over them in a wheelchair. Also check out the Serpentine Pavilions, don't think Herzog de Meuron+Ai WeiWei's, Smiljan Radic', Sou Fujimoto's or Bjarke Ingels' pavilion were 100% accessible. Or what about Tschumi's La Villette follies etc. I sometimes think lots of the (American) accessibility or safety codes are quite paternalistic in nature and denying the resourcefulness of people leading to boring and uninspiring architecture and bitter architects. Should we pave over our sandy / rocky beaches because they're not accessible either? I think some people are (a bit) overreacting here and only looking to find a stick (!) to beat the dog. Maybe it's their frustration that they have to make everything up to code themselves all the time and can't stand it when people are freely experimenting spatially and getting praised for it.
ICC A117.1 Section 302.3 Openings is why it isn't accessible with that floor. Sorry if my comment really bothers you randomised. I didn't make the codes, I'm just pointing out that this wouldn't meet them (in the US). It was just an observation. It didn't mean that I don't find the pavilion interesting or meaningful. It was just where my mind first went.
Your comment doesn't bother me at all, it just seems strange to me that people bring up code issues with pavilions, it seems like a projection of their daily frustrations which I feel sorry for ;-) Comparably, the first comment on international fora about Japanese houses is often a complaint about the missing handrails on stairs or something else insignificant. Different cultures, different codes.
As a person inhabiting a human body, I find walking along under a colonnade to be a lovely experience. I don't *also* need every colonnade to keep me warm, or have a locking door, or provide space to change my oil filter, or contain a well-equipped NICU, or elevate me 30 stories in the air.
As randomised said: It's a pavilion. Calm down.
I don't understand why you all are being so nasty about this. Oh wait, I do: Someone expressed an undisguised and unembarrassed pleasure in someone else's accomplishment, which Toxic Masculinity perceives as a red flag screaming "WEAKNESS DETECTED!!" causing the attack instinct to prevail in an effort to stave off their own unacknowledged fear of irrelevance. Got it.
If the colonnade was made of statues of naked women I'd probably have a different opinion.
The statures as columns thing has been done, next!
Donna, it's ok to like things that are beautiful, for the sake of being beautiful, which is of course, subjective. However it is not architecture, for most of us. That's all there is to the comments, nothing to do with feminism. lol.
You're wrong.
Saving a copy of Donna's rant for future use. Well done.
Somebody was talking about doing 2x4 closely framed spacing just a few days ago. Here we go.
Yes, I pictured closer. Like butcher block or gluelam turned 90 degrees. That would be great.
Well first off it's not a pavilion it's a pergola. A pergola without the flowering vines on the roof that would add some rain protection and dapple what sunlight did come through. Also the flooring seems designed to injure any women who happened to be wearing high heels, as in attending a wedding or other formal occasion.
The floor of the pavilion is equally fit for high heels as the grass it sits on. And why would anyone want to block the sun in Copenhagen in autumn? If there's any place that could benefit from some rays of sunshine it is Copenhagen in autumn before the dark depressing winter sets in.
So, the thing is to be used only in autumn? And you really think the 'tank trap' for high heels floor is the same as walking on grass? Really.
Yep, it's a late summer early autumn pavilion and who goes on high heels for a stroll in the park can easily take of the high heels to walk on the soft grass or on this floor for an extra sensory experience. Stop whining ;-)
sighhh Donna, aren't you a'lil too mature for liberal arguments?
There is nothing necessarily 'ephemeral' about a pavilion. There is a 'rustic modern' pavilion in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park made of stone and wood that dates from the early 1960s which means it has outlasted a lot of Brutalist concrete buildings.
The design of the Barcelona Pavilion is 88 years old. It was reconstructed in the 1980's and is still going strong on the original site.
It has shelter from the elements for the visitors, a floor you can walk on, a water feature (two, in fact), and was designed around a sculpture (so much for 'ornament is a crime'), and the iconic Barcelona chairs to sit in.
And your point is?
I dunno, maybe an 88 year-old design is more elegant, modern, user friendly, and enjoyable than a lumber-drying shed without a complete roof?
Potato tomato
To fictional's comment:
As this project is not architecture it can only fail when looking at it from an architectural point of view. Looking at it as 'art' leaves it open to interpretation.
From an architect's perspective one tries to compare it to similar building types based on definition, design, or structure.
Stick frame makes it look incomplete. The structure has no apparent historical or cultural reference and ignores strong traditions of Danish wood working. Maybe I'm missing something here ... ? Religious references have been questioned.
As architects we bring our own architectural references for comparison. Mine was Fushimi Inari, which has both cultural and symbolic references (and is an example of historical craft as well). Here there is no apparent cultural reference. Fusimi Inari is a path that leads to a multitude of destinations, this structure is a single object that leads nowhere. I don't see a colonnade (St. Peter just locked the gate) and I don't consider the Barcelona Pavilion to be relative in any way.
I do see an echo of the park's paved walkway, which would have been a natural place for this construction - except for its dysfunction, which would have negated the use of the walkways. In that placement at least it would have made a statement. Placing the structure in a single quadrant of the park makes the structure a sculpture and the site a pedestal for it - off to the side, framed by a quadrant of lawn - makes it 'art', not architecture.
If it's not architecture (even though it incorporates architectural elements) it must be art. My response to it as an artist is what a waste of wood.
It's not art, but we can judge it through the lenses of installation art, architecture, follies in the landscape...so many aligned disciplines and endeavors.
Here we go again ... Art vs. architecture.
Exactly, Miles.
Internet culture in a nut shell - everyone has an opinion and feels the need to share it. (Mostly to shit on someone else.)
Thanks for sharing yours.
I'm here to serve.
Who is being shit upon?
^
Yes that was an insightful comment fictionalChristopher
Let's not try to read to much or over analyze every piece of architecture sometimes it is just nice to appreciate the simplicity and organization of structure.
I have been loving me some Japanese architecture lately and this reminded me of that. The simple materials and precision layout is masterful. There is a book called "Wabi-Sabi" by Leonard Koren which tries to explain the Japanese concept of Wabi-Sabi and he does a pretty good job.
Wabi-Sabi- Is a beauty of things imperfect, impermanent, and incomplete. A beauty of things modest and humble. A beauty of things unconventional. Simplicity, economy of means. I feel this building is full of Wabi-Sabi. And because of the material used the longer it stays there the more Wabi-Sabi it becomes.
I humbly disagree that this is purely art and not architecture. definition It is a building, unconventional yes but a building.
Is this art or architecture
To me this is most definitely architecture, in its form, use and execution. It does what good design is supposed to do make you think and forces you to experience the space.
I would imagine..
Once you enter the building you immediately are forced to look down because you are not sure of your footing and what do you see grass through the slats. The building has not been separated from nature but is still a part of it. Continuing on you are more comfortable with walking but you are still aware of the slats. You are being guided to feel the building. The simplicity of the building disguises it's complexity. How the roof slats are centered on the post and are not touching at the peak. And how the floor slats are spaced perfectly at the intersection of the wings to abut the post on layout.
I would spend hours at this place
I've always had a problem with the term "function". What does this mean. Does something have to make life more convinient or have a utilitarian value to qualify? Doesn't the present "function" of Giza supersede its originally intended function as a launch pad to the afterlife? Why can't structure or space or place be enough? A garden can be filled with non-edable plants and have paths to nowhere and still be functional to some deeper human needs.
1. No, lack of function doesn't make something art and 2. sometimes delight *is* the function of a piece of architecture.
-
Exactly!
Except that the rustic Eden pictured has ground you can walk on and a covering from the rain and sun. The Copenhagen structure is 0 for 2 in that regard.
Wrong! You can still walk on the floor of the Copenhagen pavilion and there is no covering from rain or sun in this Eden pictured, they are sticks or branches only and you can clearly see the tree behind it and even the dark and light tones of the drawn sticks or branches suggest openings for sunlight coming through.
Below is quoted from here, emphasis mine ...
THE PRIMITIVE HUT IDEA BY LAUGIER
Laugier theorizes that man wants nothing but shade from the sun and shelter from storms—the same requirements as a more primitive human. "The man is willing to make himself an abode which covers but not buries him," Laugier writes. "Pieces of wood raised perpendicularly, give us the idea of columns. The horizontal pieces that are laid upon them, afford us the idea of entablatures."
Branches form an incline that can be covered with leaves and moss, "so that neither the sun nor the rain can penetrate therein; and now the man is lodged."
Laugier concludes that "The little rustic cabin that I have just described, is the model upon which all the magnificences of architecture have been imagined."
-------
They forgot the leaves and moss.
Or they’re setting up the story...
...primitive architects won't understand. All they see is the "missing" drywall.
Why would you have a wheelchair ramp on the Copenhagen structure when it is obvious that anyone who tried to turn around stands a very good chance of having a wheel slip through the slats?
Indicative of the general level of thought given to this.
It depends on the gap and the width of the tires, you could always reverse or turn at the cross point, duh...
.
turn here?
The more you look at this thing the more ridiculous it is.
BTW, I am still trying to figure out how the spacing of the posts is reflecting the rhythm of the trees. Maybe I really need new glasses.
Yes exactly turn there if you really can't elsewhere, you obviously never had to use a wheelchair.
You are right, I haven't - but I have designed and built bathrooms, landscape paths, hotel lobbies, etc under close scrutiny from building officials that wouldn't even look at a stupid pavillion like this if it wanted to be built for people to use and not just a masturbatory academic exercise producing a bunch of nicely arranged sticks. take your outrage where it belongs.
I'm not outraged at all! I'm not the one who brings up Amercian(!) code issues with a Danish temporary pavilion that's probably already dismantled by now.
One can only hope ....
Looks perfectly navigable by wheelchair to me...
302.3 Openings. Openings in floor or ground surfaces shall not allow passage of a sphere more than 1/2 inch (13 mm) diameter except as allowed in 407.4.3, 409.4.3, 410.4, 810.5.3 and 810.10. Elongated openings shall be placed so that the long dimension is perpendicular to the dominant direction of travel.
But it's built in Copenhagen...
This is where randomised has doubled down on the accessibility argument. They still can't decide on whether or not they want to make the argument that it is accessible (there's a ramp, and you can turn your wheelchair in the center), or that it shouldn't be accessible at all (it's a pavilion, and it's not in the states).
It doesn't have to be accessible for all, but if people do want to make that argument, all I say is that that ramp and distance between sticks is perfectly navigable by wheelchair. People are using strange arguments (American code issues or that it's open to the elements) for a purposely open temporary structure. They are simply the wrong sticks to beat the wrong dog, that's all I'm trying to indicate.
First of all, don't beat dogs with sticks. Don't beat dogs at all. That's cruel. You're ignoring the argument that was made much earlier in the thread ... slapping one ramp on this does not make it accessible. The open gaps in the floor and wheelchair tire width is only one issue with that argument.
There is no argument, it's a folly.
There are more ambulatory assistance devices than wheelchairs... crutches, canes, and walkers, for instance. Ramps =/= accessibility!!! The ramp is a tack-on.
Sure there are more, but anyone on crutches or with a walker that is able to reach that pavilion in the middle of a 12 hectare park is in such great shape they'll probably don't even need such devices in the first place.
Site plan actually shows this quite close to the perimeter of the garden.
Ah well, there's nothing a little offered arm for support won't fix. I helped a lady on and off the train the other day who was using a walker. Sure she could have contacted the train company for them to roll out the ramp with all bells and whistles, she chose to just go for it and trust in humanity. Worked like a charm.
anyone have a spec section for placing a gentleman on every corner? ;)
One's enough.