Calatrava told me that it wasn’t his job to monitor the budget. “It is very difficult,” he said. “I have never estimated anything in this project, because there was a whole team, maybe 25 people, working the whole time on cost estimation and cost control. But I kept looking at those fellows and telling them this is like geology: You only know what you have under your feet when you excavate.” — nymag.com
80 Comments
davvid - now you have to convince me why, according to you, Gehry is any better than Calatrava? Fish vs Skeletons
vs
Or is it that there isn't all that much depth to it and I know everything I need to know by simply looking at and walking through a Calatrava building.
It isn't Calatrava or his work that is lacking in depth.
In my opinion Calatrava's works *are* lacking in depth, which is fine in some ways. They are very pretty and exceptionally engineered, but as Ken said in the podcast (and Olaf alluded to) there doesn't seem to be any deeper exploration than form and beauty. He uses materiality only in service of form; there is not a desire to experiment with the material in a new or different way, as Frei Otto did.
Bridges are excellent for this attitude because they really only do one thing, well two really: get you from one pace to another, and look beautiful both from a distance and up close while doing so. His work succeeds very well on both those points. But the Milwaukee Museum building fails as any kind of integration into an overall museum building experience: it's a lovely entry gallery, it makes a fantastic skyline iconic image, and the interior spaces are light-filled and lovely. But the movement from his building to Saarinen's is totally unremarkable, and the gallery spaces within his wing are very unremarkable as well.
What to do with someone who doesn't fall into a predefined category?
Dismiss them, obviously, because the guiding principles are not spelled out in bright lights and autobiographical monographs. Or make the effort to interpret what it represents for yourself if you consider it necessary as a basis for appreciation. Not that Calatrava's principles are difficult to see, just that nobody has codified them into some kind of rigid philosophical bullshit.
I find work that is open to interpretation far more interesting than work that is the result of pedantic formulated isms.
Form is function, except when it isn't.
And Calatrava exemplifies "open to interpretation"? The guy is a one note wonder, constantly in search of his "Ice, Ice, Baby". At least you can look across Gehry, Holl, Mayne, Herzog and De Meuron and many others, and see evolution in thought, even if you hate the philosophy, or built form. I'd personally rather live in any of Eisenman's House series, or Hejduk's Texas Houses, than live in a crab shell house designed by Cala-fucking-trava.
It's my opinion that defined categories within contemporary and recent architecture are extremely fuzzy. Miles, for counterpoint, do you have an example of a contemporary piece of work that is "the result of pedantic formulated isms"?
it just comes down to preference. calatrava and gehry are not too different in my book.
vs.
These are both landscape paintings, I dare say that we'd all find the first one a fucking mess, not based on anything, and the Bruegel, simply beautiful. Calatrava is the former, and any contemporary starchitect, is the latter.
l3wis, I'm sorry, but it's absolutely not *only* about preference. Form is one piece: having a preference for something that appears ordered vs chaotic is a preference. But Gehry is experimenting with forms in a totally iconoclastic way, that has no apparent inclination toward order (order does exist within it, of course), while Calatrava's experimentation is entirely focused on order and familiar forms. There are deep differences in what *drives* their work, and that is what makes them very different.
Donna -
Deconstructivism and pretty much everything by Libeskind or Eisenman.
Parametricism and pretty much everything by Hadid / Schumacher.
Pretty much everything PoMo by whoever.
Fuzziness exists. Gehry is a hydbrid of PoMo and decon.
Calatravas' work has never spoken to me. I always found it odd that such a personal and extravagant expression would seem so banal. Maybe it is the scale or lack of it.
Calatrava comes off pretty well in the article. To pull off this kind of project in an environment of such incredibly absurd political complexity - from Libeskind's ego to the Port Authority and the fight for $20b in federal money - is simply amazing.
It's hilarious to read Graves and especially Eisenman accusing Calatrava of arrogance and immoderation.
we do glorify the young upstarts sometimes a bit much here on archinect (BIG) and I don't think that is a bad thing to do - I would like to keep the young talented people in this profession as hard as it and want to see more of them on these forums...
with that said. Calatrava finished his final bit in Academia (phd) when he was 30 years old and at 40 years old started doing notable work, that's actually young - so he too was young once.
He is 63 now and making an imprint. I think it's more of an issue that we are dealing with someone who finished with a Civil Engineering degree and not an architecture degree.
Engineers could give a rat's ass about the 'isms that we architect's do (he did study architecture prior).
to me - pushing the envelope when it comes to building is a good thing, and he does that.
and as Miles pointed out, the massive amount of politics involved in building what he is building should be considered here. Neither Eisenman or Graves ever completed a project in this environment and Libeskind failed miserably.
Maybe Calatrava is smarter than all of us and has some serious patience, because when it is all said and done, 20 years from now, no one will give a fuck that it was twice the budget and everyone will note the Freedom Tower by SOM and this project by Calatrava.
Is Decon still a thing? I mean, is Libeskind still doing Decon, or is he making shapes similar to shapes he's made before? Does Eisenman's Phoenix Stadium (I don't know of any more recent projects) Decon, or parametricism? Is anyone still doing PoMo and calling it that?
I guess my point is we try so hard to categorize and define and label things - it's part of being human - that we waaaayyy oversimplify.
Imo there are 3 kinds of architecture, architecture we remember in a positive light, architecture we remember in a negative light, and architecture we forget.
Categories are not so important.
Olaf,
There are definitely similarities between Calatravas bones and Gehry's fish skins. But there are significant difference in what aspects of architecture they choose to explore. The skeleton form is much more about structure and actual movement while the fish are about materiality and juxtaposition. The two building-scaled fish (barcelona and kobe) are juxtaposed with a more conventional rectilinear buildings. I prefer the Kobe fish.
Categories are fuzzy because our interpretations are always fuzzy. I'd be interested in knowing what Calatrava thinks Calatrava is doing. Is he solving problems? Is he alluding to gothic architecture? Or is he strategically avoiding positions altogether?
He's building things that he thinks are cool...why does everything have to be about something other than that thing.
architecture about architecture is the ultimate no no among academics because that makes bullshitting much more difficult. Its easier to justify our guilty pleasures by making reference to some obscure bullshit like some passage in one of Calvino's books or some event that occured 1000 years ago that no one really cares about, or some flimsy theory about form.
jla-x, There are always reasons why we like what we like or why we make what we make (or why we destroy what we destroy). I think the reasons why are fascinating and worth discussing.
And people are way too quick to dismiss complicated or high-minded thoughts as bullshit. And even lies and bullshit are still revealing.
architecture about architecture is the ultimate no no among academics because that makes bullshitting much more difficult.
Only if you understand the difference.
architecture about architecture is the ultimate no no among academics because that makes bullshitting much more difficult.
I guess things have changed....Eisenman days that was the pinnacle, the very essence of bullshit.
davvid, I think Calatrava is more llike an engineer, so your questions may be hard to answer, since we have already answered them a few times now...
"Even lies and bullshit are revealing" - love this.
I'm about to flout my elitism again, but as an educated consumer of architecture I can understand more and deeper layers of a complicated piece of architecture than a layman can. Similarly, an art major can understand contemporary art in much deeper ways than I can; a filmmaker can critique film in more ways. Good projects of all kinds, IMO, should give enjoyment across many levels, so anyone can get something out of a superficial reading but others can delve more deeply.
I listened to Thom Mayne for about six hours yesterday. There are so many layers to what he's doing, it's masterful.
architecture about architecture is the ultimate no no among academics
Architecture is often (perhaps always) about architecture to some degree.
Its very common for high level creative work (design, film, literature, cuisine, art) to comment on its own nature, the history of the medium, etc.
"I think Calatrava is more llike an engineer, so your questions may be hard to answer, since we have already answered them a few times now..."
He's like an engineer AND he's like an artist. He sketches during lectures. He comes up with flowery metaphors to explain his shapes. He builds sculptures that are translated quite literally into buildings. As far as I can tell, the problem isn't that he's a bad engineer, the problem is that he isn't a very good artist. He's operating in the same architectural territory of semiotics and effect as Gehry and others but the ways that his forms and material interact with immediate urban context as well as cultural and historical context is usually less interesting than many of his contemporaries. Some Generative Architecture firms like Marc Fornes and Ruy Klein also seem to run into the same problem of not engaging context and materiality enough.
David, what I'm saying is that architecture is messy and however you want/choose to rationalize its form or function dosent change what it actually "is" in its final manifestation. The intent of the author does not really change the way the story affects the reader. His/Her intent, thought process, and philosophy absolutely affect the written work during its creation, but the explanation of the finished work does not....if anything I think it detracts from it. I cant stand it when architects post rationalize their works. Its like a chef telling me that my meal is good because the ingredients were all picked by monks. That's good to know but that does not change its execution and certainly does not make up for the fact that its overcooked! Most academic architect try to create a neat rationale explaination for the existence and evolution of their architectural forms and expressions. The design process is far more messy and chaotic than its made out to be. Its not always measurable...and when we try to measure it we are not really having "complicated or high-minded thoughts" but rather reductionist ones.
Finally read everything, think the best one was "fuck you pay me"….believe though that was stolen from Miles:)
Wonder where we are going with all this, direction seems to be to create iconic sculptures then put doors in them. I think everything built in the ashes of that tragedy needs to speak for us and our response and I think “taking flight” is appropriate. Love the feel of lace on buildings…wonder more about Snöhetta’s museum pavilion, like it, but don’t hear anything from it….as with all works think you have to walk them to be sure, heading there in June and staying directly across the street from the hub, will send in a report.
Interested in thoughts on the pavilion before my visit.
to elaborate on my last point...Ill paraphrase Bukowski " an intellectual says a simple thing in a difficult way, an artist say a difficult thing in a simple way." I like the fact that FG and Calatrava do not over philosophize their work unlike Eisenaman, venturi, etc. I also love how Kahn, Barragan, etc. would talk about their work poetically. Poetry is a more appropriate way to describe architecture than philosophy.
jla-x,
I'm not disagreeing with much of what you've said in your last two comments.
As far as I understand it, the "messiness" or the difference between intention and interpretation is an important part of what was borrowed by architects from Derrida's writings.
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.