Noted international architect Santiago Calatrava has informed Denver International Airport officials that he and his firm are halting their work on DIA's South Terminal Redevelopment Program and are withdrawing from the venture.
DIA officials said they intend to proceed with the project using designs already produced by the Spanish architect and his firm, Festina Lente.
— Denver Post
Calatrava is apparently quitting over the speculation that the city & county of Denver does not have enough cash to complete the project to the level of quality that is befitting his name and the reputation of his firm.
10 Comments
Calatrava is a jerk. How much will that first-year arch student BS at Ground Zero cost when its completed? $2 billion?
Yes, I understand the C's big eyeball is only a small portion, and that the PATH station is very complex, blah blah. Still, I'm sure it could have been cheaper and more effective if someone who doesn't give off the impression that he's so full of himself were hired...
Liebchen:
Have you looked into anything more than just a few renderings of the transit center for the WTC site?
I have my qualms with some of these so-called "starchitects" but comparing the WTC transit center to the project in Denver is absurd. They are two completely different projects that have different backgrounds.
Calatrava admits that the transit center is going to cost a lot of money- but he makes the point that one could just design the space cheaper and have tons of columns all over the place to support the levels above. But he embraced the opportunity to design a public space for not just everyday commuters, but for those who come to pay respect and remember. There is a time and a place for these types of projects to promote a sense of community and embrace solidarity.
The comparison between the two projects is incorrect, but also, suggesting that a Calatrava design would somehow be ideal for people to reconnect with and and respect the ones lost, is a bit of a stretch - never been in a Calatrava building that would have a meaningfull interior - impressive engineering and inspirational structural solutions, yes; space, no. Probably the WTC terminal will be a nice building to see, approach and pass through. Anyway, engineering and lack of columns is hardly a requirement for meaningful space.
Goldberger says it well (and a little less aggressively)in this week's New Yorker:
"Calatrava has a way of creating swooping, curving forms that many people find exhilarating, and which at their best are convincing attempts to convey a new kind of civic monumentality. Other times, as at the Bilbao Airport, they can look like warmed-over versions of Eero Saarinen’s great T.W.A. terminal, at J.F.K..."
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/skyline/2011/09/12/110912crsk_skyline_goldberger#ixzz1XSPVJI6B
from my view as a local, the problem is two-fold:
1] after visiting the cultural center in Valencia, spain where calatrava designed 3 or 4 of the new structures, it makes sense to me that he wasn't the right fit for the denver airport as well as the airport administration.
those cultural buildings were monumentally extravagant in their structure, function and volume. the science center only had half of the multi-story floor plan utilized for exhibits. the other half was a grand gothic scaled hall, and while beautiful, was completely empty and unused. i think that kind of approach was evident in a portion of his denver airport expansion, and in that vein very contrary to the american way of thinking when building civic projects. there is a kind of cruel frugality towards artists when trying to expand city infrastructure in the USA, and Calatrava is at the top level of artistry when it comes to his type of work [he does his own engineering in house]. I suppose it can be easy for officials to question the value of quality, because i'm wondering how many of these people have even understood the experience of an excellent public building.
2] although, on the other hand--it is curious that denver in particular has attempted to woo the big names for architectural designs [remember the Holl court house debacle?], and then officials seemingly get cold feet just at the crucial moment of the design process. most of the wooing was accomplished by then mayor, now governor John Hickenlooper, so maybe his contemporaries just aren't up to the challenge in passing the baton to run with it to the finish line. whatever the case, Holl had it right when responding to the disintegrating relationship between him and the city of denver:
"I couldn't get through to the mayor," Holl said from his New York office. "I said the city needs an advocate for public architecture within the city. The mayor didn't have the time to be an advocate."
Design was not the issue, he said. "The design didn't shift. The attitude changed. I don't think the project manager wanted us in the picture. My communications to the mayor were blocked."
deja vu--all over again.
so, to this I say: WTF Denver? now not only has every out of town architect with exposure blacklisted denver as a place to get work, every local architect who replaces them will always have to work with one hand tied. why bother going through this craziness in enlisting brand name designers, when the local guys end up mopping up the mess anyway? yet another reason to use local firms, if not because we're cheaper, but it seems we have a better grasp on the local climate/culture/people anyway. its a shame that it took almost $13M in fee and a spanish translator to finally realize that... again.
I find it sad that people on here would ridicule an architect for standing up for design integrity. To me there's not enough of that happening. If you read the article, it was a reduction in hard-cost funding, not a dispute over fee or soft-cost related items.
From my experience, a budget that goes from $650 to $500 (an almost 25% reduction) is a hard thing to VE out from the architect's side without seriously compromising quality. .
It'd be Calatrava's fault if the cost went from $500-$650, but that's not the case, and I disagree with the impulse to shoot down one of our own based on reputation without knowing the facts of the story.
just a quick note. Not a huge Calatrava fan, not going to get into that. BUT, the interior of the Quaddracci Pavilion in Milwaukee is perhaps one of the most impressive spaces i have ever been in. It is enough for me to take a second look at anything he designs. that's all.
In an earlier article on the project in the Denver Post, airport officials said that they needed to find funding for the difference between the amount budgeted and the cable-stayed bridge that Calatrava designed. Obviously, this may not be the case for the terminal/hotel (indeed, gov't officials reduced the budget), but Calatrava's vision isn't so sacred it can't be compromised by the budgets of mere mortals. Part of design is accounting for budget, politics, and the like...which you may say is a compromise of "design integrity." I would say that the design has no integrity if it can't be built within the public's means.
Here's that earlier story: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15625013 Again, this article mentions the difference between the bridge's budget and the cost of what C has designed.
Liebchen,
As an architect, how do you know what is within the "public's means" if they keep moving the marker? Under-funded and over-budget are two very different things. If the public can only afford a 500 million dollar design, they should have asked for a 500 million dollar design from the onset.
Tim,
First, I have to say that I really don't know much about how competitions like this are done, and especially how this competition was in particular.
I think its clear that C delivered a design that was clearly over what the city budgeted for the project. I don't know if this budget was published, or if the architects were asked to stick to it. Even then, the committee did not need to choose the design (unless they were unaware of the projected cost of each entry). Maybe the public DID ask for a $500 million design, and the public's representative, in the form of the selection committee, or the architect, or both willfully disregarded that request.
Oh, well. I'm conflicted in some ways because maybe it is the architect's job to push the budget, question it, give the best public space possible...but I'd be more willing to buy this argument if more of the public would benefit from this design. Though again, maybe I'm shooting myself in the foot because I kicked off this thread complaining about C's WTC transit hub, which will certainly go on to serve a great many people...
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.