Remember MVRDV's pavilion in Hannover for the World Expo 2000? 5 years later, this is what it looks like. The text is in Dutch, but the images speak for themselves.
can't say i know what the original plan was in this particular case but isn't it the nature of expo buildings that they're temporary? was this supposed to last?
i'm not a fan of the waste of resources that a temporary exhibition building would suggest, but it comes down to original intentions: if this was meant to be a permanent building, for what was it intended to be used post-expo? could/should they have not simply removed it?
I worked at Expo 2000 - at the Irish Pavilion - across the road from the Dutch Pavilion. The theme behind Expo 2000 was 'Manhind, Nature & Technology'. The original intent was that all the pavilions would live beyond the expo - either the materials/buildings would be bought and used by tourist boards, governments or private businesses, or recycled, similar to the principles of eco-tourism ('we will thread lightly and leave no mark on the landscape'). It's really sad that an exhibition in which over 200 countries participated in and which attracted brilliant minds (William McDonough amongst them) to debate the future of our planet, couldn't actually lead by example.
I had the impression that at least some of the designs conformed to the brief of being reusable/recyclable...For example the Swiss Pavilion by Peter Zumthor, made of timbers meant to be dismantled, shipped away and reused in housing elsewhere.
Ah the memories...I loved Zumthor's masterpiece! You are probably correct that some of the pavilions have been dismantled and now live second lives somewhere else. I guess my point is that ALL of them should. If developed countries like Holland and Ireland (and others) didn't adhere to the principles behind a global exhibition at the turn of the Millennial, how then can such governments expect businesses and citizens to follow suit and live according to the mantra 'reduce, recycle and reuse'?
Citing Hyland, how do we "not leave a mark on the landscape?" humankind, i would say, IS a mark on the landscape! shall we deny our presence? we will mark the land regardless of, or in accordance with, our latest utopian ideal. how can we leave marks that are more involved in natural processes upon which we depend?
i find the ruins to be beautiful in more senses than just the piranesian. let's leave it! here's the question: do we "preserve" the ruins or let its life of decompostion continue unhindered?
ps-its recent addition to ebay might just be its death knell, as it is being forced into a system where its value is judged by the revenue it returns. or is its only hope to be found in it being folded into a capitalistic regime (as opposed to a governmental one)?
I hardly think sustainable practices fall into the category of "Utopian ideals". 6 Billion people leaving their mark on the landscape is a frightening and bleak idea. MVRDV should have done better.
But it just goes to show the status of Architecture in the world today. It's all flash and no substance. Green architecture has been around for decades and it has only recently drawn attention because we NEED it now. It's still considered a trend by most contractors and engineers. And how many clients have ever inquired about sustainable practices?
Sep 7, 05 2:03 pm ·
·
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.
7 Comments
can't say i know what the original plan was in this particular case but isn't it the nature of expo buildings that they're temporary? was this supposed to last?
i'm not a fan of the waste of resources that a temporary exhibition building would suggest, but it comes down to original intentions: if this was meant to be a permanent building, for what was it intended to be used post-expo? could/should they have not simply removed it?
anyone know?
I think you're right Steven, this should have been demo'ed years ago... I would have thought.
I worked at Expo 2000 - at the Irish Pavilion - across the road from the Dutch Pavilion. The theme behind Expo 2000 was 'Manhind, Nature & Technology'. The original intent was that all the pavilions would live beyond the expo - either the materials/buildings would be bought and used by tourist boards, governments or private businesses, or recycled, similar to the principles of eco-tourism ('we will thread lightly and leave no mark on the landscape'). It's really sad that an exhibition in which over 200 countries participated in and which attracted brilliant minds (William McDonough amongst them) to debate the future of our planet, couldn't actually lead by example.
I had the impression that at least some of the designs conformed to the brief of being reusable/recyclable...For example the Swiss Pavilion by Peter Zumthor, made of timbers meant to be dismantled, shipped away and reused in housing elsewhere.
Ah the memories...I loved Zumthor's masterpiece! You are probably correct that some of the pavilions have been dismantled and now live second lives somewhere else. I guess my point is that ALL of them should. If developed countries like Holland and Ireland (and others) didn't adhere to the principles behind a global exhibition at the turn of the Millennial, how then can such governments expect businesses and citizens to follow suit and live according to the mantra 'reduce, recycle and reuse'?
Citing Hyland, how do we "not leave a mark on the landscape?" humankind, i would say, IS a mark on the landscape! shall we deny our presence? we will mark the land regardless of, or in accordance with, our latest utopian ideal. how can we leave marks that are more involved in natural processes upon which we depend?
i find the ruins to be beautiful in more senses than just the piranesian. let's leave it! here's the question: do we "preserve" the ruins or let its life of decompostion continue unhindered?
ps-its recent addition to ebay might just be its death knell, as it is being forced into a system where its value is judged by the revenue it returns. or is its only hope to be found in it being folded into a capitalistic regime (as opposed to a governmental one)?
I hardly think sustainable practices fall into the category of "Utopian ideals". 6 Billion people leaving their mark on the landscape is a frightening and bleak idea. MVRDV should have done better.
But it just goes to show the status of Architecture in the world today. It's all flash and no substance. Green architecture has been around for decades and it has only recently drawn attention because we NEED it now. It's still considered a trend by most contractors and engineers. And how many clients have ever inquired about sustainable practices?
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.