Santiago Calatrava is facing legal action from his native city as the dazzling City of Arts and Sciences complex begins to fall apart just eight years after inauguration
— telegraph.co.uk
Similar articles on Archinect that may interest you...
I stayed fairly at a hotel fairly close to it while in Valencia. I had no interest in going in. It did not beckon. While this building may be a disappointment, so is Valencia, Spain.
This is why there is a separation between architecture and engineering, calatrava is a great architect but putting so much work on his table other parts of his work has seemed to fail like the life cycle of the building
It doesn't delight the eye or the mind. Glad he's getting his comeuppance. Too bad this didn't come out before he was selected for the multi-billion dollar PATH station at Ground Zero.
Nice to look at but not much inside. Kinda like a Kardahsian.
Good analogy. However, I don't even think it's nice to look at. it's really "heavy." One would think that a building's hierarchical logo would use one, or two, major gestures. This building just piles on those gestures. His bridges are simpler, better designs, imo, and more reflective of his engineering background.
Calatrava's architecture always reminds me of how vapid global luxury can be. It doesn't seem to have any layers of meaning. The image above looks like a yacht. At lease zaha's luxury has a grotesque sublime quality that challenges prevailing aesthetics. Calatrava's work doesn't challenge culture.
"At lease zaha's luxury has a grotesque sublime quality that challenges prevailing aesthetics. Calatrava's work doesn't challenge culture." Becasue everybody understands the layers of meaning in Zaha's work. To say she dosen't to vacuous formalism is quite the stretch. What happened to capturing the time's zeitgeist? Now you aren't relevant if you don't challenge it.
No wonder there's so much cynicism in architecture. Who can take this stuff seriously?
All of the world's most famous architects are creating form, but some are more effective than others at tapping and juxtaposing key historical references or emerging aesthetic sensibilities and technologies in meaningful ways. Its hard to say exactly what it is or how its done.. Calatrava's work just doesn't seem to reach for any meaning other than pretty and breezy luxury lifestyle. It doesn't seem to be subversive or critical at all.
Are you a fan? If so, what do you get out of his work?
I think there is a dearth of good architecture and good architects right now. Presentation sure is niftier, though. It seems that many are trying to invent weird new vocabularies or rehash old ones, sort of like stuff built in L.A., Las Vegas, or Miami in the 1960s, but with a twist and more updated articulation that makes them suitable for this decade. Then, there are always structures that look like space stations that fell into the Australian Outback, and those qualify as architecture as well. It's refreshing, in a way, that there is a place for cleaner, simpler works the likes of One WTC amidst all these new buildings that defy description and evaluation.
This is disturbing! I read the story. It looks like more of a construction issue than a design issue. When a budget swells up for any project(especially this one)everyone looks for ways to cut back. These cutbacks can be in materials or even in the assembly of materials in order to save time and money. There has to be more to this story than what's being said. What is even more disturbing is that the building was designed by an engineer who is also an architect.
davvid, I do like some of his work the way I like the Eiffel Tower or the Brooklyn Bridge, as attractive objects in the landscape. I even like some of Zaha's work, all though I could do without her partner's ruminations on free market capitalism. But the fact that "All of the world's most famous architects are creating form" is a sad testament about how our profession is stuck in the past.
Jan 3, 14 7:19 am ·
·
"The people who select starchitects for these kinds of projects should be held equally responsible."
You all need to understand the issues in Spain right now. The Spanish govt is looking for any excuse to squeeze money. They are broke. The economy keeps getting worse. They are screwing people left and right so I wouldn't be surprised if they are just having a little buyers remorse and looking for a justification to get some money back.
Thayer-D, There is much much more to every project than form, hence the subject of this article. But look at how this project is presented in the article. Form is usually how we in the internet peanut gallery experience many of these buildings. I don't see how that is sad. Its just one way to experience architecture. Jla-x mentioned "He's a shit architect but an innovative engineer." In terms of engineering, his buildings may be very good. As a visual expression of our time in history and our culture, they seem to fall flat.
I agree that Calatrava's work does seem to share some qualities with the Brooklyn Bridge and the Eifel Tower. Its interesting that both of those references were completed in the 1880s. And the soaring repeating elements certainly remind me of gothic architecture. Some of his project do seem to be trying to appeal to nostalgic desires. That retro quality may be why I think his work is banal and conservative even while the being bold formally. That scent of nostalgia combined with the extremely high cost seems inappropriate to me.
Good point, jla-x. I didn't consider that aspect. It seems that it would be Valencia, the city, that would be the party affected. However, I'm sure that Valencia receives national money from Madrid, and that there is less money flowing their way.
Shifting topics slightly, I live in Milwaukee, less than a mile from the Quadracci Pavilion. (initial budget 2 million bumped up to 12 or something rediculous) Strongly resembles a bird. I've gotten into debates over Calatrava's style, and I have concluded that it is a 21st century continuation of Post-Modernism due to his the elaborate sculptural qualities based on obvious inspirations like birds, eyes, plants etc.
davvid, I agree there's much more to architecture than just form. Different people will read different things in architecture depending on the context, level of education, or simply interest in one's own surroundings. And while I don't think architects should go for the lowest common denominator, they shouldn't loose sight of the common denominator, meaning, the way average person will experience their work. Regardless of philosophy or outlook, every architect should strive for a well built and functioning building, but when it comes to the art of architecture I think it's useful to keep Geoffrey Scott's The Architecture of Humanism in mind. To paraphrase, people like certain forms "irrespective of their relation to the mechanical means by which they where produced, irrespective of the materials out of which they where constructed, irrespective sometimes even of the actual purposes they were to serve." Whether one prefers the intellectualism of Koolhaus over Calatrava's sensuous curves or even Stern's eclecticism, how a building is actually experienced is woefully undervalued, and that has everything to do with it's physical form and the surrounding context.
25 Comments
10% fee on a $1.5B project. And he quadrupled the initial budget.
The people who select starchitects for these kinds of projects should be held equally responsible.
That's a lot of money. Wow.
I stayed fairly at a hotel fairly close to it while in Valencia. I had no interest in going in. It did not beckon. While this building may be a disappointment, so is Valencia, Spain.
This is why there is a separation between architecture and engineering, calatrava is a great architect but putting so much work on his table other parts of his work has seemed to fail like the life cycle of the building
Calatrava is an engineer. He's a shit architect but an innovative engineer.
He's ogt some nice curves! He could still be a crap architect for all I know, but at least his object buildings are nice to look at.
Nice to look at but not much inside. Kinda like a Kardahsian.
It doesn't delight the eye or the mind. Glad he's getting his comeuppance. Too bad this didn't come out before he was selected for the multi-billion dollar PATH station at Ground Zero.
Nice to look at but not much inside. Kinda like a Kardahsian.
Good analogy. However, I don't even think it's nice to look at. it's really "heavy." One would think that a building's hierarchical logo would use one, or two, major gestures. This building just piles on those gestures. His bridges are simpler, better designs, imo, and more reflective of his engineering background.
Was talking about his work in general, but I agree this particular building is not very nice to look at. Kinda like mama kardashian.
"Glad he's getting his comeuppance" ???
Calatrava's architecture always reminds me of how vapid global luxury can be. It doesn't seem to have any layers of meaning. The image above looks like a yacht. At lease zaha's luxury has a grotesque sublime quality that challenges prevailing aesthetics. Calatrava's work doesn't challenge culture.
"At lease zaha's luxury has a grotesque sublime quality that challenges prevailing aesthetics. Calatrava's work doesn't challenge culture." Becasue everybody understands the layers of meaning in Zaha's work. To say she dosen't to vacuous formalism is quite the stretch. What happened to capturing the time's zeitgeist? Now you aren't relevant if you don't challenge it.
No wonder there's so much cynicism in architecture. Who can take this stuff seriously?
All of the world's most famous architects are creating form, but some are more effective than others at tapping and juxtaposing key historical references or emerging aesthetic sensibilities and technologies in meaningful ways. Its hard to say exactly what it is or how its done.. Calatrava's work just doesn't seem to reach for any meaning other than pretty and breezy luxury lifestyle. It doesn't seem to be subversive or critical at all.
Are you a fan? If so, what do you get out of his work?
I think there is a dearth of good architecture and good architects right now. Presentation sure is niftier, though. It seems that many are trying to invent weird new vocabularies or rehash old ones, sort of like stuff built in L.A., Las Vegas, or Miami in the 1960s, but with a twist and more updated articulation that makes them suitable for this decade. Then, there are always structures that look like space stations that fell into the Australian Outback, and those qualify as architecture as well. It's refreshing, in a way, that there is a place for cleaner, simpler works the likes of One WTC amidst all these new buildings that defy description and evaluation.
This is disturbing! I read the story. It looks like more of a construction issue than a design issue. When a budget swells up for any project(especially this one)everyone looks for ways to cut back. These cutbacks can be in materials or even in the assembly of materials in order to save time and money. There has to be more to this story than what's being said. What is even more disturbing is that the building was designed by an engineer who is also an architect.
davvid, I do like some of his work the way I like the Eiffel Tower or the Brooklyn Bridge, as attractive objects in the landscape. I even like some of Zaha's work, all though I could do without her partner's ruminations on free market capitalism. But the fact that "All of the world's most famous architects are creating form" is a sad testament about how our profession is stuck in the past.
"The people who select starchitects for these kinds of projects should be held equally responsible."
They are now selling gullotines in Spain so responsibility might be coming soon to a public square near you.
You all need to understand the issues in Spain right now. The Spanish govt is looking for any excuse to squeeze money. They are broke. The economy keeps getting worse. They are screwing people left and right so I wouldn't be surprised if they are just having a little buyers remorse and looking for a justification to get some money back.
Thayer-D, There is much much more to every project than form, hence the subject of this article. But look at how this project is presented in the article. Form is usually how we in the internet peanut gallery experience many of these buildings. I don't see how that is sad. Its just one way to experience architecture. Jla-x mentioned "He's a shit architect but an innovative engineer." In terms of engineering, his buildings may be very good. As a visual expression of our time in history and our culture, they seem to fall flat.
I agree that Calatrava's work does seem to share some qualities with the Brooklyn Bridge and the Eifel Tower. Its interesting that both of those references were completed in the 1880s. And the soaring repeating elements certainly remind me of gothic architecture. Some of his project do seem to be trying to appeal to nostalgic desires. That retro quality may be why I think his work is banal and conservative even while the being bold formally. That scent of nostalgia combined with the extremely high cost seems inappropriate to me.
Good point, jla-x. I didn't consider that aspect. It seems that it would be Valencia, the city, that would be the party affected. However, I'm sure that Valencia receives national money from Madrid, and that there is less money flowing their way.
Shifting topics slightly, I live in Milwaukee, less than a mile from the Quadracci Pavilion. (initial budget 2 million bumped up to 12 or something rediculous) Strongly resembles a bird. I've gotten into debates over Calatrava's style, and I have concluded that it is a 21st century continuation of Post-Modernism due to his the elaborate sculptural qualities based on obvious inspirations like birds, eyes, plants etc.
Just stirring the pot. Cheers
davvid, I agree there's much more to architecture than just form. Different people will read different things in architecture depending on the context, level of education, or simply interest in one's own surroundings. And while I don't think architects should go for the lowest common denominator, they shouldn't loose sight of the common denominator, meaning, the way average person will experience their work. Regardless of philosophy or outlook, every architect should strive for a well built and functioning building, but when it comes to the art of architecture I think it's useful to keep Geoffrey Scott's The Architecture of Humanism in mind. To paraphrase, people like certain forms "irrespective of their relation to the mechanical means by which they where produced, irrespective of the materials out of which they where constructed, irrespective sometimes even of the actual purposes they were to serve." Whether one prefers the intellectualism of Koolhaus over Calatrava's sensuous curves or even Stern's eclecticism, how a building is actually experienced is woefully undervalued, and that has everything to do with it's physical form and the surrounding context.
Behold today's architects, fans of other people calling themselves architects
as if...
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.