Morphosis Housing Complex, Madrid, Spain
I went to a preview of the new exhibit of modern Spanish architecture at the Moma this week (the page has a good audio tour explaining the rationale behind the selection). I love how daring Spanish architecture has been of late. It appears in my mind's eye as colorful and whimsical. I was also really excited to see the Moma without the weekend crowds. I personally love people in the building, but many people don't and some have issues with the building layout itself.
The exhibit itself was really fun. The buildings were shown at a few different scales to provide profiles up close and from afar.
The architecture was fascinating, yet were not always the most colorful, whimsical or livable designs. There were plenty of buildings that looked beautiful from about the second story up, but unfortunately were pretty blank and non-descript at ground level. As a pedestrian, it wouldn't be something I would want to walk next to or live next to, though looking at models from that seemingly standard architecture/art model height of about 50 feet taller than the height of the building, many of the buildinsg showcased looked magnificent and forward.
Has beauty been divorced from function in the architecture world? Only 18 of the 35 buildings showcased were complete - the proof is in the pudding. I would love to visit these buildings and see if impressions based on the models are accurate.
2.10.2006
On target - Spanish architecture
Posted by Shin-pei at 6:06 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
A lot of "high design" architects tend to approach architecture like sculpture - Frank Gehry is the most obvious example of this. I personally think this approach has a lot to do with the identity crisis that the practice has been going though since the postwar building boom (when developers with stock plans started doing most the building).
I also think that the average person’s rejection of modernist architecture has had something to do with it as well (the fact that most homebuyers didn’t buy into the flat roof, glass box ideal). Architects have been struggling with what to do next when they have rejected the nostalgia that most Americans gravitate towards.
Another thing that fuels the identity crisis is the fact that architecture straddles science and art - it’s a little bit of both, but not exclusively one. It’s main purpose is to function as a building, and as a building it’s part of the public realm, which can run contrary to the architect’s urge to use the building as a form of expression.
A great example of an esteemed architect’s project that was sculptural at the expense of the neighborhood is the George Washington Bridge Bus Station in Upper Manhattan.
http://www.brorson.com/M4Bus/GWBBusTerminal.jpg
http://www.nyc-architecture.com/BRI/61504bridge.jpg
The street level has a lot of blank walls – there aren’t even trees to mediate the stark street wall.
Architects’ more recent interest in urban design can also contribute to this problem (in fact, I think their interest in urban design is another result of the identity crisis). When architects take on a larger scale project with a sculptural approach the results can be that much more devastating.
I went to architecture school (and then was dismayed by the practice and became a planner), and from what I could tell, the design process has a lot to do with it too.
Architectural models give a bird's eye view of the project, not the vantage point that most of us experience buildings from, and even renderings can remain vague enough to make a bland street-level space look interesting. (I’m sorry, but light never illuminates a space the way architects make it look in computer-generated renderings.) There is a lot of potential with computer-generated renderings to get away from the dominance of the bird’s eye view, but having a new form of illustration can’t fend off an architect’s desire to make sculpture.
There are a lot of architects out there where this isn’t an issue at all, but it seems to be an issue with the most notable ones.
Sorry to be so long, but your post brings up an issue that interests me quite a bit..!
Thank you for the post! You hit a lot of my thoughts right on the nail. I considered going to architecture school too, but the classroom work that the schools were showcasing to recruit students ended up being really unappealing to me. They just seemed so separated from what people actually do in, next to and with buildings. The designs seemed more based on what architects would like people to do with buildings, and then designing for these hypothetical people.
I don't think architecture shouldn't be artistic, or make a statement, but what I can't come to terms with is how often use is sacrificed for statement. I feel we (as a society) have committed enough errors to not repeat them. But are the forces (as you mentioned above: reaction to cheap, mass produced construction, the avg person's rejection of modernist architecture, straddling science and art, etc) so strong that they prevent us from seeing what's really going on?
One more thing: those pictures you sent illustrate your points very well! Thank you!!
Post a Comment