Gaudi a Holotect?

First of all I would like to invite everyone (not just architects, engineers, artists, builders) but everyone, to enjoy the greatness of Gaudi once again, take another look.

A good way to do this would be to watch the BBC documentary on Gaudi called “Gods Architect.” Watch the whole thing, start to finish, and all seven parts, here’s a link.

The architect Antoni Gaudi is for sure underrated around the world for all his excellence. There were a few crazy ideas that came to the mind of some individuals that we should give up on Sagrada Familia and change it to a rail station or something….! It has been also known that Gaudi has been mocked for his “kitsch” aspects, and his “spiritual obsession,” however; these are all insults that are weak and they will die easily while Gaudi’s architecture will still be considered paradise for many and should forever stand strong in the face of history.

The question I wish to focus on is: Is Gaudi an example of a Holotect?
I believe miracles are seen in the designs of Gaudi. He certainly went beyond what people were ready for. Owners of buildings designed by Gaudi consider them to be the most special place on earth.

I often repeat to myself that if Gaudi was alive today he would easily collect the Pritzker prize (the highest award for architectural achievement in a life time). But Gaudi goes beyond the Pritzker...every building of his seems like a life time achievement and when was the last time a present day Pritzker nominee left behind something like Sagrada Familia? A piece of architecture way beyond our cultural ambition to finish, in fact even with all the technological experts today it’s super hard to finish it without him.

I believe holotects take action towards building something which gives out a message. This message can be of many; love, joy, hope…but the message has to be built and delivered creatively from many different perspectives. This must be done without having to fill it up with post-rationalized French philosophy or Jewish mysticism which purely concentrates on selling something “for the moment” (It is very tempting to give out examples of architects who do this, but I’ll hold my self).

I think the true infinity in a holotects work of architecture is seen in the many beautiful interpretations of the designs message.

Holotects reach out towards a message beyond their own skin by sharing beautiful biographical experiences in the built form. This is to say that it is important to balance the two equally important molecules…one of personal artistic experience and creativity…two the more functional needs of other human beings. What clients will continuously need to understand is that the collaborated vision of beauty is important for the successful growth of a project as is the buildings rational function.

Now lets break this down (we’ll get back to Gaudi in a second)…

Modernism or minimalism: Mies van de Rohe’s “Less is More” seems like functionalism…a very rational placement of architectural elements. But this soon became too boring for us to live in; to an extent that I would even say it would permanently damage our society with an ultimate lack of vision and ambition.

Post-modernsim: Robert Venturi’s “Less is a bore”…so now we started to attach things on to the box…giving shallow meaning to architecture but truly just camouflaging the modernist, minimalist and RATIONALISTIC mistake.

But Gaudi designed architecture that made decoration and organic form a function, he made architecture an extension of nature...the building is one, one with Gaudi, one with its inhabitants, one with nature, one with Spirit…and Gaudi within his architecture expresses ”Life is More”…and he won.

For this I believe Gaudi was a Holotect

Calatrava - the Romantic and the Rationalist

I was going through my notes and came across some scribbles dated from 18/10/2007. It was the day we three brothers gathered together at the concrete institute in London to listen to Calatrava speak.

The crowds gathered to hear this man  for a very good reason – he has sculpted some of the most fascinating structures of the last couple of decades.  At this presentation, Calatrava himself presented his design philosophy and several case studies of his own work.

Firstly, Calatrava praised the properties of Concrete for the freedom they bring in developing his forms.  The word itself in Spanish “hormigon” means “with form”. It can take any shape, it is very humble, it has texture and natural pigmentation ranging from grey to brilliant white. It is also is extremely economical.  It is not surprising that such praises should be sung at a presentation given at the concrete institute. However, his works do back up such claims.

One of his works is the La Rioja, Bodegas Ysios in Laguardia, Álava, Spain (below).  This winery fits seamlessly into its surroundings.  Indeed Calatrava is quoted to have said during the talk that he sees no difference between Engineerign and Landscape.  Concrete allowed for such a dynamic form to be adopted, and no doubt offered the necessary thermal mass for the strict climatic conditions required for the wine making process.

Another building mentioned was his “twisting torso”, or the HSB Turning Torso building in Malmo Sweden (below).  The building was to provide a symbol for the city, replacing the crane used for shipbuilding that used to sit near the current site.  Calatrava makes no secret of the analogy between his building and anatomical form.  Being both a Sculptor and an Engineer, his forms are grounded on solid structural logic - in this case deriving inspiration from the human spine. With all this structural integrity, elegance in form is still retained.  This is extremely well summed up in this quote from the New Yorker: “Louis Kahn once referred to the Seagram Building as a beautiful lady with hidden corsets, because its bracing was tucked behind Mies van der Rohe’s exquisite façade; Calatrava’s lady has confidently removed her dress.”

The twisting torso concept started as a sculpture, and was then adapted to a high-rise building under the encouragement of the developer – even though Calatrava never built one before in his life!  Indeed Calatrava enjoys much popularity amongst developers, often being the one holding the cards rather than the other way around. 

However, this similarty between his sculptures and his buildings is not with out contention.  He is often criticized for this over emphasis of what the building looks like from afar rather than from within.  The twisting torso is no exception - no wall is straight and no window vertical.  This is also extremely unconventional for a highrise building, where assurance of its static stability has traditionally been the focus.  Another breach of convention is in his architectural emphasis.  Most architects focus on how the high-rise building meets the floor, or meets the sky.  To Calatrava it’s what’s in the middle that counts, with an emphasis on the design along the whole of its length. Can a human sized sculpture truly be scaled to  hundreds of meters of tower? Is the spine, designed for flexibilty and motion truly a sound structural model for a static highrise? Perhaps such non-conformities can be forgiven in the light of such sculptural genius?

The last building of considerable note from the talk is that of the Chicago Spire.  Only a proposal to date, the spire will be the tallest residential building in America, featuring a slender twisting design.  The slenderness of the tower provides grounds for a more romantic interpretation of the skyline than the bulkier buildings that have dominated to date. Indeed, the New Yorker claims “Calatrava is both a romantic and a rationalist, and his gift lies in his ability to find equilibrium between these two poles.”

 

What if Leonardo da Vinci got to take an international flight?

I travel a lot. As I am about to depart on another flight from Poland to London I take my seat, fasten my belts and I’m ready to go. Raindrops start hitting my glass window and the pilot prepares for takeoff. Its grey and the dark colored clouds make the earth’s surface gloomy. We are taking off. The seconds of take off fascinate me. The smooth levitation of a heavy steel 150 passenger Wizzair aircraft…it looks so simple, so easy. The houses, cars, trees all get small and we come closer to the dark purple clouds. The moment of climbing through the clouds is beautiful. The clouds get lighter, purer and blue sky exposes itself more and more until finally we are there, the open fields of clouds and sky.
And I’m here writing comfortably in a little seat looking through my own little window.

What an experience!
I have seen this so many times, yet today this is special. It is special because of how far we human beings progressed. Its special because I discover the realization of dreams. Leonardo da Vinci in his studio draws and dreams, struggling to invent a wooden flying machine and talks about the inspiration one can get from even the clouds. But what if he got to see this?
What if he got to see the heavens beyond the clouds...what would his next step be?
Would he go beyond the heavens?
There is absolutely no doubt that my view outside my little window is a miracle.
But we take it for granted. We fail to notice these things. We grow numb through the constant ignorance. The women to my left reads about a celebrity couple canceling their wedding once again…the man next to her is playing a PSP video game. Even I normally just drift off to sleep forgetting about how lucky I am to live the life I’m living and live surrounded by the miraculous earthly creations. But today is different.
Today I want to live because this view made me feel more alive. Today I want to move, react and take action, continuing to build our cultural ambition. Today I am thankful.
Thankful of my little view outside my window, thankful to dreamers like Leonardo da Vinci (Who kind of made ideas like flying happen). Last but not least I am thankful to the almighty creator who was there since the very beginning shaping with his hands each and every cloud making my personal view outside my window possible.

Parametric Modelling of Compressive Membrane Action in reinforced Concrete Slabs

The Love Bucket

"One designer celebrates life, the other searches for safety from it" - quoted from Natalia Ilyin's book: "Chasing the perfect". Which one are you? Which one are we as holotects?

There are some, who fall in love with the process of design. These delight in the way the wetted brush runs across texured paper, or adore the aroma of a fresh box of coloured pencils; the screeching sound of marker, or the scratching crumble of charcole. These see what is and ponder it in there hearts, taking delight in their discoveries.

There are other that are "axiety fighters [taking] delight in complexes of structure that will make things work better, make a safer or more cohesive world. That designer responds not to the world's beauty but to its chaos."

I cannot say which type is of greater significance. I cannot help but think that either play different roles. Indeed, I see my self as designer in one such "bucket" and at times in the other. I can tell you life is more of a pleasure when there joy is taken in the process. But we need our engineers to worry, so our artists can rest assured. Is this true?

Love and Fear. Frued calls these the two calls for action. One designer responds to their love of the world, "astonishment at its beauty [and] comfort in their natural sense of the place". The other attempts to design the world as they know it could be, out of fear of what could occur should they do not find themselves behind the reigns. Pehaps this spurs from a lack of trust in Providence?

Modernist philosophy is very much a response to fear, a need to control. Perhaps this is why our natural instinct repells us from the grey blocks of the 50s and 60s, but our minds can even be tempted to accept it, in a guilty, self assuring kind of way. We may long for safety, but vulnerability is the condition for love. Enclosed, protected in our cold concrete capsules, we may avoid harm, but but never experience the true light and warmth of the natural world in all of its beautiful imperfections.

The Ugly Faces

When the city's life moves on, people tend to forget about the "Ugly Faces" of the city. While new "fresh" architects start their practice they design buildings as if they where monuments, very often with no contextual respect. Their new building is "dropped off" at a site like an alien spaceship forgetting about what stands around them.

Their is nothing wrong with the new modern approach to design and the creation of new history rather then holding our same cultural heritage forever, but buildings must be designed as if they where timeless and should have a positive effect on the city.

Now lets look at these "Ugly faces" of the urban landscape. They reflect on the personality of the people who live there, they are strong, powerful and dangerous. Not forgetting that architecture is an imposed art, we can not forget that if we design a building it can have a huge effect on peoples everyday lives.

But its not only about designing new buildings that our better and wont turn in to or be part of these Ugly Faces. We can not move on and pretend that the Ugly Faces do not exist, or pretend we have nothing to do with them. As an architect if you want to change something in this world, start from your city, start from the neighbourhood that you look down to with total rejection, the neighbourhood that stays gray and dirty, the neighbourhood with crime and violence.

Change the architecture.

We have to think of architecture at a bigger scale and the effects it has on people, both now and in a thousand years.

Changing the Ugly faces of the city to something more human can change the city growth. Adopting the facades of the Ugly Faces of the city to change the space can result in not only government support but the people support. Lets face it, people always want a better place to live, a better environment, people want a better life.

So lets start now, we can look at this as another way of recycling the city and saving the Environment.

Design Genetics

There is something fantastic about looking at a design and being able to recall ones that are similar. Today on Dezeen.com I came across a bench designed by Ghery. My fellow readers were kind enough to post similar works done by different designers. Examples are posted below:

David Trubridge:




Matthais Pliessnig:



If design is an organic process then similar mutations are to be expected and perhaps encouraged as the product is refined. Notice the subtle nuances differentiating the three designers mentioned so far. Each adds his/her own particular quality into the equation. It is this subtlety that makes all the differences.

Have you noticed how Ghery finishes the tail of his structure with quite a coarse ending of somewhat ruggedly cut reeds? This adds to the “whooosh” effect of the dynamic snakelike form he has created. This is not to be observed in Pliessnig nor Trubridge, who prefer to trim their structures with rather more geometrically defined finish. Not that Ghery’s stance is superior in any way, indeed, there is a certain degree of impracticality to this feature, including the possibility of tearing ones tights!

There is also great elegance in the parallelinearity of the seating and the reeds are sufficiently spaced so as to give a true impression of translucency (again a subtle differentiator to the work of say, Pliessnig, who seems to prefer closer spacing) I would love to sit on these.