Budapest: A City of Culture, A Palace of Arts

Budapest: A City of Culture, A Palace of Arts

By Joel Pominville

Palace of Arts, Budapest, Hungary - Zoboki, Demeter and Associates

            Culture. Arts. Markets. History. Caverns. Thriving. These words only begin to touch on the definition of the most fantastic city in Europe: Budapest, Hungary. The city is full of exciting architecture ranging from some roman ruins, renaissance era architecture, Turkish architecture from a 150-year-long Ottoman rule, to neoclassical, modern, and riveting contemporary architecture. It is very similar to Paris in that the architecture addresses the street façades and corner conditions very well. Although there is so much to talk about, I want to focus in on the Palace of Arts by Zoboki, Demeter and Associates, a Hungarian architecture firm from Budapest.

           

Zoboki, Demeter and Associates (ZDA), was hired by the Budapest municipalities to design a center to host, theatre, concerts, and art exhibits. The building would have to be a landmark for Budapest and all of Hungary. It would have to remind the world of the individuality and innovativeness of Budapest. The building sits in a quadrant of a square hosting the contemporary National Theatre in one quadrant, newly designed apartments in another quadrant, and a green space in the last. The building opens up with a long glass façade facing the square, thus, addressing the other works of contemporary architecture.

           

Palace of Arts - Plan

There are two things that I want to analyze about this great work of architecture: Separation and Unity, and a certain level of clear reading of spaces from the exterior. To begin, it must be understood that there are three main programmatic pieces: a smaller theatre for dance and drama, a larger theatre serving as concert space, and an exhibit for art. As one can see in the plan shown, the three parts are clearly defined and separated. At the same time, a strong reading of continuous lobby and less important spaces connects the main spaces. For example, between the two theatres is a small fifteen-step lecture space. The lobby acts as the common ground between all of the spaces. With pieces jutting into it, circulation running in and out of it, the lobby remains the strongest element in the whole building.

            

Palace of Arts - Lobby Space and Exterior of Large Theatre

            The best part about the lobby, and the building as a whole, is the level of clarity of where spaces are and what purpose they serve. Furthermore, these spaces can almost all be understood from the exterior. For example, as one can see in the photograph, the lobby stretches the whole length, flexing from interior to exterior space as it nears the art exhibit. The lobby is primarily glass, allowing the viewer to see beyond to begin understanding the placement of the interior spaces. The two theatres are clearly evidenced in two ways: the functional extrusions above the building, and the material chosen to follow through all the levels demarking the separation of those spaces. This is such a strong statement by the designer that the user really has no reason to be confused about where to enter for their respective needs. In fact, the rear of the building is a nearly completely solid surface opining up when necessary making clear the office spaces inside. Again, another level of clarity.

           

            I could go on and on about the building describing the ingenious detail and special complexities of the building, but I will resist. This building, as well as the diversity of architecture and a strong sense of culture, is the I have marked Budapest as my favorite city in all of Europe, or what I’ve seen of it at least!

Architect Page

http://www.zda.hu/

Building Project Page

http://www.zda.hu/works.php?work_id=47&open_menu=114&ln=0&menu_id=124&parent=117

Regulation or Manipulation: Villa Savoye

Regulation or Manipulation: Villa Savoye

By Joel Pominville

Villa Savoye, Poissy, France - Designed by Le Corbusier

There once was an architect of such influence in the world, he set trends that are still evidenced in contemporary architecture. This man also discovered five points that helped him set regularity and sense in architecture. This man was Charles-Édouard Jeanneret, or Le Corbusier as he is known in the architectural realm. He discovered a standard means of design that would help create a linear understanding of his architecture. These points include the use of pilotis to “lift” the building from the ground plane, several fixed load-bearing interior walls, an open floor plan, ribbon-like windows framing the exterior, and the use of a green roof. These points are often seen as highly intuitive and genius by some. Le Corbusier once stated, “To create architecture is to put in order. Put what in order? Function and objects.” I question whether this is a completely honest remark. Maybe his points more so allow him to manipulate placement of objects resulting in order, rather than the opposite.

Villa Savoye Elevations - Highlighted Fenestration

A good question always to be asking when studying architecture is how was an idea, form, or situation was brought into reality. How were windows placed? To frame the view? To allow that situation of light enter? Why is the circulation centralized rather than pushed to the exterior? It is important to keep questions like these in mind as one looks at works of architecture, more specifically, modern architecture. Observing the Villa Savoye, one can question many of these things. For example, was it this order Corbusier speaks of five that created the windows around the exterior? I argue that it was a conscious decision by the architect to manipulate the exterior to be a continuous band that resulted in an order, rather than a set order that created the ribbon of fenestration.

            

Villa Savoye Floor 1-2 Plans - Highlighted Structure

            Another example of this can be seen in the open floor plan. If what he says about creating architecture that puts function and objects in order, then his second and third points of architecture may be questioned. If architecture is to put in order function and objects, then there must be a clear order in their organization. However, in the Villa Savoye, the structural elements in the second level do not express this level of order. Furthermore, the open plan suggests that the spaces could be organized independently of the structural walls. I believe that the decisions were again less about an order that informed the organization, and more about a conscious and manipulated action on the architect’s side. The plan seems to depict a plan that was preconceived organizationally and molded into a plan that defended the order. The roof plan seems to lack the same level of order that Corbusier states he accomplishes. There is seemingly no order of elements that depict their function.

            

            In all of this, I mean not to discredit the work of on of the greatest masterminds of the modern period of architecture. I simply question the clarity of the decisions made in the design of the Villa Savoye. However, as the building serves better as an exhibit or an example, then maybe the question I pose is less important than if it were to be needed to be completely useful as a functional home.

Information

http://villa-savoye.monuments-nationaux.fr/

http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/savoye/index.htm

Sketch

http://aalto.arch.ksu.edu/personal/knoxweb/2_3/2_3/images/26.jpg

Pictures

http://4dlife.mihanblog.com/post/164

Acropolis: Parasite to a Natural Host

Acropolis: Parasite to a Natural Host
by Joel Pominville

Acropolis, Athens, Greece

          Location. Place. Site. All of these are important terms when talking about any work of architecture. Whether it is a condominium near the beach resting on stilts to avoid floods or a house that carefully dangles on the edge of a cliff, location, place, and site are all words needed to discuss the work. However, the parasitic architecture that I have previously discussed lacks a sense of this terminology. Autonomous architecture also has the same lack of location, place, and site. The Acropolis in Greece is a prime example of a work of architecture that is autonomous. However, with autonomous architecture, the host is not a building, but it takes form in the site. As I will discuss with the Acropolis, this form of parasite attaches to a location, place, and site, in a way that almost disregards these terms.
        
          To begin, one must look at the plan of the Acropolis on the site in which it is placed. More specifically, I would like to examine the placement of the Parthenon (highlighted in red) on the site. As you can see in the site plan image, the Parthenon is in a partially centralized location. But more important to notice is its disregard for any type of regulated alignment. It is not aligned against the axis of cardinal directions, nor is it in particular alignment with any other structures of the complex. The other buildings suffer the same lack of alignment. Although the Acropolis, once the complex of a citadel, is strategically placed at the top of a hillside above Athens, it lacks a sense of direction. Le Corbusier may have described the Acropolis best as a parasite. He commented that the Acropolis is simply an architectural landscape without plan or direction. You can begin to observe this in more depth as you analyze the acropolis in different location situations.
        
          

Acropolis in woodlands near Athens, Greece

          The same complex can be observed in three different sites: a natural forest, a city, and another citadel location. The forest is the easiest to analyze. A forest has no sense of direction. Therefore, when the Acropolis is placed into the site, there is nothing to orient it. In a way, the Acropolis works better on this site than any other because there are no outside forces forcing it to align in any direction. 
However, it even still disregards alignment to the cardinal directions, which are elements needed to be considered in architecture by the designer. 

Acropolis Placed in Manhattan

          
          The next place to analyze the Acropolis in is a city center. A good example of this is Manhattan. As you can see, the Acropolis does not follow any kind of regulated patter as is typical in cities, even in complexes as old as the Roman forums. So, not only does the Acropolis not have a correlation to the cardinal directions, but it also does not have any form of modulation.
        
          

Acropolis Placed on Budapest Citadel

          Now, take the Acropolis and sit it on another Citadel complex. Although there are hundreds and hundreds of years difference between the Hungarian complex and the Grecian complex, there is still something to learn from the citadel in Budapest. One can see a level of parallelism in the Hungarian complex and the building that compose it. The Acropolis, on the other hand, has no parallel lines that help organize it. Without any of these factors that help organize a building or complex on a site, it is safe to say the Acropolis has no real place. Although it is situated on a site, it lacks any architecture design of location, place, or site.

Parasitic Architecture: Defying an Illegal Connotation

Parasitic Architecture: Defying an Illegal Connotation

by Joel Pominville

Legal/Illegal, Manuel Herz Architects, Cologne, Germany

Parasite [par-uh-sahyt], an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. In biology, this can mean anything from harmful parasites like cestodes, the common tape worm, to non-harmful parasites such a the cowbird who simply lay their eggs in other species nests for them to be cared for by the host bird. The definition of a parasite can be translated into an architectural language as well. In the same way, a structure is designed to be in, on, or around a preexisting structure that acts as its host. The word parasite definitely carries a negative connotation in biological conversations, and this can be true in architecture as well. However, by studying a project such as Legal/Illegal by Manuel Herz Architects, one can see how parasitic architecture can be used as a piece of complimentary architecture and not just as an opposition to the host structure.

For many years after the Second World War, Cologne was in a bit of an urban planning crisis, and more specifically, Bayenthal, a suburban housing district in Cologne. The crisis was the families of the city were moving in exponential amounts to the countryside, no longer content with the living conditions within the suburban fabric of the city. The proposal sent forth by the Bayenthal district was to instead bring the countryside inward. The way in which this would be exectuted was to bring countryside living conditions to the city. They planned to expand city streets and allow for more pedestrian traffic. However, financially, this was not feasible in such a low-density area. There was only one more solution to the problem: architecture.

Section Perpendicular to Street

This is how the project by Manuel Herz comes into the discussion. If architecture is the solution to the housing crisis, then there needs to be more than what was there before. However, because the monetary funds are not there to completely demolish and rebuild, there needs to be a connect between the existing and the newly created. When discussing such complementary architecture, the idea of ‘parasite’ comes to mind. To use an existing structure as a host to create a new structure in, on, or around that host. I see Legal/Illegal as a sensitive but innovative creation of parasite. First, it is necessary to discuss how law created the form of the volume seen in the section. In an area dominated by housing regulations, the volume conforms to all the setbacks, heights, and entrance rules. However, the sheer volume of the structure contains more floor area then is allowed in that area, the volumes extruding from the surface cause harsh shadows on the nearby buildings, and even the fire regulations are slightly overlooked. There in lies the Legal/Illegal title of the project. Looking at the project in elevation with the adjacent buildings give you an image of a building that is initially seen as a violent, opposing parasite. However taking another look at the form was all I needed to convince me this work of architecture fits in very well in an abstract sort of way.

             

Diagram Showing Continuities Between Existing and New, by Joel

            
             If you take a look at the main elements of the buildings adjacent to the Herz design, you start to notice some sort of continuity between Legal/Illegal and the two buildings beside it. First of all, the two buildings only have two floors above the height of the arch. The Herz building has a reading of only two floors, or window openings if you will, above the arch. The openings are also very similar in size. In fact, the Herz entrance seems to be an average of the entrances of the adjoining buildings. The depth expressed on the façade seems to be just a less subdued depth than on the adjoining facades. Of the parasitic architecture studied in class, I believe the Legal/Illegal building designed by Manuel Herz found a way to address the ‘host’ site while still pushing the suburban area ahead with its innovative and maybe disruptive design. Bravo Manuel Herz.

References:
Architect Pages

http://www.manuelherz.com/legal-illegal-cologne

Dictionary Entry

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite?s=t

Pictures

http://www.archdaily.com/133678/legal-illegal-manuel-herz-architects/

The Design of the Natural: A Complexity in Designed Landscapes

The Design of the Natural: A Complexity in Designed Landscapes

By Joel Pominville

Homage to El Lissitzky - Lucien den Arend

            There is an incredible complexity in designing landscape that results in several solutions. All solutions maintain a manmade element, but some are able to overlook the manmade by attracting the eye with a form or design that is so seamlessly naturalistic looking. Some designs are manmade materialistically, but, in form, they push the eye into seeing a natural form. And others remain so unnatural that they begin to push away any human attraction at all.
            

A perfect example of the first solution is Lucien den Arend’s Homage to El Lissitzky. Lucien den Arend, a sculptor born in the Netherlands and raised in California, was asked to create a land sculpture outside of the test center of the national Road and Transport Department of the Netherlands. It would serve not only as a sculpture, a landmark, but it would serve as a sound barrier for the center. His solution was a mass of formed earth in a crescent shape across the road from the test center. This is a great example of the first solution as it is manmade, but seems as if some strange movement in the tectonic plates of earth could have created it in that very spot. I applaud den Arend for creating such a simple and elegant form that does not feel out of place as it serves the needs of the clientele as well.
            

Maritime Youth Center - Bjarke Ingels Group

One can look to Bjarke Ingels Group for evidence of the second solution. The Maritime Youth House in Copenhagen designed by BIG was a conceptually driven form that began to take shape as a landscape of its own. In order to cover up a bad area of ground on the site, they took a flat plane and created a sloping, morphing plane that broke away from the ground using push and pull diagramming. The slope took on materiality with many long planks of wood creating these sloping surfaces. Where the plane “rises” up, they allowed for air-conditioned space for the clientel. I find this project so astounding, not only architecturally, but naturalistically as well. Although they were not asked to design landscape, they designed an artificial landscape that addresses nature in a formatic way, not so much materialistically. 

Hualien Beach Resort - Bjarke Ingels Group

Another project by BIG worth mentioning is the Hualien Beach Resort project in the process of being completed and juried to be constructed. This project, seen next to the Maritime Youth House, has more of a naturalistic materiality. However, it is even more so natural in the way the designer has decided the form. Bravo to the Bjarke Ingels teams for designing in a way that did not hide the artificiality of the project, but respecting the nature in which we consume with designs.
            

Villa Garden - Gabriel Guevrekian

The last solution left to mention is a much less appealing, and less natural solution. It is a result of over control of the form and function of the landscape that, in a way, destroys any kind of feeling of nature. This ties directly into my blog post about the cubist gardens. I discovered through analysis that there seemed to be a very cold nature to the cubist gardens by Gabriel Guevrekian. It is a result of controlling the design solution to the extent that it loses all original intentions and natural precedents that existed prior to the design. In a way, this result of designing landscape is the least desirable. There was a time in design that it was normal to create new ideas of natural elements. But, in my opinion, the complete human control and manipulation of landscape and disregard for the preexisting nature should never be welcome.

Pictures:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2ajFW12nYMlgjtLsMi_LphWHcSMbbnF3EY3Y_U1b7ABb7wbgxR7OI7qeeveAtIb4FLDJltY3NEi3NKnVkV85J04PuBe7EKl9CCDwLuYTM6Ov4ANzua_uV-vZ55HJFZJ0rzF1Ocrrs8tA/s400/homage_to_el_lissitzky04.jpg

http://www.big.dk/#projects-mar

http://www.big.dk/#projects-hua

Architects/Artists:

http://www.big.dk/

http://www.denarend.com/

Information:

http://www.denarend.com/works/environmental/homage_el_lissitzky/index.htm

http://www.denarend.com/

Dear Blog: The Venice Biennale

Dear Blog
by Joel Pominville

Dear Blog,  

     I hope you are doing well, and everything is going well there in the online world!
     I just wanted to catch up with you and let you in on some things the class and I did while we were in Venice for the start of our first ten-day trip. We saw several works by Carlo Scarpa and Palladio. I took particular liking to Scarpa’s Fondazione Querini Stampalia and Palladio’s Basillica de San Giorgio. My most favored thing we saw was the Venice Biennale of Architecture. First of all, there was a long exhibit in the old Arsenale in which spaces were designed by David Chipperfield. However, the exhibits were designed by many famous and rising architects including Sir Norman Foster and Rem Koolhaus. 

     Although this long exhibit was very interesting and had a lot to offer, I think I enjoyed the individual country exhibits in Giardini. It is not only nice to see the works of architects in the different countries, but the pavilions themselves offered great lessons of design and contruction. There are two pavilions that I really enjoyed. The Brazilian pavilion was very postmodern and represented the materials still heavily used in Brazilian architecture, wood and reinforced concrete. The Venezuelan pavilion, designed by Carlo Scarpa, had a very close sense of detail and purpose found in most other Scarpa designs. 

     

     Two exhibits I learned a lot from were the Spanish and Denmark/Greenland exhibits. The Spanish pavilion exhibited works by achitects such as Ecosistema Urbano and RCR Arquitectes. I found that Spainish architects are putting large emphasis on two things: Green, reusable, and sustainable architecture and systems, as well as an emphasis on product and industrial design becoming just as important as design at an architectural level. I found that particularly interesting as I have an extreme interest in pursuing industrial design as well as arhitecture. The Denmark pavilion was just as interesting, but with a bit of a different design focus. The exhibit included a project by BIG Architects, one of my most highly regarded architectural influences. The architecture displayed in this exhibit focused on sustainability as well, but now with a bit more focus on efficient heating and cooling systems, as well as modular housing. The BIG project was a proposed scheme for an airport and a shipping port combined into what they call Air+Port. It was an icredible design that incorporated the need of both aircraft, and sea craft in a way that was virtually seamless. Overall, there was much to gain from the Biennale this year and I feel so honored to have seen what we did.

The Inhumane Garden: An Analysis of the work of Gabriel Guevrekian

By Joel Pominville

Is cubism relatable to the human? Is there a certain disconnect from human emotion and cubist art? Maybe more importantly so, is there a disconnect from the human figure and cubist and modern gardens designed for human habitation? These are questions I asked myself as we discussed the cubist gardens by Gabriel Guevrekian. The answer can be found in an in depth comparison between cubist art, cubist architecture, and human emotion.

Cubism was originally crafted by artists Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque in Paris between 1907 and 1914. Cubist artists wanted to turn away from how nature is really seen. They strove to take the geometrical forms of nature, and reduce them to a scale and depth that represented the canvas on which they were painted. This was a notion that partly gave way to modern architecture, also stemming from movements such as minimalism and primitivism. In cubism, however, there is a fault in the simplicity of the geometry presented: the loss of human connection to the nature in which it represents. To observe this, one can look to artist Robert Delaunay and his painting Homage to Bleriot. When most viewers see a piece of artwork, there is normally a starting point or a point that draws attention to itself. With cubism, there is not a point in which to begin viewing. The viewer must see it, try to understand, and interpret it him or herself. In this flattening of dimension, the depth of nature is stripped away, leaving the viewer in a state lacking human relation to the painting.

This lack of connection is not necessarily needed in a painting, as it is not something the viewer can fully sense. By this, I mean it is not a place in which the viewer can feel, experience, and inhabit. However, in architecture, it is more important to keep a connection to the human. This leads the conversation to the cubist gardens designed by Gabriel Guevrekian. The first garden designed by Guevrekian in a cubist manner is the Jardin d’eau et de Lumiere. Although this garden was meant to be viewed and not traversed, I believe it still lacks a connection to the human element that most gardens. As one can see in the picture, the fragmentation of the garden leads the viewer to believe that they are an entity outside of the garden, not a part of it. In this case, there is a focal point, but even still, the fragmented sections block the viewer from experiencing the centerpiece, as I believe they should be allowed to.

The second garden, and Guevrekian’s most famous cubist garden, is the Garden of the Villa Noailles. This garden is considered one of the most influential modern gardens, especially in France. Although it does not draw quite as much from cubism, it still faces the same problems previously discussed. In the same way as cubist art, this garden has no true start or end. There are two points of entry, but the circulation throughout the space is a continuous loop, with no place to pause, reflect, or rest. Also, the center of the garden seems completely uninhabitable. This makes for quite an emotional disconnect from what most garden offer. Most people experience gardens in a way that they reflect upon different spaces, but also identify the overarching path of circulation in order to move between these spaces. Guevrekian’s Garden of the Villa Noailles allows for only one action: continuous movement around the uninhabitable centerpiece. Overall, the gardens are beautiful works of art. They just do not seem like works of architecture that allow for human relation and interaction.

Info about architect

http://www.vitruvius.com.br/revistas/read/drops/08.020/1734

Info about cubist art
http://artyfactory.com/art_appreciation/art_movements/cubism.htm

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/cube/hd_cube.htm

Pictures

http://www.photographersdirect.com/buyers/stockphoto.asp?imageid=2720011

http://paisajimopueblosyjardines.blogspot.it/2010/11/cubismo-y-arquitectura-paisajista.html

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/d/delaunay/homage_to_bleriot.jpg.html

The Struggle Against the Emotionless: A Contemporary Germany

The Struggle Against the Emotionless: A Contemporary Germany
by Joel Pominville

A question that came to my mind during the lecture addresses a connection between war times in Germany and in the state it is in currently. More specifically, a connection between what was described as Nazi architecture and contemporary architecture we see evidence of in Berlin today. Given the history of Germany and the powerful, massive, and monumental architecture produced during World War 2, is it possible for contemporary architects to produce similar pieces of work (in mass, strength, and volume) without a direct correlation made between their work and the Nazi architecture, designed mainly by Albert Speer?

            The first thing to analyze in this situation is the work of Albert Speer, serving as Adolf Hitler’s “right hand” designer during the years of Hitler’s power (~1933-1945). One of his most recognizable pieces is the Zeppelin Field near Nuremberg, Germany. As one can see, the design has several features that promote the mentality of authority and power. It is very massive, volumetric, and it references classical architecture that also served as buildings of power, government, and authority. The material choice and lack of ornamentation also allude to a very cold, emotionless sense of the building… which may not have been too far off the truth.

            I’ve chosen to compare this building to a building designed by contemporary architect, Axel Schultes. Axel Schultes uses many of the same materials as may have been seen on Speer’s designs; materials like stone, concrete, and brick. Many of his works are very massive, and seemingly just as volumetric as Speer’s designs. This is where the question needs to be asked: how can Schultes design in a similar fashion as Speer, without directly referencing architecture that was brought about during the menacing era of war in Germany? If one takes a look at the Federal Chancellery in Berlin designed by Schultes, one can notice several similarities between it and Speer’s Zeppelin Field. The chancellery is very massive, and the form is just as, if not more, volumetric and heavy as the Zeppelin Field. However, Schultes lightened the design by cutting into the façade to allow light in, and to lift the heaviness off the building. So, in form, the two buildings are very similar. Schultes’ design also has a similar feel of authority and power in how massive it is. However, by allowing light into the interior, and opening up the heavy facades, Schultes managed to avoid the cold, emotionless feelings associated with Speer’s design, and the war as a whole.

            Two other buildings, one of the Nazi period and one contemporary, can be compared in a similar manner as the two just described: a Flak tower of Berlin, and Main Plaza by Hans Kollhoff. The similarities to be made between these two are quite similar to those above. Both buildings use heavy masonry, are very powerful in their stature, and very volumetric. And again the Flak tower has a sense of lacking emotion with the harsh concrete completely separating the interior from the exterior. Kollhoff, like Schultes, manages to create a powerful and authoritative piece of architecture without seeming cold and emotionless. Again, Kollhoff uses light to take away from the heaviness of the building. In turn, he manages to create a building of much more strength and volume, without running the risk of completely revisiting the cold, harsh emotions of Nazi architecture. The answer to the original question seems to be light. Both Schultes and Kollhoff cut into the massive masonry of their designs, therefore avoiding the feeling experienced by viewers of Nazi work like Speer’s Zeppelin Field and the Flak tower of Berlin.

References

          Zeppelin http://www.srcs.nctu.edu.tw/joyceliu/mworks/mw-onlinecourse/paranoia_se/ThirtReichArtIndex/ThirtReichArt1.html

          Chancellory http://www.flickr.com/photos/20963604@N08/5176854802/

          Flak Tower http://www.kuriositas.com/2012/04/flak-towers-legacy-of-luftwaffe.html

          Main Plaza http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Main_Plaza_-_Frankfurt_Main_-_Germany_-_07.jpg

Architects' Websites

          Axel Schultes http://www.schultesfrankarchitekten.de/

          Hans Kollhoff http://www.kollhoff.de/