New National Gallery, Mies Van Der Rohe

New National Gallery

 Mies Van Der Rohe’s New National Gallery building in Berlin, Germany is a modern art museum that houses many highlights of 20^th century artwork including work from artists like Pablo Picasso and Ernst Ludwig Kirchner. The minimalist glass and steel building has a large, open floor plan and a large steel roof that is supported by eight exterior columns. The New National Gallery implements many elements to emphasize that it is used as a space for artists to present their work. Some of these elements include an optimal effect of openness, abstraction, and horizontality. The ceiling was a detail of the building that caught my attention. The simplicity and repetition of the square geometric, coffered ceiling add an interesting quality to the space. As we have traveled, many of the coffered ceilings I have seen are of domes, such as the Pantheon, and I like seeing this technique used in a modern, rectangular building.

Sketches of the ceiling and construction lines

I chose to represent this coffering of the ceiling in my model. Through building the model, I got a better sense of how the coffering of the ceiling affects the space and how light and shadow are created.

 

Model Photos

Barcelona Pavilion, Mies van der Rohe, 1929

Barcelona Pavilion

     Built in 1929, the German Pavilion of Barcelona is an outstanding example of media architecture. The pavilion was designed specifically for the German section of the 1929 International exhibition. Due to the placement of the solid and glass walls, a distinction between the inside and outside of the structure is hard to see. The simplicity of the walls was transferred to the design of the furniture such as the Barcelona Chair. Placed on a quiet site, the pavilion is a nice place for someone to relax while passing through to the other exhibits. Two pools of water sit on different ends of the pavilion, one in the large open area and one in the small secret garden.

Barcelona Chair                                                                       

     The diagrams indicate the circulation around the pavilion. Due to the placement of the walls, a person cannot simply walk up the stairs and straight through. The person must experience the space as he walks through the pavilion. The model shows the simple placement of the solid walls and the effect they have on the circulation of the spaces.

 

Plan

Circulation

What Makes a Pavilion Successful?

by Tyler Norton

What makes a pavilion successful? This is a question that has been on my mind as we work on our projects in studio. In class, we studied pavilions as a form of temporary architecture. However, my group members and I are including a permanent pavilion at the top of one of our structures. I feel that since our pavilion will be permanent, there is more pressure for it to be well designed. Therefore, I wanted to utilize this post to study a few good examples of successful pavilions.

            To me, a pavilion represents a gathering space above all else. Whether it hosts seating, an event, a restaurant, a gallery, or in the case of the Serpentine Gallery Pavilion, no function at all, a pavilion will always provide a space for people to congregate. If for nothing else, these three pavilions are successful because they shape space in a way that is interesting, inviting, and innovative. This attracts people to gather there to appreciate the space.

            The 2009 Serpentine Gallery Pavilion by SANAA was meant to amplify the way people experience things, be it through sound, sight, or feeling. The concept and form was based on summer and nature since it was to host the annual summer party. SANAA strove for it to be a light and airy structure and I think that it was very successful because it accomplished the preset goal and it blended the boundaries between outdoors and in, which is another prominent theme in SANAA’s designs. Another project that focused on summer was Zaha Hadid’s 2007 Serpentine Pavilion, which was only there for a week to host the summer party. The main goal of the pavilion was to provide shelter to the party. It serves to shelter the pavilion from sun during the day and at night it provides light from lights that are underneath and travel up the veins of the fabric. Air, light, and fabric are all able to travel through the three structures and the light that travels through is meant to “highlight the geometric intricacy of the pavilion” with it’s light play. I think that this pavilion was very successful because it provided an interesting gathering place, which was its function. The final pavilion that I’d like to talk about it is Mies Van Der Rohe’s German Pavilion. The concept behind this project was to “give voice to the spirit of a new era” in Germany. In other words it was intended to be a self-portrait of the new Germany. It’s a very simple form with extravagant materials create an open plan that serve to suggest a “floating form.” I find this very successful because its openness perfectly symbolizes what was intended.

            All in all, I have come to the conclusion that each pavilion is different. These are all successful but in different ways.  Each one sets out to accomplish something different and each one does. As long as a pavilion accomplished the pre defined goal it can be very successful and interesting. 

Less Becomes Nothing

By Shawna Hammon

Lecture – “Temporary Architecture”

"It seems that perfection is reached not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away". - Antoine de St-Expurey

A few semesters ago, I teamed up with NC State studio mate, Jessie Braverman, to produce a prototype we lovingly dubbed the Folding Modular Retreat (FMR).   We envisioned that this piece of temporary architecture could be used as disaster relief shelter, a child’s playhouse, a dog house, or a camping lodge.  We sought a patent for it, and it is currently being reviewed by NC State’s Office of Technology Transfer who is in contact with industry partners to see if there is interest in development of the invention.  The design won first place in its category at the Graduate Student Research Symposium last spring for our research on the prototype – we built a full scale model and lived in it 24/7 for a full week.  During this week long occupation of FMR, we observed many issues, particularly with waterproofing, that needed to be reviewed and developed in later iterations, but there is certainly potential for this product.

FMR @ the Prototypes Show

 It was with this experience on my plate that we began our lecture on temporary architecture.  I was quite excited to learn more about its application throughout history and around the world.  But I was not prepared for the sharp emotions that overwhelmed me through the next three hours.  I believe I felt everything from awe and delight to disgust and revulsion with our profession.  Please allow me tell you why.

To me, architecture is not just about designing something beautiful, but it must be functional.  We do not want buildings that are as pointless as tea pots with no bottom, no matter how aesthetically pleasing that tea pot may be, we will eventually want some tea.  Buildings are no different – it could be fun to walk through a building that exhibits the latest technology – for about 5 minutes, then we wonder, how do I occupy this space?  What is the point?  Especially during this economic crisis, why do we continue to design and build temporary structures that serve no function? 

Perhaps the most popular examples of temporary architecture are the German Pavilion in Barcelona by Mies van der Rohe, the Venice Biennale, and the Eiffel Tower, to name a few.  These are not disaster relief solutions and yet we hold them up as architecture examples to follow. 

“Less is more.” – Mies van der Rohe

Barcelona Pavilion

While I know there is something to be learned from Mies’ Minimalist ideals, I feel like he has taken away so much from his pavilion that he forgot to leave the program.  Less is more, but what does it mean to create a space with no function.  If this exhibition was about the relationship of architecture and intentionally served no function, what kind of message is our profession conveying to the world?  Are we excessive?

Less is More installation by Pravdo.com

I had the pleasure of seeing the Venice Biennale this year and it was one of my favorite experiences, but I cannot help but feel like it was a vice that I should feel guilty for indulging in.  After all, we are in one of the worst economic crisis of our time and yet, we built these pavilions to show off our “mad skills” to other architects and the public.  This hardly seems like a noble thing to do, how many people could we have helped if we had put that money towards disaster relief.  How many houses could we have built with Habitat for Humanity with that money?  Did someone walk away with so much knowledge from this exhibition that they will make a real difference in the future making the capital invested truly worth it?  I have a hard time believing it is so.

And then there is the Eiffel Tower, which was certainly a flex of the technological muscle of its time that led to greater developments and technologies so that allowing it to remain as a beacon to tourism seems acceptable.  This was meant to be a temporary structure, but it was so successful and became an icon in Paris, that the city would hardly be the same without it.

What does temporary architecture say to the general public about architecture?  Does this stuff just fuel our egos or is it helping us stay ahead?  I stand by my conviction that architecture should serve a purpose and do something to better the communities in which we live, but I do wonder which exhibit at this years’ Biennale will be the next Barcelona Pavilion – which of these spectacles will we put on a pedestal for all time?

“Keep it simple stupid.” – Kelly Johnson

Sources:

http://www.pravdo.com/less-is-more-2011.html