Tate Modern: 10th Anniversary

The groundbreaking renovation of the Bankside Power Station into the home of Britain’s ‘Modern Art Scene’, the Tate Modern, will celebrate it’s 10th birthday this May.

The international design competition was launched in July 1994, and was won by Herzog & De Meuron, the innovative Swiss architects. Often heralded as their pièce de résistance, the Tate Modern is a beautiful, deft and fitting ‘re-thinking’ of the building. Coming in just shy of £150 million for the conversion meant all eyes were watching to see what HdM would do – they did not disappoint. The newly revamped ‘Tate Modern’ was completed in January 2000, and opened to the public in, you guessed it, May of that year.

Much of the internal structure of the building remained intact, including the vast ‘Turbine Hall’ which has housed many fantastic installations over the past ten years (Olafur Eliasson’s ‘The Weather Project’ being one of my favourites: http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/eliasson/about.htm). Also, an electrical sub-station that took up the southern third of the building remained under the ownership of EDF Energy (the French energy giants) until 2006 when they agreed to release half of this holding to the museum.

The biggest change to the structure is the addition of the two-story glass extension on one half of the roof (this houses all the essential parts of any public building – the obligatory cafe / restaurant etc. Externally then, the building may appear to be relatively unchanged. For me though, it is the subtle adaptation of what was once considered an eyesore on the Thames, into something that Britons have come to love and cherish. It is sympathetic to it’s industrial roots, and yet steers away from them in all the right places.

As Ada Louise Huxtable (juror for the Pritzker Prize the year HdM won) says: “They [HdM] refine the traditions of modernism to elemental simplicity, while transforming materials and surfaces through the exploration of new treatments and techniques.”

To celebrate the anniversary, the Tate is holding a series of events free to the public between 12th – 16th May. This includes an exhibition entitled: ‘No Soul For Sale’ – a three-day festival mixing cutting edge arts events, performances, music and film.

Check out the Tate website for more information: http://www.tate.org.uk/

Adobe CS5

Adobe have announced the release of Creative Suite 5 – and it looks pretty bloody good!

I know some in the architectural profession do not like the ease with which certain elements of packages like Photoshop can jeopardise the process of designing a building, but when you see some of the extraordinary things you can do, and easily too, surely it’s not a bad thing?

The potential to create even more stunning, rich and interesting visuals for projects look set to explode (in a good way).

Watch the ‘Design’ video here:

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/adobe-creative-suite-5-launch-event/cs5-design/

Masterpieces: Ciudad de las Artes y las Ciencias

Santiago Calatrava’s ‘Ciudad de las Artes y las Ciencias’, or ‘City of Arts and Sciences’ was built between 1996 – 1998 and sits on the outskirts of Valencia, Spain.

It is vast, white, clean and utterly breathtaking. It is an almost perfect symbiosis of organic forms and modernism that still looks brand new today – even though it is now more than 12 years old. The ‘city’ is populated by several key buildings that each have their own purpose, and their own inspiration.

El Palau de les Arts Reina Sofìa: Valencia’s Opera House and cultural centre wasn’t actually opened until 2005, but is part of the whole scheme. It’s impressive form makes seeing this building quite an extraordinary experience. Standing at the base of the giant spine that runs across the whole facade, you really get a feeling of the sheer volume of the building – 40,000 sq. metres. It’s a wonderful mix of rendered concrete and glass that suits the city perfectly and on a bright sunny day the entire complex is dazzling.

L’Hemisfèric: sits in front of the Palau de les Arts and, from the air, resembles an open eye. It was the first phase of the project to be opened to the public back in 1998 and is truly one of the most fascinating. The vast eye opens and closes via a complex arrangement of hydraulics allowing the building to adapt to the needs of the guests inside. The building houses a planetarium, an IMAX theatre and restaurants and other tourist services.

L’Umbracle: a subtle (in comparison) landscaped garden adjacent to the main thrust of the complex. It offers an exhibition of plants indigenous to Valencia and the local area, as well as displaying various contemporary artworks.

L’Oceanogràfic: this is were the complex eventually leads you – Europe’s largest aquarium. It houses over 45,000 animals and 500 different species within it’s sculpted, marine-like form.

The complex, as a whole, is an awesome experience. The landscaping between each structure lends perfectly to the fluid, effortless lines of the ‘city’. What I love most about this project, and most of Calatrava’s work, is that the buildings constantly challenge you. Every step you take, you are confronted with a new angle in which to appreciate the wonderful complexity of their design. When you’re in ‘Ciudad de las Artes y las Ciencias’ there is no escape from Calatrava’s ever-changing creations; you cannot turn your head without noticing something new and fantastic about the environment you are standing in. There is also a nod to, and appreciation of, the fact these buildings are in Spain – each are clad (in some from) with intricate mosaic tiles not unlike the ones you’d find on many of Gaudi’s creations – this makes the complex feel firmly rooted in it’s Mediterranean home.

A little alien, perhaps, to it’s surrounding landscape, but ‘Ciudad de las Artes y las Ciencias’ really showcases Calatrava and the groundbreaking work he has created.

Take a look at the complex’s official website for some very interesting ‘virtual tours’: http://www.cac.es/?languageId=1

4 Mile Run Bridge

Grimshaw, Arup & Scape's winning entry

Arup, Grimshaw and Scape have been announced as winners of the ‘4 Mile Run Bridge’ competition in Northern Virginia, USA.

The project seeks to revitalise and restore the ecology of the revered park space and act as a conduit to bring local communities together – which is, in effect, what a bridge is for (metaphorically speaking). The winning entry sees a beautiful, yet simple design, that sweeps majestically across the water.

Have a look at the winning presentation here: http://www.4milerun.org/PDF/Team1_4MileRun.pdf

A little more Orbit

Anish Kapoor explains, briefly, the idea behind his Olympic Tower. David Sillito asks him inane questions, but it’s nice to see some 3D visualisations of the tower.

Brunnenstrasse 9

Stark doesn’t quite cover it. Berlin’s newest gallery space in trendy Mitte has provoked quite a reaction from artists, designers and architects alike. The space has been inundated with praise, and I can see why.

It’s shell may seem a little, well, bleak; but look closer at it’s ‘unfinished’ exterior and you begin to understand the story of this place. It’s an exercise in flexibility. Every part of it (nearly) can be re-arranged, moved and reconfigured to suit the needs of the inhabitants. The facade, the walls, windows and doors can all be relocated to change the space inside. This wonderful, movable building, sits perfectly in its ever-changing surroundings and instead of appearing a little bit gimmicky, actually brings a whole new level of ingenuity to minimal, modernist architecture. Along the interior walls you’ll find holes ready to support another floor, staircases that can be moved and a ground floor that can be (partly) removed to give a double-height gallery space in the basement, should the tenant require it.

The interior intentionally exposes the buildings skeleton: untreated concrete floors and walls, MDF panels and uncased strip fluorescent lighting. This base state, however, is really rather beautiful and, knowing the potential the space still holds to change, makes it even more attractive. You can not only appreciate it for what it is now, but what it could be. This space is malleable, and it’s exciting to know that one day it will change.

It’s a fascinating approach to what will be a mixed-use building. Arno Brandlhuber, the minimalist genius who designed the space, has his studio in the penthouse suite of the building, along with the painfully trendy fashion magazine 032C on the third floor and the gallery KOW in the ground floor gallery space. This can, of course, all change if needed. So when I say that ‘stark’ doesn’t quite cover it, I mean it. This building is more the sum of its minimalist concrete parts. It’s an uplifting, ingenious creation that proves minimal design can, and will, stand the test of time.

images courtesy of: http://atelierhaussmann.wordpress.com/

Gardens by The Bay – Squint Opera Movie

A truly groundbreaking project which I’ve had the pleasure of being involved with, in a small way, during my time with the lead consultant’s on the project – Grant Associates. I could rattle on for ages, but just watch the video to get the idea! The project was won in 2006, so I’m a little out of date on this one, but thought it was more than worth a mention.

Anish Kapoor – Orbit

Anish Kapoor's 'Eiffel Tower'

Sculpture as architecture is always a thorny subject. Does a sculptor have the technical know-how that an architect does? Have they studied the fabric of construction and know about the mathematics, as well as the creativity, that goes into a building? The answer is probably not – I may be generalising here, but I think it’s a fair bet.

Great architecture is, of course, about the collaboration between many disciplines. It’s the structural engineers who tell us if what we’ve put down on paper will actually work, it’s the quantity and cost surveyors who help us bring a project into existence, the landscape architects who shape the environment around it and the all the other professions are what make a great building, well, great.

Anish Kapoor’s Olympic Tower is a staggering crimson structure that twists and turns it’s way up to 120 metres in height. It has been dubbed the British ‘Eiffel Tower’ – but can it stand up to such a comparison? The London 2012 games are, we’ve been told, Britain’s chance to put on an Olympics with a true British character: something a little quirky, a little off-the-wall. We may not have the budget China had, but we sure as hell are going to put on an ‘individual’ show. Personally, I think that’s great. There’s no reason why we can’t put on an exemplary games with a smaller budget than other countries may have at their disposal, but does that involve a £19 million steel tower? Surely the fact we are working with an increasingly diminishing budget means we should be spending our cash wisely?

The ‘ArcelorMittal Orbit’, to give it it’s full name, has been funded by Europe’s richest man – Lakshmi Mittal – a British Indian steel magnate. He has been named the 5th richest man in the world and sits atop many of the worlds most infulential, and richest companies. He’s non-executive Director of Goldman Sachs, for example – one of the major players in the worldwide financial meltdown – now there’s some kudos for a games that’s supposed to represent modern Britain on a budget. A little insensitive maybe?

All of the political and financial quips aside, does this tower fit the London Olympics? Will it serve to be the shining beacon of our games that it’s supposed to be? There’s no doubt that the East London site the Olympics is calling its home is in need of regeneration, and that anything that can last past those few summer weeks when the games actually take place is a bonus, but I’m unsure whether the Orbit will have longevity.

The Eiffel Tower, of course, was never supposed to live past 1909, but has managed to become an iconic landmark of Paris. Similarly, the Eiffel Tower was met with the same sorts of criticism to that of the ArcelorMittal Orbit – maybe then, I’m being shortsighted. Maybe this tower will define the games in 2012 and will serve as a lasting memory of modern Britain’s creativity and ingenuity. Once I get up in that lift to the viewing platform and have a look for myself, I’ll decide. For now I’m on the fence – a colossal expense, but who knows, maybe it will become one of the landmarks of London?

2010 Pritzker Prize winners: Kazuyo Sejima + Ryue Nishizawa

Japanese partners in the architectural firm SANAA (Kazuyo Sejima + Ryue Nishizawa) have been awarded with the ‘2010 Laureate of the Pritzker Architecture Prize’ for their outstanding contributions toward groundbreaking, innovative architecture in the built environment today.

This is the third time since the prize’s inception that two architects have been awarded; this first was in 1988 when Oscar Niemeyer and Gordon Bunshaft were honoured, and the second in 2001 when Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron (post coming soon about their new ‘VitraHaus’) received the award.

So what makes Sejima & Nishizawa worthy winners? How can one distill an award like this, which promises to seek out: “a living
architect whose built work demonstrates a combination of those qualities of talent, vision and commitment, which has produced consistent and significant contributions to humanity and the built environment through the art of architecture.” That’s no mean feat.

A majority of SANAA’s work has been limited to their native Japan, was this ‘worldwide’ award, then, correctly dished out? SANAA’s architecture is beautiful, don’t get me wrong, it’s clean, simple, organic and ever-so Japanese. They have consistently designed perfectly functional and attractive buildings, so I believe they well deserve the award. There’s just one thing that niggles at me: there seems to be a lack of fire in much of their work. Everything is white render, floor to ceiling glazing and cold hard steel. I think sometimes you could argue a white box always looks edgy and beautiful if you stick in a field surrounded by ancient woodland and a beautiful, lush landscape. Take that box out of the landscape and stick it in a desolate urban environment, and suddenly it can loose all it’s appeal – not always, but it’s tricky to get right. SANAA’s ’21st Century Museum’ in Kanazawa, Japan borders on the edge of ‘fashionable’ architecture for me, and fails to impact as much as it would like to.

Their design for the ‘New Museum of Contemporary Art’ in new York however manages to shrug off the ‘white box’ syndrome by cleverly, and effectively playing with form and structure. The museum resembles, quite aptly considering my ‘white box’ analogy, a pile of white boxes stacked irregularly on top of each other. Each level has looked at individually and has been planned with precision for the job at hand – temporary and movable walls allow the gallery space to shift to accommodate the work being shown. The interior is sleek and minimalist, but not cold; it seems to want to house glorious works of art. This white box has soul.

SANAA then, have the worldwide recognition that will, no doubt, propel them even further into the architectural limelight. I suppose then, as much as honoring architects whom have already shown us what they can do, they can sometimes highlight what’s to come. Let’s hope Sejima & Nishizawa take this award as a sign to up their game – their audience just got a whole lot bigger.

Masterpieces: Lloyd’s of London

A monolith on the skyline, the Lloyd’s building has firmly cemented itself into the heart of London’s financial ‘Square Mile’. It is inimitable in style and seems to hold, within it’s 55,000^m2 space, the power London holds over the ebb and flow of the world’s financial markets.

Designed by Richard Roger’s Partnership and Completed in 1986, it brought to the captial not just a structure so revolutionary and iconic in style, but also a lesson in subtlety, form and function to a city being rapidly consumed by cardboard cut out office blocks. Even today, you walk past One Lime Street and are taken aback by it’s beautiful and intriguing outer skin; it seems to soften the grid-like structures around it, and yet holds more authority that any of them put together. It’s a kind of quiet strength that still holds it’s own over twenty years later.

The style, of course, was not Roger’s first exploration into what was dubbed ‘Bowelism’. The ‘Centres Georges Pompidou’ opened in Paris to mixed reviews in 1977 with its unorthodox construct – all the core services for the building: heating, water, ventilation and even the stairs all clung to the exterior of the building leaving the interior massive and infinitely usable. The same principle applies to Lloyds: the idea of a building, no matter its physical size, not being bound to one form or finite use is what Roger’s achieved. Just like in the Pompidou, Lloyds’ interior space was designed to shift with the ever-changing markets that governed the business that was to take place there.

‘The room’ as it was known was the space used for the heart of the business  and was a crucial part of the scheme for Lloyd’s – here the deals were made that drove the company. Roger’s designed this area to be flexible; it could expand and contract when needed to reflect the demands of the time via a series of galleries around one central space, the escalators and lifts providing easy access between floors.

All the cumbersome services expelled to the exterior left the interior of the building truly remarkable – a vast, highly efficient space with the ability to change as and when needed. Not only does this create a visual sense of simplicity, but acoustically too. In a business where a majority of the work takes place verbally, it’s startling that, by removing the moan of water pipes and other indistinct murmurs of industry from the area, the space is remarkably quiet for such a large building.

Looking up through the 84 metre high internal atrium is truly an amazing sight, with layer upon layer of perfectly formed space; the interior in some ways resembles a hive. It’s opaque glazing too lends to the idea of a building designed for industry, both in it’s functionality but also in it’s aesthetic, and yet it never feels cold.

Relentless it may appear, but it works because it is subtle and complex, not brash. It works because it can change; it seems to sit somewhere between solidity and transience and, when the financial world swells once more, this building will be still be here, still adapting and still doing what was asked of it back in 1986.