Why Architects photograph stuff new. . .

Why Architects photograph stuff new. . .

Postby garethace » Fri Feb 27, 2004 6:59 pm

This is a thread I have been meaning to start on Archiseek for ages now, and never got around to. It is very simple. If you know of any good examples where design/detailing of buildings, or even parts of building which have resulted in noticeable weathering effects down through the years, please post up those examples. Alternatively, if you know of any good examples of buildings which 'stand out' as indestructable, post them.

One good example of a lot of weathering in a short space of time: If anyone has a spare moment some day, it is well worth just looking at the curved street in Temple Bar, to see exactly what a difference a mere couple of years will actually make to the appearance of any building in this country. Just notice all the discolouration down at the bottom, part, where wisely they used some kind of pale coloured stone material, instead of the plaster up higher. This is not noticeable so much in the twilight, or at all during nightime, but during the early sunshine even in wintertime, the wear and tear definitely is noticeable.

And I stress, this isn't the kind of thing that Paul's digital camera is going to pick up well at 640x480 pixel resolution either - you simply have to go and witness the decay for yourself. Another example at the moment is on Dame Street where a 'corrugated' building faced in granite has just been resurfaced with the same grey granite - no more than 20mm thick I presume. I guess over time, the granite facing acts as a sacrificial layer that degrades into something like a fire lighter.

NO MONEY, NO DETAILS. Rem Koolhaas said that I believe. Ben van Berkel has a structure here, an electricity supply station in Innsbruck, which is just about the most bullet proof piece of well designed architecture I have ever seen! I think it would still be left standing following a small nuclear strike!

Umspannwerk ‘Mitte’, Innsbruck here:

http://www.unstudio.com/html/proj_all.htm

I mean, some people associate Ben van Berkel incorrectly I think, as an architect who does all of these 'airy fairy' kinds of buildings. But take a look at the:

Almere Housing
Expo 2001


project at the same link - I don't think that would 'break' easily either. 'Indestructability' is something van Berkel just does better than most I think. Sure Ben does some landmark buildings - ambitious designs, strange shapes etc, etc, etc. But I can assure you upon one thing - these funny shaped buildings are designed with longeivity in mind. I do not know of one van Berkel piece of architecture which isn't. What bothers me so much about van Berkel imatators nowadays, is they always 'get' how the computer was used in the design side of the architecture, but not the 'indestructible' nature of their construction - which is the central component in all of van Berkel's architecture for me at least.

BTW, I recently saw a photo of the completed Hertzog and De Meuron Winery building in Carlifornia, done with cages full of natural stone - awesome, considering that this building could have otherwise been like a cheap-looking, rusting, container ship in the middle of the landscape.
garethace
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 9:01 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby garethace » Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:24 pm

Typical 'less is more', statement of pure facts in a computer rendering exercise:

http://www.cgarchitect.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=next_topic;f=5;t=000169;go=older

Not at all over the top, I would say I could live with 'good design' like that if I had to.
garethace
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 9:01 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland


Return to Ireland



cron