I never said it was boring, I said it made me angry.
The awkward form of this building not only jars violently with its context (no mean feat) but equally with the majority of accommodation held within. I havenâ€™t seen a drawn section of this building but from passing it several times Itâ€™s quite clear that a lot of the interior spaces have been compromised for the â€˜benefitâ€™ of this imposed irrelevant external form, and bear absolutely no relation to it.
I will admit to having a disposition against this â€˜styleâ€™ of architecture (i.e. pointlessly expressive formal gymnastics, executed on the budget of an industrial shed) but when designed by the hand of an architect of flair and sensitivity the results can be acceptable and sometimes even interesting. But this building has the appearance of being designed by some mid-management type architect in a large corporate office who saw a Renzo Piano monograph once and decided to â€˜have a goâ€™, giving little heed to the scale, setting, context, spatial organisation, material, detailing or their own innate lack of formal skill. I think itâ€™s an outrage, and while an airport shouldnâ€™t necessary say something explicit about a country, it should imply the countries values. If this is the case we are a shallow nation, interested in expedience, vulgar spectacle and oblivious to considerations of quality, incapable of vision or integral thought.
Airports which I have been to and enjoyed as an architectural experience include, Charles de Gaulle, Stansted, Hong Kong and Kansai airports.
In the absence of such architectural skill or budgets, formal restraint should be exercised. There is nothing worse or more misguided than a statement building by a poor architect.
Iâ€™m a bit tired of hearing Rem Koolhausâ€™s attestation that Schipol is the best airport in the world by virtue of itâ€™s efficiency, of course an important factor but we shouldnâ€™t be blinded by such simplistic sound bites.