Harmless beauty or strange strength?

datadyne007

datadyne007

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
8,894
Reaction score
271
This was the topic of a great discussion we had this morning in class after a student presentation of Zaha's Phaeno Centre in Wolfsburg, Germany where we are going on Friday. Its highly jarring massive concrete form is part of a newer idea of contemporary architecture in traditional cities. The discussion came about because of a claim that the Phaeno Center is "ugly." A couple weeks ago, the same discussion happened when we visited the Metropol Parasol in Sevilla, Spain. That too is incredibly jarring to the extremely historic city fabric and in fact sits right in the center. Locals are only now just warming up to it and appreciating its activation of the Guggenheim Effect for Sevilla.

These cases reminded me of our own debate in Boston about City Hall. It's a singular sculptural object plopped on a plaza. It essentially achieves the exact same effect that these contemporary structures do, but predates them by 40 years. The question that gets raised when critiquing architecture is would you rather have a building that is harmless and "beautiful" or have a building that has a strange strength to it? City Hall definitely has a strange strength the same way Zaha's Phaeno Center does. They are not so called "beautiful" buildings, but their formal composition makes an extremely bold statement to the immediate site and city itself. They are both the "hyper-modernist" buildings of their time.
 
I don't know about the Phaeno Centre. But the clear difference between the Metropol Parasol and City Hall is that the Parosol was built within an already active - albeit degraded - human scaled public square, and as such it added new activity and uses to the space. City Hall was built atop a completely bulldozed urbanity. So I think it's misleading to say that both are sculptural objects plopped onto a plaza.
 
Shepard said:
I don't know about the Phaeno Centre. But the clear difference between the Metropol Parasol and City Hall is that the Parosol was built within an already active - albeit degraded - human scaled public square, and as such it added new activity and uses to the space. City Hall was built atop a completely bulldozed urbanity. So I think it's misleading to say that both are sculptural objects plopped onto a plaza.
Click to expand...
That is true.

Wolfsburg is a master-planned city. The site of the Phaeno Centre was naturally vacant as well. It is right next to the Wolfsburg Hauptbahnhof (main train station). There is supposed to be an "Urban Carpet" (more like a dark cave under the concrete monolith) that runs through the base of the building that connects you to the train station. That is the only context Zaha took. Given its incredible adjacency to the Hauptbahnhof, it had the potential to interact with the station perhaps with shops or cafes... but it doesn't. The building is anti-urban.

Also of note in these buildings (Parasol and Phaeno) is that there is an element of observation from above that is accessible to the public. It's too bad that City Hall didn't get a public observation deck overlooking Faneuil Hall. Of course it would be closed by now anyways...
 
I have and will always argue that if City Hall Plaza was ever infilled with new development it would allow people to appreciate City Hall more. Every critique of that building is correct but that doesn't mean it can't be fixed. City Hall needs to be defined differently. Right now it is defined by a moonscape plaza surrounded by soulless office buildings. City Hall is the only building in the whole complex with any heart and no one realizes it.

I just watched Moneyball and I feel like City Hall is a little like what Billy Beane was trying to do. We need to see the building for it's strengths and build a city around it so people can see it.

It's hard for us, today, to full appreciate how earth shattering Modernism really was. You look at the Segrams Building in NYC for example. It looks like every other steel and glass tower. Except it was the first one ever like it and when built was surrounded by baroque apartment buildings that were falling apart. THAT was a context to appreciate Modernism. You go there today and it's surrounded on all sides by poor imitations, completely lost in the crowd.

The examples like Zahad work because a Modern building needs a context. The whole point of Modernism was to sweep away with the old and have something shockingly new. If you don't have anything old to compare it to then all that work is lost. Right now City Hall is lost.
 
42277-050-98669F2B.jpg
 
Shepard said:
42277-050-98669F2B.jpg
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken, that corporate plaza is one of those investigated by William Whyte in his seminal investigation and report on the social life of small public places. They were giving out height bonuses in NYC for creation of these places, but none of them worked, and Whyte showed why. I know some people already know all of this, but for those who don't it is an interesting discussion.
 
And, wasn't the Seagram building retrofitted to be LEED or something, or am I confused. Mies Van Der Rohe was written about in an article in the CTBUH a while back, featuring this structure, which was quite interesting.
 
Patrick said:
If I'm not mistaken, that corporate plaza is one of those investigated by William Whyte in his seminal investigation and report on the social life of small public places. They were giving out height bonuses in NYC for creation of these places, but none of them worked, and Whyte showed why. I know some people already know all of this, but for those who don't it is an interesting discussion.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I think a link to the film he made is around here somewhere.

What is interesting is that this one still works even after it was surrounded by other unused spaces. I walk past this plaza a lot and it really is kind of magical how it opens up Park Ave. Other plazas are usually dead except on a nice summer day at lunch time.
 
I saw that film at MIT last month. Whyte didn't say that none of the plazas work; in fact, the film celebrated a number that he felt worked quite well.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
Indeed. I think a link to the film he made is around here somewhere.

What is interesting is that this one still works even after it was surrounded by other unused spaces. I walk past this plaza a lot and it really is kind of magical how it opens up Park Ave. Other plazas are usually dead except on a nice summer day at lunch time.
Click to expand...

There are actually two threads about it. First by me and then by you.


It thought it was interesting how CHP was never even mentioned, but FHM was.
 
Ron Newman said:
I saw that film at MIT last month. Whyte didn't say that none of the plazas work; in fact, the film celebrated a number that he felt worked quite well.
Click to expand...

Good point. But I think the point to take away--and that which prompted the film and still leads to its showing today--is that so many do not work. And he showed why. A lot of similarities or parallels can be drawn between him and Alan Jacobs, especially with respect to plazas and sidewalk width for varying speads of travel or, in Whyte's case, lounging.

What are you doing at MIT--isn't the whole thing online?
 
The film was shown as part of an all-day 'Urban Planning Film Marathon' during MIT's Independent Activities Period in January.
 
Ron Newman said:
The film was shown as part of an all-day 'Urban Planning Film Marathon' during MIT's Independent Activities Period in January.
Click to expand...

Oh, neat. A while ago, I think you posted that MIT was offering courses online--for free--but upon further inspection, all I could find were syllabi. Am I mistaken in my recollection of your post from several years ago (or perhaps it wasn't your post, but I think it was...)
 
Well I just got back from Wolfsburg. Pictures make the Phaeno Center look massive and it's not as massive as it seems from the photos. The way it is situated on the plaza is actually superb in terms of the circulation paths. Apparently Zaha had students study the foot traffic patterns of the site to aid her in the design phase. The plaza ground cover material is actually some sort of rubberized concrete (in a light grey) which makes it quite pleasant to walk on.

Just a simple ground cover change to this kind of material could possibly help City Hall Plaza aesthetically and accessibly. All the steps could easily become smooth curvy hills. The light color would also reduce the Heat-Island Effect, compared to the current red brick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top