The Aesthetics of Structure

The Aesthetics of Structure

1

Aesthetic structural design

Master Course Thesis

THE AESTHETICS OF STRUCTURE

Genci Shteto


2

Table of contents

1 Table of Images ....................................................................................................... 3

2 Summary .................................................................................................................. 5

3 Keywords ................................................................................................................. 5

4 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 6

5 Evolutionary aesthetics ............................................................................................ 8

6 Two distinct points of view ................................................................................... 11

6.1 Structure as a whole ....................................................................................... 11

6.2 Detailed architectural implication of structure ............................................... 16

7 Case study .............................................................................................................. 18

8 Structural details .................................................................................................... 19

8.1 Non Aesthetics structural design .................................................................... 19

8.2 Pure aesthetic structural elements .................................................................. 21

9 Structural discontinuation ...................................................................................... 22

10 Artificial tectonics .............................................................................................. 25

11 Structure under “pressure” ................................................................................. 27

11.1 The Citigroup Centre .................................................................................. 27

11.2 The Opera House ........................................................................................ 28

12 Structural accentuated ........................................................................................ 31

13 Empty architecture ............................................................................................. 33

14 Coordinateless .................................................................................................... 35

15 Mono-block ........................................................................................................ 36

16 The artistic structure .......................................................................................... 44

17 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 50

18 Bibliography ...................................................................................................... 53

19 Technical notes .................................................................................................. 55


3

1 Table of Images

Figure 1. Pantheon section ____________________________________________________________________ 6 Figure 2. Caryatid's porch of Erechtheion on the Acropolis ___________________________________________ 9 Figure 3. Merilin Monroe towers _______________________________________________________________ 9 Figure 4. Inspiration sketches of Calatrava ______________________________________________________ 10 Figure 5. Hôtel du Département, Marseilles, France, Alsop & Störmer, 1994. ___________________________ 12 Figure 6. Cultural Complex Luz. Herzog & de Meuron, Sao Paulo, Brasil _______________________________ 13 Figure 8. Seattle Cantral Library. Rem Koolhaas __________________________________________________ 14 Figure 7. Statue of Liberty During and after construction ___________________________________________ 14 Figure 9. World Trade Centre Hub. Santiago Calatrava. ____________________________________________ 15 Figure 10. relationship between various structure features _________________________________________ 16 Figure 11. Two photo of the same element ______________________________________________________ 19 Figure 12. Admiral Hotel Kashar, Tirana. ________________________________________________________ 20 Figure 13. University of Berati ________________________________________________________________ 20 Figure 14. Educatorium of the University of Utrecht, Netherlands. Rem Koolhaas _______________________ 21 Figure 15. Mont-Cenis Academy, Herne, Germany, Jourda & Perraudin _______________________________ 21 Figure 16. Extension of Victoria and Albert museum competition. D. Libeskind __________________________ 22 Figure 17. China Pavilion. World Expo Park. Shanghai. He Jingtang 2010. detailed symbol of Duagong in the middle. ___________________________________________________________________________________ 23 Figure 18. giesel library william pereira _________________________________________________________ 23 Figure 19. Stealth building. Culver City, CA. Eric Owen Moss Architects ________________________________ 24 Figure 20. Tago Architects: Sur Yapi offices, Turkey _______________________________________________ 25 Figure 21. Roal furniture store ________________________________________________________________ 26 Figure 22. 8 Spruce Street, Beekman Tower, New York by Gehry _____________________________________ 26 Figure 23. City corp center ___________________________________________________________________ 27 Figure 25. Opera House, Sydney, Australia ______________________________________________________ 28 Figure 24. Citicorp standing over St. Peter's church ________________________________________________ 28 Figure 26. Sydney Opera House; main floor plan (competition entry): two auditoria side-by-side with foyers at the seaward end and access round the sides. [Drawing: Arup] _______________________________________ 29 Figure 27.longitudinal cross-section ____________________________________________________________ 29 Figure 28. simplified model of the concourse beams showing results of removing intermediate supports ____ 29 Figure 29. Utzon's original conception showing softer outlines of the roof-scape ________________________ 29 Figure 30. Final Roof scheme _________________________________________________________________ 30 Figure 31. Shell's modelling___________________________________________________________________ 30 Figure 32. Lisbon pavilion, Alvaro Siza Vieira _____________________________________________________ 31 Figure 33. Dulles International Airport, Washington, Eero Saarinen __________________________________ 32 Figure 34. Tower of ring, Eastern Design. Tianjin _________________________________________________ 33 Figure 35. St. Louis Gateway __________________________________________________________________ 34 Figure 36. Riyadh metro station, Saudi Arabia, Zaha Hadid. _________________________________________ 35 Figure 37. La grande arch, Johan Otto von Spreckelsen ____________________________________________ 36 Figure 38. sheraton huzhou hot spring resort' by MAD architects, huzhou, china ________________________ 37 Figure 39. CCTV headquorters-Rem Koolhass, Cecil Balmond ________________________________________ 38 Figure 40. Tadao Ando: Centro Roberto Garza Sada at UDEM, Mexico ________________________________ 39 Figure 41. joho architecture / jeong hoon lee: yongin M curved house, seul ____________________________ 40 Figure 42. 'the crystal' by schmidt hammer lassen architects, copenhagen, denmark ____________________ 41 Figure 43. cerejeira fontes arquitectos: cultural center in bergen, norway _____________________________ 42 Figure 44. Casa da musica ___________________________________________________________________ 43


4

Figure 45. Soumaya Museum, Fernando Romero. Mexico __________________________________________ 44 Figure 46. Chateau Cheval Blanc. Christian De Portzamparc. Saint-Emilion _____________________________ 45 Figure 47. TOD'S Omotesanto AV.Tokyo-Toyo Ito. _________________________________________________ 46 Figure 48. Tokyo International Forum. Rafael Viñoly _______________________________________________ 47 Figure 49. Ludwig Erhard Haus Berlin, Germany, Grimshaw _________________________________________ 48 Figure 50. O-14-Reiser + Umemoto ____________________________________________________________ 49 Figure 51. Case rating in numeric valiues ________________________________________________________ 51 Figure 52. Grafical relationship Cases-conclusions ________________________________________________ 52


5

2 Summary

The definition of structure as a separate discipline in the history of architecture is relatively recent, about 150 years ago. Before that time the aesthetic roles of architecture and structure were indistinguishable and consequently the “aesthetic of structure” does not have any definite meaning. In the complicated art of constructing the structure has always used as a potential aesthetic instrument. Architecture in general despite structure, has too many other aesthetic instruments like colour, light, decoration, geometric proportions, form etc. But the structure or the load-bearing part of the building has a crucial aesthetic role because during the cognitive process it exerts a direct psychological impact to the viewer while the structural impression may affect the human “survival instinct”. In a certain way the perception of structure represents the state of health of the building. A seemingly vigorous structure may result more comfortable.

In 2009 Mr. Denis Dutton presented his theory of evolutionary aesthetic. According to that theory our sense of beauty is related to our primordial instinct of survival and he explains meticulously the way how this works. In fact the essence of Dutton’s theory is a simple and short conclusion; deep in our mind the healthy and the beauty are the same thing. Inducting this short conclusion to the case of structural aesthetic in this thesis is made a research to find a relationship between various type of structures and how they reflect their healthy and how their healthy is “converted” in Beauty.

The examples presented are rated in ascending order beginning with some random cases and positioning the best ones in the end of the study material. In the end the research is synthesized in a three dimensional graphic chart where the conclusions are combined with the progressive positive proprieties of each case.

In conclusion the structure not only has a specific aesthetic charge but relating the aesthetic of structure to its psychological impact upraises the structure to the top of architectural aesthetic instruments.

3 Keywords

Structure, Architecture, Aesthetic, Psychology, Evolution, Form-active, Design, Genetic-Code, Form-generator, Cognition process, Structural expressionism, High-tech, Exoskeleton, Survival Instinct.


6

4 Introduction

During the history of architecture not all parts of the building have evolved in the same way. The ornamental or functional features have reached their perfection in many examples of ancient religious buildings or aristocratic residences during the renaissance, that even today it may be considered incomparable. On the other hand the structural frame has demonstrated to be not only the most rigid part of the building (as it normally had to be) but also the most conservative component of it. Some dimensional records of vault or dome spans have been unbreakable for more than one thousand years. (Pantheon 43.3m dome diameter-Figure 1).

Figure 1. Pantheon section

The factors for this historical stiffness of the building’s structure have been first of all technological. Designing methods have been also another obstruction factor till the computer era arrived. But during the last century and more significantly in the last decades the tendency is reversed. Structure is becoming the "final frontier" of the designing teams all over the world. The idea is: everything can be achieved, maximal span, maximal tall. In this consideration almost every famous building of the last period has been firstly a structural achievement. This actual avant-garde role of structure is affecting and sometimes is even transforming the architectural theory and consequently any or many aesthetical principles.


7

It is quite evident that structure is becoming the most impressive feature of every architectural object. This presence and evidence of the building structure is changing also the common taste from the sociological point of view. So structural engineering is definitively becoming an artistic vocation. As an artistic activity it must be habilitated with a theoretical aesthetic background.

But the concept of the Aesthetic Structural Design itself is not very usual in the literature. Many books treat the relationship between structure and architecture in general and do not consider designing and the creation of the structural model as an artistic process. At this point emerges a crucial question:

What may really be Aesthetic Structural Design?

For sure Aesthetic Structural Design is not a definition. It cannot be found as such in Wikipedia or in any dictionary or even in Google search. Nor it is a concept or paradigm because nobody can imagine a clear thing, situation or process relevant that term.

“Any formulation of the criteria by which the merits of a structure could be judged is inevitably controversial”. (Macdonald, 2001)

At the first glance Aesthetic Structural Design seems to be a fluid concept because if we talk about an aesthetic structure this means that structure must be evident or somehow manipulated artistically in a building. In this case making the structure more than a load bearing supply should be an architectural choice. This means that we are just talking about architecture and not about structure. In other words the aesthetic attributes of structure become aesthetic attributes of architecture.

If we see the structural design as a finished process or as a distinct process in the design timeline, it remains just structural design. Suckle’s study of ten leading architects suggests that architects determine the building’s form after considering a wide range of factors that usually, in the first instance, do not include structure. (Suckle, 1980)

But let’s consider structural design as a creative process or more as a “form giving” one or as it is called lately a “morphogenetic process”. And it becomes something more than just calculations. It becomes an aesthetic process.

The above conclusion may be the first approach to the question that the aesthetics of structure exists. As it exists it is obvious that like everything else it must be searched and found.

The art of building has been always an art of modelling. This is a very important distinction between architecture and all the other arts. Architecture through centuries has been a modelling dependent art. With modelling is intended the whole process of designing, calculating, scale models etc. Every aesthetic judgement and decision is made during the modelling process. The quality of modelling has evolved tremendously during the last decades. However in this modelling and designing evolvement, structural design has been a little late comparing to other parts. Architects have been always more predisposed to modify


8

or to change or to optimised their work. Instead engineers due to their voluminous work have always been more conservative to remake their work. This kind of gap between architecture and structure don’t exist anymore.

5 Evolutionary aesthetics

“Beauty is the natural way of acting at a distance”. (Dutton, 2009)

To explain the aesthetic of Structure I am referred to a provocative theory of evolutionary aesthetics. According this theory deep in our mind the healthy and beauty is the same thing. This is a Darwinian evolutionary fact. Every living animal is capable to choose the healthiest mate because this is a crucial factor of survival of its species. But how it can distinct the most healthy member? From the point of view of survival the healthiest are those individuals that inherit the best transmitted gens from their parents. Dutton points out the case of the peacock. Charles Darwin analyses the same example (peacock) to explain his theory of evolution. According Darwin the peahen is attracted by the most colourful plumage of the peacock selecting the most “beautiful” one, just because through this beauty it reflects its genome or a perfect genetic code, in other words it makes visible its high probability to survive. So with the same example Darwin explains his theory of evolution and Dutton his theory of beauty. But this selective mechanism is implanted in the human brain as a biological heritage from our animal past. "Every physical aspect of the human organism is open to the influences of evolution, and all will be in respects explained by it" (Dutton, 2003, p. 3). So what is relevant from Dutton’s theory is just this short conclusion: Beauty and Healthy for us humans, is the same thing. Art is a sophistication of this basic psychic mechanism. It is very important to emphasise that the meaning of healthy or healthiness in this theory refers explicitly to genetic code (DNA)i and not to the state of health of any person or living creature in a certain moment.

Coming back to architecture – What may be a healthy building?

Many people would answer – “A green building”

The environmental aspect of the building is really important but its solidity is much more. So a healthy building is primarily the one that resists against its own load, wind and seismicity. And is the structure that makes the building healthy and as result: beauty.


9

Perhaps this idea and this attitude trough structural aesthetics are much older than the evolutionary aesthetics. Ancient Greeks have applied that marvellously. Not casually Caryatid's porch of Erechtheion on the Acropolis, (Figure 2) this unrepeatable architectural masterpiece, impresses us so much. The solidity or the “healthiness” of that little porch is evoked by a beautiful human representation. The columns are not just structural elements decorated aesthetically but the expression of a greater concept: these beautiful women evoke our subconscious feeling of healthy. A "healthy" structure means a perceptible stable structure and logically a stable structure is a beautiful one.

Not casually the twin towers in Mississauga Ontario designed by Burka Architects and MAD Studio (Figure 3) are massively known as “Merylin Monroe” towers.

Figure 3. Merilin Monroe towers

Figure 2. Caryatid's porch of Erechtheion on the Acropolis


10

Another argument in favour of this theory is the famous archistar Santiago Calatrava. There are many sketches designed by him demonstrating how Calatrava takes inspiration from vigorous human figures. In the (Figure 4) the related sketches indicates more than just similar static schemes to the corresponding architect’s works. They are a pure reflection of the healthy radiation of his masterpieces.

So a "firmitas" structure is always a "venustas" one. And maybe in this perception of firmness, we find the Aesthetics of Structure. This confirms that the structure has its own particular aesthetic contribute in an architectural object. In other words structure not only must be sustainable or rigid but also it must look like one.

Architecture is the art of building. This means that architecture is that kind of art, toward which expectations are much wider than just visual effects. Architecture is “felt”, architecture is “lived”. In this context the “skeleton” is included as an organic part of the building. Its implication in the building may be very complicated in form function modulation and aesthetic but the structure is always perceived.

Figure 4. Inspiration sketches of Calatrava


11

Architecture is not an artistically dependent art but a service dependent as it tries to fulfil a wide client range requirements. “Architecture provides a frame within which we live our lives”. (Winters, 2007, p. 11) But the concept of claiming aesthetic values to structure is far from the extreme functionalist concept of confounding architecture with the building process. That kind of functionalism aimed to replace the art work with industrial processes and sought the universal adoption of rationalized production methods and supersedes the methods of the “craft era”. (Winters, 2007, p. 45)

In fact a countertendency may be observed. Structural design is becoming closer to architectural process at the point that it may be considered as a faculty of architecture just like interior design due to the high integrated computer aided design level. Such structural design consideration must assume a theoretical background

The concept of the Aesthetic of Structure may be important if considered as an intermediate discipline to be studied by architects and structural engineers. This kind of knowledge must be learned with the same commitment from both of them and should serve as a "native" common professional language during their common professional work. This may help architects to be more “down to earth” in their compositional work and structural engineers to consider structural design not just as a scientific solution to the problems brought into focus by our need to make a building stay upright, or to create large spans.

6 Two distinct points of view

In general theoretical books about architecture are based on architectural examples or building objects. These examples are picked up by the interest regarding the specific book general stream of conclusions. Some great architectural examples are analysed in many books but with different attitudes by the respective book author. This happens because in the modern architecture is difficult to crystallise any distinct style. The same concern confronts the thematic of structure.

Any way in many books about architecture may be traced two distinct points of view regarding structure:

• Structure as a whole • Detailed architectural implication of structure

6.1 Structure as a whole

"It has long been recognised that an appreciation of the role of structure is essential to the understanding of architecture. It was Vitruvius, writing at the time of the founding of the


12

Roman Empire, who identified the three basic components of architecture as firmitas, utilitas and venustas." (Macdonald, 2001)

Structure “as a whole” aims to consider the structural system of the building as a unique framework of the same or similar physical characteristics. This consideration is not always feasible because many buildings are a mixture of structural systems. (Charleson, 2005, p. 20). There are multiple reasons other than functional that lead to a combination of structure schemes. In most cases this structural diversity is an architectural choice. Hôtel du Département, Marseilles is a typical example.

Figure 5. Hôtel du Département, Marseilles, France, Alsop & Störmer, 1994.

The project can be read as an amalgamation of at least four distinct architectural forms – two slab office-blocks linked by a transparent atrium, and two exterior elongated tubular forms. (Figure 5) One, the Delibératif or council chambers, is free-standing while the Presidential offices sit above the higher office block. The most obvious contrast between structural solutions occurs within the first three storeys of the office blocks where exposed three-storey X-columns align longitudinally along each side. While their structural form does not relate to any other architectural qualities within the project, they function as transfer structures for gravity loads. They support columns located on a 5.4 m office module at third floor level and above and extend to a 10.8 m grid at ground floor level that is suitably large for basement car parking beneath.

In other cases a countertendency is applied. Some buildings may be a conglomerate of functions but instead their structure is used as a unifier of style or form as the Cultural Complex Luz, (Figure 6).


13

Figure 6. Cultural Complex Luz. Herzog & de Meuron, Sao Paulo, Brasil

The complexity of the building is determined by the variety of functions but the building seems to be a unique entity with its continuous and cantilevered slabs in all the floor levels creating variable spaces in dimensions and altitude.ii

Despite structure uniformity, in general the relationship between structure and architecture varies among two extremes: (Macdonald, 2001)

1- Structure totally unreadable, like the example of Statue of Liberty in New York (Figure 5) or like The Seattle Central Library. (Figure 8) Although the statue of liberty is a monument, considering architecture as “the art of building” it is pretty evident that there is too much art of construction in that “monument” till the point that it may be better considered a monumental architecture as other cases during this thesis.

2- Nothing but structure like the case of WTC hub (Figure 9)


14

Figure 8. Seattle Cantral Library. Rem Koolhaas

Figure 7. Statue of Liberty During and after construction


15

Figure 9. World Trade Centre Hub. Santiago Calatrava.

“Sometimes the structure is undistinguishable from the enclosing and space-dividing building envelope, sometimes it is entirely separated from it; most often there is a mixture of elements with structural, non-structural and combined functions. In all cases the form of the structure is very closely related to that of the building taken as a whole and the elegance with which the structure fulfils its function is something which affects the quality of the architecture”. (Macdonald, 2001, p. 8)

There are many factors that establish integral characteristics of a certain structure. These characteristics are described deliberately by Angus Macdonald giving many carefully selected examples and accurate interpretations for each case. These factors may be summarised as follows:

• materials used • Efficiency of structural schemes (arrangements) • Efficiency of structural forms • Relationship between structure complexity and structure efficiency • Relationship between span, form and load bearing • Relationship between structural efficiency and structural costs

In general these relationships are very complex and always interrelated. In the following graphic is shown the relationship between structural efficiency and structural costs with a particular span and load condition. The quantity and therefore cost of materials decreases as more efficient types of structure are used. The latter have more complex forms, however, so does the cost of construction and design increases with increased structural efficiency. The curve showing total cost has a minimum point which gives the level of


16

efficiency which is most cost-effective for that particular structure. If labour costs increase in relation to material costs, the location of the minimum in the total cost curve is displaced to the left indicating that a structural form of lower efficiency will now be the most cost-effective. (Macdonald, 2001, p. 64)

Figure 10. relationship between various structure features

Cost effectiveness must be figured out as an optimising process of a given structural solution and not as the best structural solution because different structural options may overturn the general cost of a building. The most famous architectural buildings are significant examples of highest cost. This Idea is literally expressed as:

"The achievement of structural efficiency is not a necessary requirement for great architecture". (Macdonald, 2001, p. 69)

6.2 Detailed architectural implication of structure

This other overall opinion about structure considers the ability of structures as potential to enrich architecture. It is generally focused on details of structural elements or isolated structural combinations to create architectural duties or architectural functions.


17

The classical version of this concept is that structure is a "columnar, planar, or a combination of these which a designer can intentionally use to reinforce or realize ideas". (Clark & Pause, 1985)

As such, structure can be used to define space, create units, articulate circulation, suggest movement, or develop composition and modulations.

Structure is considered as contribute to architectural meaning and richness if it is "given a voice".

Any author goes further by considering structural elements as pure conceptualist "medium" like the idea expressed by La Vine (LaVine, 2001) "A ridge beam can symbolize the social centre of a house".

In his book Carlson describes some typical architectural functions realised by structure. (Charleson, 2005)

Aesthetic qualities in the building exterior like modulation, screening, filtering even texturing in the case of bearing walls. He argues the role of the structure scaling in giving monumentality to the building. Then he "enters" to the aesthetic and expressive role of the entry as a connection point between exterior and interior. Logically he continues with the importance of structure in the interior. Despite the modulation settled by structure according the "critical functional dimensions" and despite the role of the structure in determine flexibility or space creation or even articulating the layout of the building he argues "the potential for exposed structure to enrich interior architecture visually and conceptually". (Charleson, 2005, p. 104)


18

7 Case study

In this thesis a series of examples are evaluated by the rate of integration they have in the designing process and how these examples may be positioned in an aesthetic structural catalogue. In other words it will be described how these objects relate to the final conclusions of the study.

Some of the examples may be famous and awarded, they may even be places of pilgrimage. Few of them are Architectural icons and masterpieces of the modern history of architecture. In general are selected those examples that have used the structure naturally and have not constituted a tendency or a style in Architecture. Buildings like Centre Pompidu or Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank in Hong Kong have used the appearance of their structure establishing a new style mostly known as “High-Tech” or “Structural Expressionism”. Being a tendency or a style means to be a contemporary fashion while the aim of this thesis is to point out that the aesthetic of structure is not a style dependent attribute. In general Aesthetic Structural Design (as it is considered here) is different with the concept of beauty or aesthetics of a building. Anyway the aesthetic of structure suppose to strongly contribute to the aesthetics of the building.

It will be started with examples that have nothing to do with Aesthetic Structural Design so they may be seen as "excusive premises" or as a first attempt of contouring from the outside the concept of Aesthetic structural design. Then there are gathered some examples of "discrepancy" between structure and architecture and what may be considered the most representative examples of the term are placed in the end. In some other cases the reading of the structure from the exterior turns out to be deluding in the interior. Another group is compiled by objects which history of design or the reason of any structural solution may transform the object to be more interesting from the point of view of Aesthetic Structural Design.

This case study is divided in 9 sections

Structural details Structural discontinuation Artificial tectonics Structure under “pressure” Structural accentuated Empty Architecture Coordinateless Mono-block The artistic Structure


19

8 Structural details

Structural elements are dimensioned by their efficiency taking in consideration many factors like material cost, labour, load bearing and layout situation. But the most determinant factor in their dimensioning are the dimensional proportions. These dimensional proportions are accepted by the engineers from the very beginning of the design work without calculations just by experience itself or by overall knowledge.

Surprisingly the kind of material is not the most important conditional factor.

In general these guiding proportions are for columns 1/15 and beams 1/12. These orientating proportions may be called as Efficient Proportions. After calculations the dimensions of structural elements may vary not more than 20% for an experienced engineer. So these efficient proportions are the most probable and most average dimensions used. Being such they became a collective memory. In other words common people statistically collect unconsciously this kind of data (proportions) and use them as a mental reference. Here proportions become aesthetic criteria of the structural element. Moreover the material is not readable because as we said above the material is not the determinant factor. Logically we may say that the filling of healthy that the structure radiate is and must be disseminated in all structure.

8.1 Non Aesthetics structural design

In this example a mythic structural element is used as a decoration. Its falsity is quite evident. Even to a non-professional viewer these examples will create the feeling that something is wrong or out of place. (Figure 11)

Figure 11. Two photo of the same element


20

In the following example (Figure 12) the columns are not load bearing as they are too slim. Visually they are used inside the slab without a visible beam, as they usually do in the Corinthian order. In this case it may be said that the

columns are out of “efficient proportions” mentioned above.

In the next example (Figure 13) the upper small columns are evidently fake. Even though there are 9 columns they do not correspond to any rhythm or modulation with the lower columns. Pilasters are too long and without a visible horizontal connection (normally at the levels of the slabs) giving the impression of a vertically continuous wall which, from a statics point of view, could not be so high. In this case Pilasters are out of “efficient proportions” and consequently not aesthetic.

Figure 12. Admiral Hotel Kashar, Tirana.

Figure 13. University of Berati


21

8.2 Pure aesthetic structural elements

These two examples are called “pure aesthetic structural elements” as the only reason of their form is purely structural. But in the same time they result in an aesthetic case.

The building of The University of Utrecht in the Netherlands (Figure 14) is a project made by the architect Rem Koolhaas and the engineer Rob Nissje. The two-story building should withhold a large restaurant, two big lecture theatres and examination halls. The lecture theatres upper slab with a relatively large span is solved in a very special manner. The concrete slab of only 200mm is reinforced with steel reinforcement out of concrete, forming some kind of false ceiling. It expresses how the structure works.

Figure 14. Educatorium of the University of Utrecht, Netherlands. Rem Koolhaas

The column shown in Figure 15 shows a reinforced wood column increasing its moment of inertia by four steel cables. This way the column resists much better to buckling and takes a small aesthetic attribute.

Figure 15. Mont-Cenis Academy, Herne, Germany, Jourda & Perraudin


22

9 Structural discontinuation

This term is used to describe that kind of design or building that assigns different consideration of structure from exterior to interior. This discontinuation is even more important if the building is seen from the same public or people. In the three following cases the exterior expresses a quite different idea from the interior part.

The design of the Extension Victoria and Albert museum-competition (Figure 16) shows an external form not generated by the structure. The structure does not create real architectural volumes in the way it is suppose to do in this building. The deconstructivist idea of exterior is just an envelope where the floor plans are cut like elevation lines to the distorted cubes surface.

Figure 16. Extension of Victoria and Albert museum competition. D. Libeskind

The China pavilion at Expo 2010 in Shanghai, China, was the largest national pavilion at the Shanghai Expo. This expensive building which is estimated some 220 million US dollars reaches the height of 70m. The exterior part, in contrast with interior, is inlaid with traditional symbolism. This symbolism evokes an excellent Chinese structural technique known as the “dougong”. This ancient technique of two thousand years ago was used to support large overhanging eaves by superposing a series of roof brackets at each corner just like the red decorated timber like joists in the china Pavilion.iii In fact this red beams are not used as structural elements. Even though they don’t represent structural elements per se, they do evoke a traditional method of construction. Despite the architectural effect they are used as ventilation ducts camouflage. The overall form is very useful as it creates self shading but the aesthetic of structure is confusing not only because a symbolic structural tradition is used as decoration (not representing itself as structure) but in the interior it disappears and becomes the ending of air condition ducts.

The unity of the structural aesthetic is divided in two different treatments creating an aesthetic structural ambiguity.


23

Figure 17. China Pavilion. World Expo Park. Shanghai. He Jingtang 2010. detailed symbol of Duagong in the middle.

Figure 18. giesel library william pereira

The Giesel Library in San Diego California is a similar architectural solution but contrasts with China Pavilion as aesthetic structural treatment case.


24

The Stealth building in Culver City, California is described by the architect himself: “The aspiration is to investigate a changing exterior form and a varying interior space; to construct a building whose constant is constantly moving, re-making both outside and inside”. (Charleson, 2005, p. 48) In fact the idea is to create an evolving section over the

length of the building from a square to a triangle. (Giaconia, 2006) The structure in fact is not involved in this “movement” and as such it does not match the “evolving section” It just works as a normal rectangular system not “obedient” to the whole. Even the main metallic truss over the entrance is visible partly from exterior and mostly from the interior. This discrepancy of aesthetic role of structure in relationship to the sophisticated architectural idea is more visible in the interior. The problem is neither the architectural value, (as in fact it is too innovative) nor the functional efficiency but the way columns are standing out tells of a neglected aesthetic role of structure.

Figure 19. Stealth building. Culver City, CA. Eric Owen Moss Architects


25

10 Artificial tectonics

If the general structural system is quite normal and the façade is transformed without a special architectural volume but just remaking a certain surface this may be called an artificial tectonics. It may create interesting makeover to the building but seems not to involve the structure in a genetic way.

The construction company Sur Yapi office building in Turkey, (Figure 20) sits on a dominant point of a hillside. The overall volume of the building is just the regular form of a parallelepiped and the structure is regular and the columns have the same span. Using the difference between the glassed and tiled plan is created a sort of irregular contour which is in fact a triangular mesh gathering two polylines in two parallel plans but one behind the other. The effect is spectacular and seems to compensate the regular genetic form of the building that otherwise would be very monotone.

Even though it is not structural, the carved sharp form to the stone like surface, recalls of a structural operation to the solid crust discovering a shining glass element. Just because this is not a real involvement of structure but artistically it pretends to be like one, it may be included in the group of artificial tectonics. The contrasting irregularity of the façade with the well-modulated structure and overall volume, suggests just a visual effect to enrich the elevation of the building in a decorative style and not an embryonic solution in the design process timeline.

The RO-AL furniture store in Gjokaj near Tirana (Figure 21) is a two store exposition building. The north glass façade is divided by some alucobond prismatic forms without any structural role but in a certain way that may evoke structure. This evocation does not correspond to the right impression that structure must conjure.

Figure 20. Tago Architects: Sur Yapi offices, Turkey


26

Figure 21. Roal furniture store

The third example of this group is the famous a 76-story skyscraper designed by Frank Gehry. (Figure 22) “8 Spruce Street”, Beekman Tower, New York. The building received the Emporis Skyscraper Award for 2011. The structure is a normal rectangular system as the edges of the vertical plans are all straight. The original idea of “squeezing out” the flat façade with a parametric like tectonics is used to make attractive a simple extruded volume

Figure 22. 8 Spruce Street, Beekman Tower, New York by Gehry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emporis_Skyscraper_Award


27

11 Structure under “pressure”

In this group are selected two cases of an extreme structural challenge. Their structural design process was so problematic that made them famous also for their problems. These cases are described thoroughly because knowing their design history the final conception and consideration of the aesthetic of the building respectively may vary drastically. Their novel story subject regards mostly the structure and how the fidelity to the primary architectural idea led to “heroic” structural designing efforts.

11.1 The Citigroup Centre

The Citigroup Centre (formerly Citicorp Centre that now is known as the 601 Lexington Avenue) is a 59 floor skyscraper in New York City (Figure 23) known mostly for its uncommon base structural solution. The architectural form, except of the 45°sloped roof which was intended for solar energy use, is that of a common skyscraper form. What makes it really impressive as a skyscraper, is the bottom. Practically the building begins at the tenth floor creating an empty sheltered space of nine storeys. The building was designed by architect Hugh Stubbins and structural engineer William LeMessurier for Citibank, and was completed in 1977.

This rare and apparently non efficient structural solution particularly visible at the bottom of the building derives from a rare urban situation. The tall building had to be build almost over a church. When urban planning of the skyscraper began in the early 1970s, the northwest corner of the proposed building site was occupied by St. Peter's Lutheran Church. The church allowed Citicorp to demolish the old church and build the skyscraper under one condition: a new church would have to be built on the same place occupying one of the corners of the construction site. Structural engineer William LeMessurier set the 59-story tower on four massive 35-m-high columns, positioned at the centre of

Figure 23. City corp center


28

each side, rather than at the corners. This design solution allowed the church to be under the foot print of the skyscraper but with a huge structural sacrifice. To accomplish these goals LeMessurier designed a metallic frame that conducts the load in the middle of each elevation charging them consequently to the four 35m high columns.

This unusual structural experience in respect to an architectural or better to a city planning solution was not proven before and in fact it resulted problematic to wind forces at an angle of 45 degree (diagonally) to the vertical plans of the façade because of the reduced base surface and the long cantilevers of 22m out each column. This ascertainment was made by the structural engineer himself casually, one year after the building was completed!

At that moment LeMessurier had two choices: to commit suicide or to secretly (not publically) reinforce 200 bolted joints by welding two-inch-thick steel plates over each one of them and save thousands of lives. The whole delicate and hidden to public operation was completed in three months and the eminent disaster was made known only in 1995. After the repairs, the building was absolutely safe.

11.2 The Opera House

The opera house is one of those architectural icons that identify a city and in this case a whole continent. But the story of the construction of this building is long, complicated and contradictory. The design of the building was never completed and the construction begun without an executive project. In the beginning it was estimated 10 million dollars but in the end it was estimated 5 times more. Also the time of construction was prolonged from 3 to 20 years.

Figure 25. Opera House, Sydney, Australia

Figure 24. Citicorp standing over St. Peter's church


29

It is difficult to find a book about architecture that doesn’t mention the opera house from a specific point of view but Alan Holgate makes it a case study in his book and describes meticulously, based on original documents, all the contradictions and difficulties of this rare case in the architectural history. (Holgate, 1986)

The basic concept of the building was defined in the architectural competition held in 1956-57 for the design of an arts centre for Sydney. This basic idea, as Bussagli says in his book derives by the Ancient Maya civilisation concept, ruins of which Utson visited in late forties. This Maya concept comprises only two elements: a platform and roofing. (Bussagli 2005). In essence that concept was an ingenious idea to hide the flying tower. (Figure 27)

Holgate explains that the project was divided into three parts. Stage I comprised the foundations and podium; stage II the 'shells'; and stage III the cladding, paving, glass walls and interiors. But as the design process went on parallelly with the construction work, the foundation sizes were estimated before the weight of the roof was known and they were continually revised as excavation revealed unexpected site conditions. But the weight of the roof turned out years later to be much greater than the initial estimate. Sometimes portions of the structure had to be demolished because of design changes.

Holgate describes two main structural design problems in his case study: First the Concourse, (entrance over the road) which is in fact a 50m beam which according the structural engineer could be solved very efficiently with tow supporting columns as the Figure 28 shows but solved at considerable expense and design effort and second “the Shells”.

The problem of the shells is very related to the thematic of the thesis.

Holgate says that “Utzon failed to realize that in order to ensure membrane action, a shell must follow a definite form so that all forces produced by distributed loads, in particular the weight of the shell itself, are transmitted in the plane of the membrane.

Figure 27.longitudinal cross-section

Figure 28. simplified model of the concourse beams showing results of removing intermediate supports

Figure 29. Utzon's original conception showing softer outlines of the roof-scape

Figure 26. Sydney Opera House; main floor plan (competition entry): two auditoria side-by-side with foyers at the seaward end and access round the sides. [Drawing: Arup]


30

There is a range of possible forms which meet this criterion, but any deviation from the disciplined form imposed by statics introduces bending moments which the thin shell is unable to resist”. (Holgate, 1986)

The design and modelling of the shells lasted nearly 5 years utilising the technology of that time and finished with the reassignment of Utzon who didn’t see his project finished, for the rest of his life.

Substantially the disagreement between Utzon and structural engineers was the section of the shells. Utzon has insisted for a Gothic like section instead the structural engineers were in favour of a parabolic section without a ridge in the middle, which is almost identical to the theoretical curve of the inverted catenary.

The reason asserted by Utzon was purely architectural instead the one defended by Arup were purely efficiency issues, because an inefficient form will increase dimensions and consequently thicker dimensions would increase dead loads still further and result in a possibly endless spiral of increasing size and weight. But as a matter of fact the final form (Figure 30) is the one which was so much consequently asserted by the architect but with enormous additional cost.

Aesthetically speaking, actually is difficult to imagine the “Sidney Opera House” with the presumed efficient form shells; smooth and without ridges.

If Utzon was right (as certainly he was) here derives a very important conclusion: The aesthetic of structure is subordinated to the architectural overall aesthetics.

Figure 30. Final Roof scheme

Figure 31. Shell's modelling


31

12 Structural accentuated

In this group are selected two examples which structural clean scheme is imposed to all the architectural form. In both cases the span is enormous and the internal horizontal stress created by the static scheme is very apparent and impressive. This relationship between architecture and structure may happen in rare cases where the most important thing is the span. In both examples the covering concrete slab is just hanged and takes its natural catenary curve section. Even the slab is of reinforced concrete it is deformable just as any other catenary form (hanged chain like curve). Besides the deformability, it remains the problem of rain water collection which not casually is collected in the middle of the curvature and the problem of withstanding the colossal horizontal stress.

At ceremonial plaza at the southern end of the Portuguese Pavilion (Figure 32), built for Expo ’98, (65 m long by 58m wide designed by Alvaro Siza Vieira) the problem of horizontal stress of about 3000 tons caused by just the slim slab of only 20cm is solved by two massive rectangular structures transformed in porticoes with nine transversal walls instead of columns. Flatter the slab the higher the horizontal stress. The walls are used as buttresses or diaphragms. In this case the deformability of the structure is not a problem because the building is opened. While the problem of rain water is solved by a transversal slope of 30cm.

Figure 32. Lisbon pavilion, Alvaro Siza Vieira


32

Figure 33. Dulles International Airport, Washington, Eero Saarinen

In the case of Washington Airport, while the static scheme is quite equal with the first case, (Figure 33) the architectural effect is totally different. The slab curvature resembles the form of a huge aircraft wing. Even more the asymmetrical section form of the building recalls of the sloped position of the aircraft wing in the departure moment. But this asymmetry has also a practical genius value: the rain water is collected towards the short columns of 13m which are 8 meter shorter than the opposite row columns. The deformability is faced excluding the extremes of the catenary form slab which result the most deformable. The columns pass through the slab in purposeful wholes just to avoid the rigid joint. The floor surface is smaller than the roof surface at least for two structural reasons: the sloped columns afford better the weight from the slab and to exclude the lateral part of the deformable slab which should be connected with glassed walls. Reasonably in the case of the Dulles International Airport Terminal the structural concept seems to be leading all the design process.


33

13 Empty architecture

Empty architecture may be defined any construction not related to any technical function. Television towers or bridges do not enter in this group even though they are volumetrically empty. Empty Architecture building’s aim is just symbolic or monumental and they usually become landmarks of the city. Their functional attributes are not fundamental and sometimes are even missing. That’s why they may be called “Empty architecture”. Surprisingly this “functional emptiness” is reflected in their visibility. In this thesis these specific examples are relevant for the fact that their aesthetic values of Structure are the same for their Architecture. These are the extreme cases where everything is architecture and in the same time everything is structure. The artistic values of architecture are achieved mostly by means of structure.

Figure 34. Tower of ring, Eastern Design. Tianjin

The “Tower of ring” by Japanese firm “Eastern design office” (Figure 34) seems to be the most empty of all. It is situated in the middle of the downtown centre of Tianjin near Beijing, China. Its simplicity seems to emphasise its emptiness. The whole structure is created almost by only two kind of structural elements: the horizontal sinusoidal elements and vertical thin columns made intentionally nearly invisible. During the night the invisibility of the vertical elements is insured by a continuous changing colour led illumination. The sinusoidal form of the horizontal elements creates the idea of a cylinder formed by a series of thin rings and pulled up vertically by a supernatural force. But structurally this clever idea of the sinusoidal pattern, in cooperation with the thin columns in the back plane forms a triangular and undeformable surface which holds this tower of the height equal to a 20 floor skyscraper.

The elevation view or better the longitudinal section of the “Gateway Arch” is “filled” only 8% (Figure 35). That makes it distinguishable from any memorial arch despite the 95 million dollars of the construction estimation value. The arch is the centrepiece of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in St. Louis, Missouri. The Gateway Arch was designed by architect Eero Saarinen and structural engineer Hannskarl Bandel in 1947. Both


34

the width and height of the arch are 192m.iv The triangular section indicates a very intelligent solution because visually from the most points of view it makes the Arch to seem slimmer than any other form. A rectangular section seen diagonally would be represented wider for the same inertia moment. The variable dimension of the triangle section from 16m per side in the bottom to 5.2m in the top enhances the perspective effect of the entire structure seen from the ground and also expresses the structural reaction of every section because the arch has to be solid also from the horizontal wind forces normal to the plan of the Arch which causes a bending moment progressively greater from top to the base of the section.

A normal load bearing arch that serves to create spans, is normally compressed perpendicularly to the curve of the arch itself. In that case the section of the arch should be constant and the theoretical form should be parabolic but as it bears only its own weight load, which is always vertical, it takes a pure mathematical function form of “hyperbolic cosine” that describes the shape of an inverted catenary curve. Even the Arch is hollowed to accommodate a unique tram system that takes visitors to an observation deck at the top the absence of a serving structural role and also the “scarce” volumetry makes this case to be classified as Empty architecture.

Any way this kind of Triumphal arc leads to deep reflections. How much architecture is in it?

Is it totally architecture or totally Structure? The simplest answer is: it depends on the point of view.

Figure 35. St. Louis Gateway


35

14 Coordinateless

In the history of architecture the structural part besides the load bearing function has also a very important role. Structure is used also as a referential virtual coordinative system. All the axial and quote measurements in a design sheet are referred to the structure. In the “coordinateless” architecture any coordinative system or at least any regular Cartesian system doesn’t exist. Thus the referencing role of the structure is suppressed. This isn’t just a practical question as the structure is the first to be build during the execution phase of the project but also a conceptual question because the dimensional accuracy of the most sturdy part of the building is always crucial. But maybe all of this belongs to the past because the building process is possible due to the High-Tech positioning equipment and the concept of traditional coordinative referring is entrusted to computer aided technology. This continuous curvature in every direction except of the floor surface camouflages a clear structure. This is the extreme case of amalgamation of the aesthetics of both architecture and structure.

Figure 36. Riyadh metro station, Saudi Arabia, Zaha Hadid.

Even though Coordinateless architecture is related pretty much to Zaha Hadid there is infinity of them designed and constructed in the last years by many other architects till the point that it may be considered a tendency. The futuristic new station in Riyadhv is a devote example of the coordinateless architecture. (Figure 36) To contrast the flat surface of the floor it is painted black instead all the other part is white. The white part has only curved surfaces where vertices are totally missing. The structure is readable but is difficult to distinguish the finiture from the load bearing part of it. Nevertheless the readable structure in this case creates the perception of a “healthy organic” structure.


36

15 Mono-block

The buildings considered in this group are very different from each other but they still have some common structural aesthetic characteristics. Somewhere in their height they differ entirely from their basement footprint. Some differ in the top as “La grande Arch” and some just in the ground floor as Yongin M curved house or “The Crystal” building. The structure is not perceived as a framework but as a megalithic “stone edge” like frame. In some cases the structure comports like a unique structural element as in “Cultural Centre” in Bergen, Norway and in this case structure is read exactly the way it acts, but in majority of the cases the structural system is ramified in much smaller structural elements. The architectural effect is monumental and impressive. Anyway this kind of architectural and structural form, in most of the cases, is perceivable only from outside. The interior normally demonstrates that the structure is much more fragmentised than the exterior may show.

Figure 37. La grande arch, Johan Otto von Spreckelsen

La grande arch, (Figure 37) designed by Johan Otto von Spreckelsen is a clean geometric form inspired by the famous triumphal Arch in Paris. Geometrically it represents a cube of about 110m of edge carved by another smaller cube. It is also perceived as a clean structural form: a single structural frame consisting of two vertical elements covered by a horizontal element. The horizontal part is made useful only as it is used for expositional purposes otherwise it should miss natural light.


37

The dimensions of the Sheraton “Huzhhou Hot Spring” Hotel (Figure 38) located on the shores of Lake Tai in China are nearly the same with the Grand Arch. The Hotel, designed by MAD Architects has some 320 rooms all viewing on the marvellous lake Tai in the middle of which it is located. Even the destination, function and architectural style are very divergent, from the point of view of Aesthetic of structure this building is very similar to the precedent example except that the alternation from the footprint comes smoothly till it become an arch on the top.

The architectural idea is very interesting because practically the plan layout of each floor is the same and it just “moves” left or right giving the form of the horseshoe which on the other hand, is a lucky symbol. This solution makes possible the use of the upper part differently from the “La grande Arch”. The Aesthetic of this “monoblock” structure may be found to the toroidal form partly immerged to the waters of the lake. The Structural aesthetic similarity of these two distant and diverse objects in all other their properties confirms the conclusions drown in the beginning of the case study: The aesthetic of structure is not style dependent.

Figure 38. sheraton huzhou hot spring resort' by MAD architects, huzhou, china


38

In the group of Monoblock Arches the 44-storey skyscraper of CCTV Headquarters building is the most singular of all. It is designed by Rem Koolhaas and Ole Scheeren as architects and Arup as civil engineering (Figure 39) on East Third Ring Road, Guanghua Road in the Beijing Central Business District.vi It is surely an Arch but a “folded” Arch. So, the half of the arch is rotated by 90° according a vertical axis in the middle of it. This kind of folded arch regarding the aesthetic of its structure is a real transcendent contradiction. Normally an arch is used to support other loads or at least to support itself. Moreover a traditional arch is constructed by a temporary mount that is suppressed after the arch is loaded. And is just the load that keeps the arch as it is. Instead this building has been an extraordinary construction case especially for the manner it was “grown”.

This process is described thoroughly in Arup journal (Carroll, et al., 2008). Where a very important part of the design process was the defining of the procedure of how the building should be erected because the final stresses in the building were therefore very much linked to the construction sequence. So the construction method is an achievement too. The structure was constructed “gradually deformed” in order that after junction of the two separate towers, the cantilever load made the unique building (the folded arch) take the pre-calculated form. In few words the inner elements were cut a little bit longer calculating that the final stress would shorten them. The process was very complicated and controlled in every floor level.

This “monoblock” structure perceived as a unique frame, it should never be “structurally” recommended. In this case the aesthetic of structure should be defined as “acrobatic”. Again the conclusion configured in the Opera House case seems evident: The aesthetic of structure is subordinated to the architectural overall aesthetics.

Figure 39. CCTV headquorters-Rem Koolhass, Cecil Balmond


39

Centro Roberto Garza Sada designed recently by Tadao Ando's (Figure 40) is a “monoblock” structure which in comparison to the tree previous examples is more similar to a bridge than to an arch. It touches ground in only two extreme spots and its twisted volumetric form creates some stepped hyperboloid parabolic surface underside. Most of the building is unfinished and unpainted concrete. The brutalist view of the exterior is also implemented everywhere inside. Not casually it is called “Tabula rasa”. But the relevant characteristics of the building to Aesthetic structural design is that the “monoblocked” structure is almost perceivable in the interior because of some characteristics masterfully used by the architect as the stadium like hall, natural lighted voids, the “flying” underside surface used partially for stairs and the sloped auditorium floor because as it is mentioned in the beginning of the chapter, the monoblock structures are difficult to perceive as such from the interior.

In the main façade concrete wall of the Centro Roberto Garza Sada are incised the words “The gate of Creation.”

Figure 40. Tadao Ando: Centro Roberto Garza Sada at UDEM, Mexico


40

Figure 41. joho architecture / jeong hoon lee: yongin M curved house, seul

The “Yongin M curved house” signs the second division of the monoblock group which is characterised by the so called “the monoblock change” in the level of the ground. It is designed by Korean firm JOHO architecture. (Figure 41) The functionality of the Villa is the one of a quite normal villa with social functions in the lower floor and bedrooms upstairs. What makes this building special is the structure. In order to comply with the client's need for ample parking space, the two-story brick house rests elevated from the ground plane on a concrete “tray” supported by three thin footings and a central circulation core. Structurally speaking, the concrete tray serves as a “flying” foundation, because the upper structure is planted over that concrete plane just like it was the real foundation.


41

The large three-dimensional steel structural system of “The Crystal” (Figure 42) acts as a real “mono-block” structure while freeing the building of columns and creating maximum flexibility in the office spaces. It is a creation of Schmidt Hammer Lassen for

Nykredit headquarters in Copenhagen and as it is obvious, takes its name from its light, crystalline form.vii The “monoblock” stands over three points and inducts the idea that all the volume follows the deformation of the base. As in the previous example all the floors are situated over a platform that still touches the ground level. The platform or base is also used as a basement but this time is bended in 4 sloped surfaces and is not used as just a passive “tray”. The upper structure is not settled over the platform but acts as a whole. The deflection of the basement that interacts with the perimetric steel grid makes the volume undeformable. In this case the “monoblock” structure perception corresponds to the real way the structure comports.

Figure 42. 'the crystal' by schmidt hammer lassen architects, copenhagen, denmark


42

The following ciclotronic like form building (Figure 43) is just a competition proposal for a new cultural centre in Norway by Portuguese design and engineering firm Cerejeira Fontes architects. If developed it should be a rare case of construction typology where a

single structural element constitutes a building almost entirely. This element, called spring element, is used for helicoidal stairs like the stairs under the glass pyramid in Louvre but in this case it creates space, a continuous space with continuous sloped floor. Of course the slope is minimal but it makes possible a linear and continuous circulation in all the building. It recalls the Goggenheim Museum (New York) helical passage but here the only exhibit is nature itself. The structural form is perceived very well by the exterior and in interior better than any other case. The structure if executed would be a challenge because the whole spring type concrete tuboid form should be sustained in only one spot.

Figure 43. cerejeira fontes arquitectos: cultural center in bergen, norway


43

Casa da Música (English: House of Music) (Figure 44) is a major concert hall space in Porto, Portugal. It was designed by Rem Koolhaas.

“Casa da Música is one of those jobs in which architecture and engineering are inseparable and strengthen each other. The challenge was to fit a complex functional programme into an object with an atypical form while also ensuring that the support structure should be an integral part of the architect’s spatial concept” (Furtado et.al. 2006).

Casa da Música has two main auditoriums, though many other areas of the building can be very easily adapted for concerts and other musical activity (workshops, educational activities, etc.).

The structure is of unfinished white concrete. The relatively simple poliedric external form covers a high complicated functional and structural form. But most of the inner rooms are also poliedric replicating the same external form giving the same impression and perception of the main structure. The overall form makes this building the most significant example of the monoblock group.

Figure 44. Casa da musica


44

16 The artistic structure

In this last group of examples the structure isn’t just perceived but it is used as an artistic mean. This means of course that the structure is fully integrated to the aesthetic of the whole building but this aesthetic is realised mainly by manipulating the structural framework.

Figure 45. Soumaya Museum, Fernando Romero. Mexico

The Soumaya Museum (Figure 45) has some complex characteristics mentioned in this thesis like monoblock and coordinateles and in fact expresses a beautiful combination of them. The building is located on a former industrial zone which today presents a very high commercial potential and plays a key role in the reconversion of the area: as a preeminent cultural program. The Soumaya Museum was conceived as a sculptural building that is both unique and contemporary. Its avant-garde morphology and typology define a new paradigm in the history of Mexican and international architecture.viii

The urban position of the building creates a dynamic silhouette for the viewer that moves around it. The futuristic form and the High-Tech finishing style of aluminium give the impression of an alien alike building. In fact the organic skinned volume of the building seems to be used in a way that gives the impression of challenging the gravity lows, moving freely in any direction. This is what may be classified as an artistic use of structure in this example.

The shell of the building is constructed with 28 steel curved columns of different diameters, each with its own geometry and shape, offering the visitor a soft non-linear circulation all through the building. Located at each floor level, seven ring beams provide a system that braces the structure and guarantees its stability. The most interesting part of the structure is the upper floor space which is covered by a roof that acts like dome with a lantern in the top. It is a unique space and shows the same contour of the cover seen from the outside.


45

French architect Christian de Portzamparc, winner of the 1994 Pritzker prize, conceived the new “Chateau Du Cheval Blanc” (White horse castle) in Saint-Emilion. (Figure 46) The new establishment is located under a massive sweeping structure with a rooftop garden and is always visually and spatially connected to the rows of grapevines. The entirely concrete structure consists in six curvilinear load-bearing elements that flow longitudinally through the building as the main support system connected by a series of crossbeams.

It is clearly visible that the six curvilinear supporting elements are inspired by the silhouette curves of a stylized white horse. This materialises the idea of the artistic use of the structure far from just an isolated role of load bearing. These walls not only define the external shape of the building but determine all the interior of it. The visitor can perceive their smooth lines passing from the entrance to the canteen. The so called elements are transformed from principal beams (or from arches) to walls and then cantilevered again alongside their axis. The design concept, even the green roof, is based entirely to these form giving structural elements.

Figure 46. Chateau Cheval Blanc. Christian De Portzamparc. Saint-Emilion


46

The Tod's building is located on Omotesando, the famous tree-lined avenue in Tokyo's Aoyama district. (Figure 47) It’s very interesting how this small building of 260m2 of footprint succeeds to be a masterpiece of architecture. It’s certainly for the artistic way it uses the structure. The Zelkova tree planted along the sidewalk in front of the building seems to be the inspiration of the structural choice. Fourteen Zelkova trees are casted (projected) onto the six façades overlapping their branches. The structure reflects the way the load is “collected” from thin branches to thick trunks and cleverly creating a free entrance at the ground level. For sure the seismic calculations are much more complicated than the vertical collection of loads because of the seismic horizontal forces but these forces are not so much perceived from the aesthetic point of view.ix

Figure 47. TOD'S Omotesanto AV.Tokyo-Toyo Ito.


47

Maybe the only way to construct a structure of glass walls and glass roof of 63m of height and 220 of length is the solution adopted in the “Tokyo International Forum”, central lobby above the concourse level. (Figure 48)x The main structure is detached from the glass surfaces and consists in a series of inverted metallic arches that keep the glass walls and glass roof to the intersection line between roof and walls. In this way the frame of the glass walls is just hanged from that spot and the frame of the glass roof works in traction as an arch tyrant. (Anup. 1997) This makes both frames (walls and roof) much lighter comparing to any other glass wall structure of more than 60 meters. The planimetric form gives the main structure of the series of inverted arches a surprising form of the wooden frame of an ancient ship. Than this “ship” is supported by only two columns giving the maximum flexibility to the hall. The ship like structure is equally perceivable from the outside and from the inside because the transparency of the building. This mixture of art, structural logic and clean perception of the structural function arise this case to the most rated examples in this study.xi

Figure 48. Tokyo International Forum. Rafael Viñoly


48

Another series of arches is used in Berlin to hang a whole building. In this case the arches stay upright and have a variation of span from 30 to 60m according to the building footprint. The arches stand 7m parallel from each other. This may be considered the cleanest structure in an urban environment except of any hanged bridge. But differently of any bridge structure the Ludwig Erhardxii Haus, (Figure 49) building has up to ten floors. The arch is a well known form-active structural element; meaning the most efficient structure. On the other hand instead of columns (probably for the height of the building the columns should be 50x50cm) the slabs are hanged on ribs of less than 10cm of diameter. Using arches the building is totally free of columns in the ground floor. All these factors make the whole structure much lighter and this leads further more to material reduction. Another extraordinary characteristic is the seismicity proof of the structure even though Berlin is not a seismic zone. The hanged building is not “rigid” and consequentlly not fragile. The light slabs float on air without striking dinamic forces on joints as in any supposed beam-column system building.xiii

Arches are all different in dimensions from each other but their dimensions change in a parametric design method creating a NURB curved surface except of the north elevation that has to be flat, according to a 19th-century building code regulation. The structure of the building is perceivable and readable in its integrity and in structural elements like for example the rib joints. Is difficult to imagine why this kind of making structure, with such numerous benefices is just an exemplar and not a usual way of building. At least, except of its wondeful Grimshaw architecture it has a contribution on the Aesthetic Structural Design.

Figure 49. Ludwig Erhard Haus Berlin, Germany, Grimshaw


49

The structural envelopment of the twenty-three storey skyscraper O-14xiv in Dubai makes this building an excellent example for this study. This distinctive work of New York architects Reiser + Umemoto, (Figure 50) reveals a white exoskeleton structure that is indeed multifunctional.

It is used as a load bearing structure, surrounding the slabs by a distance of one meter and is connected by concrete beams. This way the typical plan of 600m2 except of the core of stairs and lifts is free of columns.

It is used as an anti-seismic diaphragm and being perimetric (circumferential), it performs this duty perfectly.

It is used as a protection against wind and horizontal forces caused by wind.

It is used as solar filter protecting a glass façade and reducing considerably the cooling expenses.

It is used as air conditioner creating an air stream that moves vertically between the white exoskeleton and the rest of the building. The movement of air cools the glass surface behind the holey concrete.

But the most formidable property is the aesthetic of its structure. The white concrete surface has a parametric rule of hole-pattern and this makes it more organic and in a certain way gives life to the building. This impression of a “touchable” structure manipulated artistically crystallises an exceptional case of structural aesthetic. This aesthetic do not resides on the external pattern of the concrete envelope but in the essential and genetic role of the structure.

Figure 50. O-14-Reiser + Umemoto


50

17 Conclusions

In this thesis the “aesthetic” is considered as something to be searched in structure but considering structure as a whole. The research doesn’t deal with aesthetic as a philosophical problem. At some point it considers the evolutionary aesthetics to justify the reason why some aesthetics must be scrabbled to the structure and why the structure must evidence itself aesthetically: Furthermore it claims to reveal what is the aesthetic part of the building that belongs to the structure and what is the role of this part to the general public’s attitude. Looking for structural aesthetics means to reevaluate also the design process and the architectural model generation. This research is limited to raise but not to answer questions like: What new aesthetic strategy must be followed in the design process and what kind of recommendations regarding the aesthetics of structure may be given to a design team for a better result.

In the case study are analysed 28 buildings that are selected by the way the aesthetic of their structure influences the aesthetic of the building. These 28 objects are divided in groups by the main aesthetic behaviour of their structure and for each of them are expressed few considerations that relate them to the final conclusions. Conclusions are divided in two groups: general and referential.

Attached to the conclusions is compiled a table that rates the objects according to the considerations expressed and the referential conclusions.

General Conclusions

Structure has its own «private» charge of aesthetics and beauty

Structural Aesthetics is not style dependent.

The aesthetic of structure is subordinated to the architectural overall aesthetic.

Referential conclusions

Structure may be aesthetic as it creates a perception of rigidity

Structure aesthetics and its «healthy» status may be perceived even though the structure is not clearly read.

Structural Aesthetics is conceived in the integrity of the building, distributing it to every part of the building its respective portion of “healthiness”.

Aesthetic Structural design is an integral design process using structure and its aesthetics (as it is perceived here) as a form generator.

The following table and graphic shows the rating of every case described in the thesis material according to the principles mentioned above.


51

Figure 51. Case rating in numeric valiues


52

Figure 52. Grafical relationship Cases-conclusions


53

18 Bibliography

Bodhe, A. S. et al., 1997. Case study of Tokyo forum. s.l., University of Arizona research project.

Bussagli, M., 2005. Understanding Architecture. London: I.B.Tauris & co.

Carroll, C. et al., 2008. CCTV Headquarters, Beijing, China: Building the structure. The Arup Journal, Volume 2, pp. 41-43.

Charleson, A. W., 2005. Structure As Architecture. Oxford: Elsevier.

Charleson, A. W., 2008. Seismic Design For Architects. s.l.:s.n.

Clark, R. & Pause, M., 1985. Precedents in Architecture. s.l.:Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Du Sautoy, M., 2012. A 4 Dimensional Cube in Paris. The Number Mysteries. s.l.:s.n.

Dutton, D., 2003. Aesthetics and Evolutionary Psychology. The Oxford Handbook for Aesthetics.

Dutton, D., 2009. The Art Instinct -Beauty, Pleasure and Human Evolution. Bloomsbury Press: New York.

Furtado, R., Oliveira, R. & Moás, L., 2006. Casa da Música, Porto, Portugal. Naples, Fédération Internationale du Béton.

Giaconia, P., 2006. Eric Owen Moss. Milano: Skira Editore.

Holgate, A., 1986. The art in structural design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jodidio, P., 2007. Calatrava. Köln: TASCHEN.

Larsen, O. & Tyas, A., 2003. Conceptual Structural Design: Bridging the Gap Between Architects and Engineers. London: T. Telford.

LaVine, L., 2001. Mechanics and Meaning in Architecture.. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.

Macdonald, A. J., 1998. Structural Design for Architecture. Woburn: Architectural Press.

Macdonald, A. J., 2001. Structure and Architecture. Wiltshire: The Cromwell Press.

Nakai, M., 2008. Unique Architectural Forms Enabled by Base-Isolation. Beijing, China, s.n.

Prina, F. & Demartini, E., 2005. Grande atlante dell’architettura.. Milano: Mondadori Electa.


54

Suckle, A., 1980. By Their Own Design. s.l.:Whitney Library of Design.

Time Inc. Home entertainment, 2004. Great buildings of the World. New York: Time books.

Winters, E., 2007. Aesthetics and Architecture. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Web pages.

1. http://www.damninteresting.com/a-potentially-disastrous-design-error.[accesed_12/06/2013]

2. http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/D6E6AB4D-19BB-316E-4017A36ECEDCE0D6.pdf[accesed_12/06/2013]

3. http://www.arcspace.com/features/rafael-vinoly-/tokyo-international-forum.[accesed_12/06/2013]

4. http://space-modulator.jp/sm81~90/sm87_contents/sm87_e_ludwigerhard1.html. [acced_12/06/2013]


55

19 Technical notes

i The Genetic code is the most concentrated information in space and complication. If converted in

binary numbers it is about 1.5 GB situated in the 1/1 000 000 part of a cubic milimeter. Every living creature is generated from this information. But this information is not copied exactly the same as a computer file. The errors bared in the genetic code make humans not the clone of each other. The Evolution is based just on these “errors” selecting them in two ways descovered By Charles Darwin; natural selection and sexual selection. The sexual selection is based on the ability of every living creature (animal or human) to “read” the quality of the Genetic code of the partner.

ii This interdisciplinary centre, begun in 2009 and scheduled for inauguration in 2016, will combine dance and music, amateurs with professionals, and performers with spectators in a 1750-seat theatre, 500-seat recital hall, and 400-seat flexible experimental theatre. A wide ramp protrudes from the structure like an elevated entry promenade that also contains an outdoor performance venue and connects to the 850-car underground parking garage. The entry sequence presents the user with a lively, layered series of spaces that act as a three-dimensional public square servicing the 2000-student music school, cafe, garden, ticket booth, or dance.

iii The China pavilion at Expo 2010 in Shanghai, China, colloquially known as the Oriental Crown was the largest national pavilion at the Shanghai Expo and the largest display in the history of the World Expo. It was also the most expensive pavilion at the Shanghai Expo costing an estimated US$220 million. The 69.9-metre high pavilion was meticulously designed with profound meaning and symbolism. The architectonic feature of the building was inspired by the Chinese roof bracket known as the “dougong” the traditional wooden bracket used to support large overhanging eaves which dates back nearly 2,000 years. The overhanging columns of the main China pavilion and exterior of the Chinese joint provincial pavilion are decorated with Diezhuan characters, calligraphic characters used on official seals. The inverted pyramid design and the lower courtyard offer a large overhang for self-shading. There is a 0.36 mega-watt solar energy system on the rooftop while the thermal panels and insulating glasses on the exterior are energy-saving initiatives. Not casually this proposal was chosen through 344 designs by architects from all over the world. [China Daily]

iv The Gateway Arch is an arch that is the centrepiece of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in St. Louis, Missouri. It was built as a monument to the westward expansion of the United States. At 192m, it is the tallest man-made monument in the United States, the largest architectural structure designed as a weighted or flattened catenary arch.

The Gateway Arch was designed by architect Eero Saarinen and structural engineer Hannskarl Bandel in 1947. Construction began on February 12, 1963, and ended on October 28, 1965, costing US$13 million at the time (approximately $95 million in 2013). The monument opened to the public on June 10, 1967. Both the width and height of the arch are 192m. The arch is the tallest memorial in the United States and the tallest stainless steel monument in the world.

The cross-sections of the arch's legs are equilateral triangles, narrowing from 16m per side at the bases to 5.2m per side at the top. Each wall consists of a stainless steel skin covering a sandwich of two carbon-steel walls with reinforced concrete in the middle from ground level to 91m, with carbon steel to the peak. The arch is hollow to accommodate a unique tram system that takes visitors to an observation deck at the top.

The form is a pure mathematical function of “hyperbolic cosine” that describes the shape of an inverted catenary.[wikipedia.org]

v The new metro station will be built at the edge of the massive 3,300,000 m2 King Abdullah Financial District in Riyadh and will act as a major interchange between three of six new metro lines. Comprised of a series of undulating waves and a golden lattice that functions much like the ancient mashrabiya (Characteristic Arabic window enclosed with carved wood screen) that filters sunlight and promotes natural ventilation.

vi The CCTV Headquarters is a 234m, 44-storey skyscraper on East Third Ring Road, Guanghua Road in the Beijing Central Business District (CBD). The tower serves as headquarters for China Central Television (CCTV) that was formerly at the China Central Television Building located at 11 Fuxin Road some 15km to the west. Groundbreaking took place on June 1, 2004 and the building's facade was completed in January 2008. Rem Koolhaas and Ole Scheeren were the architects in charge for the building, while Arup provided the complex engineering design. This structure includes 473,000 m2 of floor space. The building’s shape and form meant that it fell outside the prescriptive codes for buildings in China.


56

In total, 133 343m3 of concrete went into the foundations of the Towers and podium. Some 42000 steel

elements with a combined weight of 125000 tonnes, including connections, were erected at a peak rate of 8000 tonnes per month.

vii The Crystal is a free-standing, environmentally friendly and award-winning extension of Nykredit headquarters in Copenhagen, Denmark. The typical floor plan is disposed in a Z-shape around two atria, ensuring that all workstations are well lit and enjoy a view. The disposition of the plan allows the accommodation of an open plan, separate offices or meeting rooms. The double-glazed façade has integrated solar screens and is decorated by a subtle silk screen frit design that mitigates solar ingress, reflects daylight, and gives the building a homogenous expression which enhances its sculptural form. The design team has brought a holistic approach to the environmental strategy underlying the project. The scheme manages to combine a completely transparent office building with an exceptionally low energy-consumption at 70 kWh per sqm. The roof is covered with highly efficient photovoltaic panels generating 80,000 kWh per year. [Archidaily.com].

viii The heterogeneous collection of the museum is housed in a continuous exhibition space spread over six levels, representing approximately 6,000 m2. The building also includes an auditorium for 350 people, library, offices, a restaurant, a gift shop and a multi-purpose gathering lounge.

ix All these fine façade and structure, or their integration, would not have been possible without base-isolation system provided under the ground floor. The isolation system, consisting of 14 high-attenuation laminated-rubber bearings, drastically reduces earthquake input and enables the building to resist it mostly by the thin reinforced concrete façade. It also minimizes the earthquake-induced deformation of the façade and consequently the width of the seal, or the allowance for deformation due to earthquake, between the reinforced concrete façade and the glasses. In this building, the base-isolation system is an indispensable element for the integration of façade and structure as well as earthquake-resistant performance. (Masayoshi Nakai. 2008)

x Located at the nexus of four subway lines and two major train stations, the site generates significant pedestrian traffic. The theatre lobbies overlook the plaza which serves as civic space and visually filters into the Glass Hall, set along the railroad tracks at the eastern boundary of the site [arcspace.com].

xi The Glass Hall facade uses approximately 20,000 square meters of 17.5mm laminated heat-strengthened glass. Laminated glass is made by sandwiching a plastic interlayer between two panes of glass and has been commonly found in car windshields for nearly 60 years. By using laminated glass the architects were able to meet both the aesthetic needs of the centre’s design, as well as provide the safety and comfort features necessary for a structure that would be highly populated [arcspace.com].

xii Ludwig Erhard was the first Minister of Economy (and later Prime Minister) and contributed greatly and miraculously to the economic reconstruction of post-war West Germany.

xiii There are 15 arches wrapped by 0.4 mm-thick stainless steel installed at intervals of 6.9 meters, suspending the floors from the first floor upward. The maximum span of these arches reaches 61.2 meters, with a height of 38.6 meters. The suspending structure restricted the height of each floor to 3.53 meters, and yet, the architects realized a ceiling height of 2.99 meters, which was an amazing feat. The office space has two large atriums to break the monotony and bad taste of spaces without windows. The roofs between the arches are of a shell construction and slabs of the office spaces are made of pre-cast concrete. Because the suspended floors may move vertically by as much as 50 mm, the facade of the foyer looks like it has been buried under the ceiling of the ground floor. [space-modulator.jp]

xiv The name “0-14” refers to the site number of the Business Bay district, Dubai.

The Aesthetics of Structure

Documents

Transcript of The Aesthetics of Structure