7 Buildings Inspired By A Galaxy Far, Far Away

e6bc4847

This house “may not look like much, kid, but she’s got it where it counts.” (No, we love this house.)

Full disclosure: We’ll take about any excuse to talk about Star Wars. But this time we’ve got a legitimate reason: May 4 is international Star Wars Day! This Saturday, let your geek flag fly high, and have no shame in putting that old Boba Fett Halloween costume to use. We thought we’d start the festivities a little early (we don’t work on Saturday!) with this list of buildings that were clearly inspired by (or that influenced) the look and feel of the Bearded One’s timeless space opera.

Who knows want the architecture of Episode VII will look like, but if it’s anything like these structures, we’d approve. Click through to see them all. 

P.S. May the fourth be with you!

af879d5d

Daniel Libeskind’s spiky Denver Art Museum takes a nod from Darth Vader’s razor-sharp Super Star Destroyer.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Santiago Calatrava’s troubled City of Arts and Science complex in Valencia, Spain, includes this structure, El Palau de les Arts Reina Sofía, whose animistic features evoke the samurai gas mask design of Darth Vader’s helmet.

5827545090622a1d12be1341701454jpg

OMA Casa de Musica in Porto, Portugal, looks exactly like a Jawa Sandcrawler, as seen in Episode IV.

Sandcrawler_R

Sandcrawler

nc01-600x352

Zaha Hadid’s Capital Hill House, which was designed for fashion icon Naomi Campbell, features a periscope-like design that more than a little resembles General Grievous’s flagship the Invisible Hand, from Episode III.

Photo: flickr user enemigo_80

Oscar Niemeyer employed the squat dome in several of his now-canonical projects. The latest can be found at the now-shuttered Niemeyer Center in Avilés, Asturias, Spain, which looks more than a little like the Republic Executive Building on Coruscant, only  a lot smaller.

RepublicExecutiveBuilding

The Republic Executive Building 

HoJ

Those remembering the first (and only) viewing of Episode I may have thought to themselves why Naboo’s stately architecture looked so familiar. That’s because George Lucas and his art direction team were inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright’s design for the Marin County Civic Center, which sports a dazzling blue-greenish roof and dome that pops from its forested surroundings.

Theed

Festivities in Naboo

e6bc4847

Photo: Patrick Bingham Hall

The Stamp House by Charles Wright Architects is a surprisingly sprightly concrete home that hovers above a lake. The house’s concrete form and structure looks suspiciously like the Millennium Falcon, Han Solo’s trusty smuggling-turned-Rebellion-saving cruiser.

star_wars_millenium_falcon_front

Santiago Calatrava Again Faces “Leaky” Charges

The architect and engineer Santiago Calatrava has once again made the headlines of Spanish papers – and, once again, for less than favorable reasons.

Calatrava’s latest controversy is a lawsuit filed against him by the famous Bodegas Domecq winery, property of the Ysios Laguardia in Rioja, Spain. Both the Valencian architect as well as those involved in the winery’s construction are being asked to pay two million euros to the winery, a sum that should help cover a renovation as well as the costs the winery has incurred over the last two years fixing the structure’s leaky roof. The owner claims that the leaks have been creating a damp atmosphere (in a building where moisture control is critical for the quality of the wine) and thus damaging his business.

The building, opened in 2001, was designed by Calatrava and a team of architects and executed by construction giant Ferrovial. It is one of the most striking buildings in the rural area of Laguardia, a contemporary anomaly in the rolling landscape of the Sierra de Cantabria. The structure consists of an undulating roof with aluminum parts. Since opening, the roof has been repaired several times, but without success.

“We have been forced to take the matter to the courts because each of the officers involved in the building design and construction have avoided their responsibilities,” said one spokesman for Bodegas Domecq.

Bodegas Domecq aims to place a new roof over the current one, but to maintain its unique visual appearance and aluminum finish.

Story via The Guardian

Santiago Calatrava Again Faces “Leaky” Charges originally appeared on ArchDaily, the most visited architecture website on 19 Apr 2013.

send to Twitter | Share on Facebook | What do you think about this?

Oops! Santiago Calatrava Must Pay For Leaky Roof

Santiago_Calatrava_Ysios_Bodega_06

Looks like the genius of celebrated starchitect Santiago Calatrava might be a little compromised. The trademark dramatic, undulating crown of his Ysios Winery in northern Spain apparently is failing its function of being a roof. According to the Guardian, the owners of the spectacular winery say the roof leaks, and they want Calatrava to pay for a new architect to design a better one. Ouch. Click through for more. 

Santiago_Calatrava_Ysios_Bodega_13

The winery’s location in the rainy La Rioja is proving especially problematic for the owners, who are fed up with the failed attempts by Calatrava’s builders to fix the roof, and now they want payment. Domecq, who owns Ysios Winery, is reportedly demanding €2 million to secure another architect to do the job. According to Domecq, the roof of the winery has repeatedly let water into the building since it opened 12 years ago. The court action is the second filed against Calatrava in less than a year after being accused of “bleeding Valencia dry,” with the City of the Arts and Science complex’s budget quadrupling to €1 billion.

Images via Buildipedia

Four Architects Enlisted to Reimagine Penn Station

In an effort to “unlock people’s imaginations” about Penn Station and Madison Square Garden, the Municipal Art Society (MAS) of New York has challenged Santiago CalatravaDiller Scofidio + Renfro, SHoP Architects and SOM to propose four new visions that exemplify the potential of the highly disregarded area. 

The challenge comes amidst a heated debate on whether or not the city should restrict Madison Square’s recently expired special permit to 10 years, rather than in perpetuity as the arena’s owners – the Dolan family – has requested. This would allow time for the city to “get it right” and come up with a viable solution for the arena and station that, as NYTimes critic Michael Kimmelman states, would not only “improve the safety and quality of life for millions of people but also benefit the economy”. Think Kings Cross in London. With a thoughtful mix of public and private investments, the crime-ridden station was transformed into a thriving cultural destination that benefited all parties. 

More after the break…

Kimmelman describes, “It’s not only that Penn Station, designed a half-century ago in a declining city for what seemed then an unlikely capacity of 200,000 passengers a day, is now handling more than twice that number. It is also a shabby, hopelessly confusing entry point to New York, a daily public shame on the city.”

In addition, with the development of the Hudson Yards and the third phase of the High Line, Penn Station’s will be faced with an unmanageable capacity that will negatively impact the entire West Side of Midtown Manhattan.  

“The point isn’t deciding which possible site is best right now,” said Kimmelman. “It’s knowing there are paths worth pursuing, and focusing the next decade on exploring them.”

That Dolan family’s request, currently going through the city’s land use review process, is expected to hear a final decision by the City Council in late June or early July. In the meantime, MAS has requested that the enlisted firms complete their proposals by May 29. The designs will be unveiled to the public that day at the TimesCenter on West 41st Street (register here).

via NYTimes 

Four Architects Enlisted to Reimagine Penn Station originally appeared on ArchDaily, the most visited architecture website on 03 Apr 2013.

send to Twitter | Share on Facebook | What do you think about this?

Calatrava Criticized for Valencia Complex

Praised for his masterful blends of architecture and engineering, yet criticized for rarely sticking to a budget, Valencia-native Santiago Calatrava is no stranger to controversy. His latest project making headlines is the largest landmark in Valencia and the second most-visited cultural complex in Spain: the City of Arts and Sciences. 

More on the controversy after the break.

Located in a region riddled with half-finished buildings, debt and corruption – as described by NPR - the €1.2 billion cultural complex is being lambasted for spiraling uncontrollably from its original €300 million cost estimation. Defending against allegations that the hefty price tag contributed to the Spanish city’s economic distress, Calatrava argued in a RIBA interview last night that the 20-year project was responsible for only a small portion of the city’s budget, coming in at about €60 million a year.

Calatrava added that the City of Arts and Sciences regenerated a run-down portion of land, between the city center and the Mediterranean coastline, and created a cultural destination that “put Valencia on the map.”

“It went over five different governors and nobody questioned the project,” he said, according to BDOnline. “I am sure the people are happy.

Although the ‘City’ is a prized possession among many residents, some are beginning to question the price of upkeep as well. According to El Mundo the 2005 El Palau de les Arts Reina Sofia’s laminated steel shell facade is peeling. A costly and undesirable situation for such a young building.

via NPR, BDOnline, El Mundo 

Calatrava Criticized for Valencia Complex originally appeared on ArchDaily, the most visited architecture website on 30 Jan 2013.

send to Twitter | Share on Facebook | What do you think about this?

How Santiago Calatrava blurred the lines between architecture and engineering to make buildings move

American author Robert Greene has shared with us an excerpt about the work of Santiago Calatrava from his newly released book Mastery

We live in the world of a sad separation that began some five hundred years ago when art and science split apart. Scientists and technicians live in their own world, focusing mostly on the “how” of things. Others live in the world of appearances, using these things but not really understanding how they function. Just before this split occurred, it was the ideal of the Renaissance to combine these two forms of knowledge. This is why the work of Leonardo da Vinci continues to fascinate us, and why the Renaissance remains an ideal.

So why did Santiago Calatrava, now one of the world’s elite architects, decide to return to school in 1975 for a civil engineering degree after asserting himself as a promising young architect?

Continue reading for the complete article.

At a very early age, Santiago Calatrava developed a love for drawing. He carried his pencils wherever he went. A certain paradox in drawing began to obsess him. In Valencia, Spain, where he grew up, the harsh Mediterranean sunlight would place in sharp relief the things he liked to draw- rocks, trees, buildings, people. Their outlines would slowly soften as the day progressed. Nothing he drew was ever really static; everything is in a state of change and motion- that is the essence of life. How could he capture this movement on paper, in an image that was perfectly still?

He took classes and learned techniques for creating the various illusions of something caught in the moment of movement, but it was never quite enough. As part of this impossible quest he taught himself aspects of mathematics, such as descriptive geometry, that could help him understand how to represent his objects in two dimensions. His skill improved and his interest in the subject deepened. It seemed he was destined for a career as an artist, and so in 1969 he enrolled in art school in Valencia.

A few months into his studies, he had a seemingly minor experience that would change the course of his life: browsing for supplies in a stationery store, his eye was drawn to a beautifully designed booklet describing the work of the great architect Le Corbusier. Somehow this architect had managed to create completely distinctive shapes. He turned even something as simple as a stairway into a dynamic piece of sculpture. The buildings he designed seemed to defy gravity, creating a feeling of movement in their still forms. Studying this booklet, Calatrava now developed a new obsession- to learn the secret of how such buildings came about. As soon as he could, he transferred to the one architecture school in Valencia.

Graduating from the school in 1973, Calatrava had gained a solid education in the subject. He had learned all of the most important design rules and principles. He was more than capable of taking his place in some architecture firm and working his way up. But he felt something elemental was missing in his knowledge. In looking at all of the great works of architecture that he most admired—the Pantheon in Rome, the buildings of Gaudí in Barcelona, the bridges designed by Robert Maillart in Switzerland- he had no solid idea about their actual construction. He knew more than enough about their form, their aesthetics, and how they functioned as public buildings, but he knew nothing about how they stood up, how the pieces fit together, how the buildings of Le Corbusier managed to create that impression of movement and dynamism.

It was like knowing how to draw a beautiful bird but not understanding how it could fly. As with drawing, he wanted to go beyond the surface, the design element, and touch upon the reality. He felt that the world was changing; something was in the air. With advances in technology and new materials, revolutionary possibilities had emerged for a new kind of architecture, but to truly exploit that he would have to learn something about engineering. Thinking in this direction, Calatrava made a fateful decision- he would virtually start over and enroll at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland, to gain a degree in civil engineering. It would be an arduous process, but he would train himself to think and draw like an engineer. Knowing how buildings were constructed would liberate him and give him ideas about how to slowly expand the boundaries of what could be made.

In the first few years he grounded himself in the rigors of engineering- all of the mathematics and physics required for the field. But as he progressed, he found himself returning to that paradox that he had been obsessed with in childhood- how to express movement and change. In architecture, the golden rule was that buildings had to be stable and stationary. Calatrava felt the desire to break up this rigid convention. For his PhD dissertation, he decided to explore the possibilities of bringing actual movement into architecture. Inspired by NASA and its designs for space travel, as well as the folding bird wings designed by Leonardo da Vinci, Calatrava chose as his topic the foldability of structures- how through advanced engineering structures could move and transform themselves.

Completing his dissertation in 1981, he finally entered the work world- after fourteen years of a university apprenticeship in art, architecture, and engineering. In the coming years he would experiment in designing new kinds of collapsible doors, windows, and roofs that would move and open up in new ways, altering the shape of the building. He designed a drawbridge in Buenos Aires that moved outward instead of up. In 1996 he took all of this a step further with his design and construction of an extension to the Milwaukee Art Museum. It consisted of a long glass-and-steel reception hall with an eighty-foot ceiling, all shaded by an enormous moveable sunscreen on the roof. The screen had two ribbed panels that opened and closed like the wings of a giant seagull, putting the entire edifice into motion, and giving the sense of a building that could take flight.

We humans live in two worlds. First, there is the outer world of appearances- all of the forms of things that captivate our eye. But hidden from our view is another world- how these things actually function, their anatomy or composition, the parts working together and forming the whole. This second world is not so immediately captivating. It is harder to understand. It is not something visible to the eye, but only to the mind that glimpses the reality. But this “how” of things is just as poetic once we understand it- it contains the secret of life, of how things move and change.

This division between the “how” and the “what” can be applied to almost everything around us- we see the machine, not how it works; we see a group of people producing something as a business, not how the group is structured or how the products are manufactured and distributed. (In a similar fashion, we tend to be mesmerized by people’s appearances, not the psychology behind what they do or say.) As Calatrava discovered, in overcoming this division, in combining the “how” and the “what” of architecture, he gained a much deeper, or rather more rounded knowledge of the field. He grasped a larger portion of the reality that goes into making buildings. This allowed him to create something infinitely more poetic, to stretch the boundaries, to break the conventions of architecture itself.

As Calatrava intuited, this should be a part of our apprenticeship. We must make ourselves study as deeply as possible the technology we use, the functioning of the group we work in, the economics of our field, its lifeblood. We must constantly ask the questions- how do things work, how do decisions get made, how does the group interact? Rounding our knowledge in this way will give us a deeper feel for reality and the heightened power to alter it.

Written by Robert Greene.

How Santiago Calatrava blurred the lines between architecture and engineering to make buildings move originally appeared on ArchDaily, the most visited architecture website on 20 Jan 2013.

send to Twitter | Share on Facebook | What do you think about this?

How Santiago Calatrava blurred the lines between architecture and engineering to make buildings move

American author Robert Greene has shared with us an excerpt about the work of Santiago Calatrava from his newly released book Mastery

We live in the world of a sad separation that began some five hundred years ago when art and science split apart. Scientists and technicians live in their own world, focusing mostly on the “how” of things. Others live in the world of appearances, using these things but not really understanding how they function. Just before this split occurred, it was the ideal of the Renaissance to combine these two forms of knowledge. This is why the work of Leonardo da Vinci continues to fascinate us, and why the Renaissance remains an ideal.

So why did Santiago Calatrava, now one of the world’s elite architects, decide to return to school in 1975 for a civil engineering degree after asserting himself as a promising young architect?

Continue reading for the complete article.

At a very early age, Santiago Calatrava developed a love for drawing. He carried his pencils wherever he went. A certain paradox in drawing began to obsess him. In Valencia, Spain, where he grew up, the harsh Mediterranean sunlight would place in sharp relief the things he liked to draw- rocks, trees, buildings, people. Their outlines would slowly soften as the day progressed. Nothing he drew was ever really static; everything is in a state of change and motion- that is the essence of life. How could he capture this movement on paper, in an image that was perfectly still?

He took classes and learned techniques for creating the various illusions of something caught in the moment of movement, but it was never quite enough. As part of this impossible quest he taught himself aspects of mathematics, such as descriptive geometry, that could help him understand how to represent his objects in two dimensions. His skill improved and his interest in the subject deepened. It seemed he was destined for a career as an artist, and so in 1969 he enrolled in art school in Valencia.

A few months into his studies, he had a seemingly minor experience that would change the course of his life: browsing for supplies in a stationery store, his eye was drawn to a beautifully designed booklet describing the work of the great architect Le Corbusier. Somehow this architect had managed to create completely distinctive shapes. He turned even something as simple as a stairway into a dynamic piece of sculpture. The buildings he designed seemed to defy gravity, creating a feeling of movement in their still forms. Studying this booklet, Calatrava now developed a new obsession- to learn the secret of how such buildings came about. As soon as he could, he transferred to the one architecture school in Valencia.

Graduating from the school in 1973, Calatrava had gained a solid education in the subject. He had learned all of the most important design rules and principles. He was more than capable of taking his place in some architecture firm and working his way up. But he felt something elemental was missing in his knowledge. In looking at all of the great works of architecture that he most admired—the Pantheon in Rome, the buildings of Gaudí in Barcelona, the bridges designed by Robert Maillart in Switzerland- he had no solid idea about their actual construction. He knew more than enough about their form, their aesthetics, and how they functioned as public buildings, but he knew nothing about how they stood up, how the pieces fit together, how the buildings of Le Corbusier managed to create that impression of movement and dynamism.

It was like knowing how to draw a beautiful bird but not understanding how it could fly. As with drawing, he wanted to go beyond the surface, the design element, and touch upon the reality. He felt that the world was changing; something was in the air. With advances in technology and new materials, revolutionary possibilities had emerged for a new kind of architecture, but to truly exploit that he would have to learn something about engineering. Thinking in this direction, Calatrava made a fateful decision- he would virtually start over and enroll at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland, to gain a degree in civil engineering. It would be an arduous process, but he would train himself to think and draw like an engineer. Knowing how buildings were constructed would liberate him and give him ideas about how to slowly expand the boundaries of what could be made.

In the first few years he grounded himself in the rigors of engineering- all of the mathematics and physics required for the field. But as he progressed, he found himself returning to that paradox that he had been obsessed with in childhood- how to express movement and change. In architecture, the golden rule was that buildings had to be stable and stationary. Calatrava felt the desire to break up this rigid convention. For his PhD dissertation, he decided to explore the possibilities of bringing actual movement into architecture. Inspired by NASA and its designs for space travel, as well as the folding bird wings designed by Leonardo da Vinci, Calatrava chose as his topic the foldability of structures- how through advanced engineering structures could move and transform themselves.

Completing his dissertation in 1981, he finally entered the work world- after fourteen years of a university apprenticeship in art, architecture, and engineering. In the coming years he would experiment in designing new kinds of collapsible doors, windows, and roofs that would move and open up in new ways, altering the shape of the building. He designed a drawbridge in Buenos Aires that moved outward instead of up. In 1996 he took all of this a step further with his design and construction of an extension to the Milwaukee Art Museum. It consisted of a long glass-and-steel reception hall with an eighty-foot ceiling, all shaded by an enormous moveable sunscreen on the roof. The screen had two ribbed panels that opened and closed like the wings of a giant seagull, putting the entire edifice into motion, and giving the sense of a building that could take flight.

We humans live in two worlds. First, there is the outer world of appearances- all of the forms of things that captivate our eye. But hidden from our view is another world- how these things actually function, their anatomy or composition, the parts working together and forming the whole. This second world is not so immediately captivating. It is harder to understand. It is not something visible to the eye, but only to the mind that glimpses the reality. But this “how” of things is just as poetic once we understand it- it contains the secret of life, of how things move and change.

This division between the “how” and the “what” can be applied to almost everything around us- we see the machine, not how it works; we see a group of people producing something as a business, not how the group is structured or how the products are manufactured and distributed. (In a similar fashion, we tend to be mesmerized by people’s appearances, not the psychology behind what they do or say.) As Calatrava discovered, in overcoming this division, in combining the “how” and the “what” of architecture, he gained a much deeper, or rather more rounded knowledge of the field. He grasped a larger portion of the reality that goes into making buildings. This allowed him to create something infinitely more poetic, to stretch the boundaries, to break the conventions of architecture itself.

As Calatrava intuited, this should be a part of our apprenticeship. We must make ourselves study as deeply as possible the technology we use, the functioning of the group we work in, the economics of our field, its lifeblood. We must constantly ask the questions- how do things work, how do decisions get made, how does the group interact? Rounding our knowledge in this way will give us a deeper feel for reality and the heightened power to alter it.

Written by Robert Greene.

How Santiago Calatrava blurred the lines between architecture and engineering to make buildings move originally appeared on ArchDaily, the most visited architecture website on 20 Jan 2013.

send to Twitter | Share on Facebook | What do you think about this?

How Santiago Calatrava blurred the lines between architecture and engineering to make buildings move

American author Robert Greene has shared with us an excerpt about the work of Santiago Calatrava from his newly released book Mastery

We live in the world of a sad separation that began some five hundred years ago when art and science split apart. Scientists and technicians live in their own world, focusing mostly on the “how” of things. Others live in the world of appearances, using these things but not really understanding how they function. Just before this split occurred, it was the ideal of the Renaissance to combine these two forms of knowledge. This is why the work of Leonardo da Vinci continues to fascinate us, and why the Renaissance remains an ideal.

So why did Santiago Calatrava, now one of the world’s elite architects, decide to return to school in 1975 for a civil engineering degree after asserting himself as a promising young architect?

Continue reading for the complete article.

At a very early age, Santiago Calatrava developed a love for drawing. He carried his pencils wherever he went. A certain paradox in drawing began to obsess him. In Valencia, Spain, where he grew up, the harsh Mediterranean sunlight would place in sharp relief the things he liked to draw- rocks, trees, buildings, people. Their outlines would slowly soften as the day progressed. Nothing he drew was ever really static; everything is in a state of change and motion- that is the essence of life. How could he capture this movement on paper, in an image that was perfectly still?

He took classes and learned techniques for creating the various illusions of something caught in the moment of movement, but it was never quite enough. As part of this impossible quest he taught himself aspects of mathematics, such as descriptive geometry, that could help him understand how to represent his objects in two dimensions. His skill improved and his interest in the subject deepened. It seemed he was destined for a career as an artist, and so in 1969 he enrolled in art school in Valencia.

A few months into his studies, he had a seemingly minor experience that would change the course of his life: browsing for supplies in a stationery store, his eye was drawn to a beautifully designed booklet describing the work of the great architect Le Corbusier. Somehow this architect had managed to create completely distinctive shapes. He turned even something as simple as a stairway into a dynamic piece of sculpture. The buildings he designed seemed to defy gravity, creating a feeling of movement in their still forms. Studying this booklet, Calatrava now developed a new obsession- to learn the secret of how such buildings came about. As soon as he could, he transferred to the one architecture school in Valencia.

Graduating from the school in 1973, Calatrava had gained a solid education in the subject. He had learned all of the most important design rules and principles. He was more than capable of taking his place in some architecture firm and working his way up. But he felt something elemental was missing in his knowledge. In looking at all of the great works of architecture that he most admired—the Pantheon in Rome, the buildings of Gaudí in Barcelona, the bridges designed by Robert Maillart in Switzerland- he had no solid idea about their actual construction. He knew more than enough about their form, their aesthetics, and how they functioned as public buildings, but he knew nothing about how they stood up, how the pieces fit together, how the buildings of Le Corbusier managed to create that impression of movement and dynamism.

It was like knowing how to draw a beautiful bird but not understanding how it could fly. As with drawing, he wanted to go beyond the surface, the design element, and touch upon the reality. He felt that the world was changing; something was in the air. With advances in technology and new materials, revolutionary possibilities had emerged for a new kind of architecture, but to truly exploit that he would have to learn something about engineering. Thinking in this direction, Calatrava made a fateful decision- he would virtually start over and enroll at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland, to gain a degree in civil engineering. It would be an arduous process, but he would train himself to think and draw like an engineer. Knowing how buildings were constructed would liberate him and give him ideas about how to slowly expand the boundaries of what could be made.

In the first few years he grounded himself in the rigors of engineering- all of the mathematics and physics required for the field. But as he progressed, he found himself returning to that paradox that he had been obsessed with in childhood- how to express movement and change. In architecture, the golden rule was that buildings had to be stable and stationary. Calatrava felt the desire to break up this rigid convention. For his PhD dissertation, he decided to explore the possibilities of bringing actual movement into architecture. Inspired by NASA and its designs for space travel, as well as the folding bird wings designed by Leonardo da Vinci, Calatrava chose as his topic the foldability of structures- how through advanced engineering structures could move and transform themselves.

Completing his dissertation in 1981, he finally entered the work world- after fourteen years of a university apprenticeship in art, architecture, and engineering. In the coming years he would experiment in designing new kinds of collapsible doors, windows, and roofs that would move and open up in new ways, altering the shape of the building. He designed a drawbridge in Buenos Aires that moved outward instead of up. In 1996 he took all of this a step further with his design and construction of an extension to the Milwaukee Art Museum. It consisted of a long glass-and-steel reception hall with an eighty-foot ceiling, all shaded by an enormous moveable sunscreen on the roof. The screen had two ribbed panels that opened and closed like the wings of a giant seagull, putting the entire edifice into motion, and giving the sense of a building that could take flight.

We humans live in two worlds. First, there is the outer world of appearances- all of the forms of things that captivate our eye. But hidden from our view is another world- how these things actually function, their anatomy or composition, the parts working together and forming the whole. This second world is not so immediately captivating. It is harder to understand. It is not something visible to the eye, but only to the mind that glimpses the reality. But this “how” of things is just as poetic once we understand it- it contains the secret of life, of how things move and change.

This division between the “how” and the “what” can be applied to almost everything around us- we see the machine, not how it works; we see a group of people producing something as a business, not how the group is structured or how the products are manufactured and distributed. (In a similar fashion, we tend to be mesmerized by people’s appearances, not the psychology behind what they do or say.) As Calatrava discovered, in overcoming this division, in combining the “how” and the “what” of architecture, he gained a much deeper, or rather more rounded knowledge of the field. He grasped a larger portion of the reality that goes into making buildings. This allowed him to create something infinitely more poetic, to stretch the boundaries, to break the conventions of architecture itself.

As Calatrava intuited, this should be a part of our apprenticeship. We must make ourselves study as deeply as possible the technology we use, the functioning of the group we work in, the economics of our field, its lifeblood. We must constantly ask the questions- how do things work, how do decisions get made, how does the group interact? Rounding our knowledge in this way will give us a deeper feel for reality and the heightened power to alter it.

Written by Robert Greene.

How Santiago Calatrava blurred the lines between architecture and engineering to make buildings move originally appeared on ArchDaily, the most visited architecture website on 20 Jan 2013.

send to Twitter | Share on Facebook | What do you think about this?