Is it all merely an attempt to rationalise what is seen by many as a mysterious shambles? Colleagues have responded to images of the model and the renderings with astonished scepticism, leaving cryptic messages like “Speechless.” Prints of the scheme were once handed around the monthly curry table ‘for discussion,’ and were met with a sense of incredulity, and a silent “WTF?” There was really nothing to say; little was said. The general response was bluntly dismissive – “It’s unbelievable.” Could such a piled up ‘inspired’ mess be serious? The Guggenheim Abu Dhabi presented a puzzle.
.jpg)
The YouTube talk on this project given by Gehry# seems to be a response to manage what appears to be be the typical reaction to this scheme. Frank O. Gehry, ex-‘Ephraim Owen Goldberg,’ speaks directly to the camera from what seems to be his office studio, with a model of the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi behind him. His manner is unusually humble, conciliatory, modest; carefully thoughtful, meaningfully concentrated. There is nothing of the arrogant, ‘single finger’ response; here we see a sensitive, concerned man. What’s going on? Is this a charade; a calculated pretence? One is perplexed by the remarkable change.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Gehry begins explaining the origins of the Guggenheim scheme, as if he senses the need to prove that it has been conceived rationally, carefully, considerately; that it is a purposeful response rather than a bundle of shapes and masses randomly thrown together willy-nilly to make a visually ‘interesting’ assemblage, as it might appear to be. Perhaps his reputation for things inspirationally random and ad hoc has been shaped by, amongst many other dismissive gestures and statements, his scribbled sketches for his projects, and the reference to a crumpled brown paper bag as being the basis of the concept for his Dr Chau Chak Wing Building for the UTS Business School in Sydney, Australia. One wonders if he now regrets this cheeky, shameless, brazen approach. Is there something of a search for redemption here? In this presentation, Gehry speaks about the quality of the entry, the approach to the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi Building, explaining how timber is used to give a “user friendly” security area. The message seems to be that he has deliberately designed the place in detail, really caring for the people who might visit. Is this a new Gehry, or one attempting to create a reputation as a serious theoretical, emotional, ‘real,’ sensitive, thinking architect rather than an arrogant rebel revelling in eye-catching deformities? Strangely, there is no further mention of the visitor or any comment on the interiors in the remainder of the presentation.
Gehry moves on with his talk, speaking about the entry “under the beautiful cone,” suggesting that the curved forms are not random, but have a particular climatic function: “as one crosses the threshold there is a 15 degrees drop in temperature.” The cones “cool the outdoor spaces.” The inspiration for these conical tubular pieces is explained as being the tepee, a shape that exhausts heat. Gehry sees the sloping vaults working in the same way, telling us how he placed “a bunch of tepees over the public places . . . to become a place holder.” The reference to ‘place’ seems contrived to fit the expectations of those seeking some logic in the strategy, establishing Gehry as a caring ‘placemaker,’ reminding one of Aldo van Eyck’s ‘place not space’ subtlety. The proposition seems to be that there is more than a scattered random, ‘interesting’ nothingness behind these shapes: but weren’t we just told that these ‘tepee cones’ were for cooling?
One has to wonder why a North American reference to form and function might be useful in middle-eastern desert climes. Do tepees really exhaust heat or just let the smoke out? Why would one not use the traditional wind towers of the region that have proven to be so effective, instead of referencing the American Indian’s mobile shelter?* It looks as though the tepee form might draw in as much 46C heat as it exhausts. Where is the proof of the instant 15 degree drop?+ Might it only be hope and hype to explain the form? The nearby Nouvel Louvre building provides a local example of the problem faced. Here the large, shading dome does nothing to modify the external temperature, even though the images of the outdoor space are very poetic; perhaps the shelter makes temperatures rise under the radiant heat of the heavy structure? - see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2018/08/abu-dhabi-louvre-labyrinthine-inferno.html.
.jpg)
.jpg)
Gehry continues, boasting about the way the scheme was chosen by his client. Apparently a selection of approaches was offered in model form. Is ‘meaningful’ architecture really something of a ‘pick the winner / trial and error’ preference game? This particular scheme was seemingly chosen with the reported comment, “You really understand our culture.” It would be good to see all of the other projects that were rejected. How many options does Gehry develop for each project? It is strange to have specific ‘meaning’ and cultural ‘relevance’ recognised in what appears to be a ‘pick a box’ choice made from a selection of a variety of, perhaps, less ‘meaningful’ alternative possibilities. Is this ‘considered’ structuring of meaning merely wishful thinking, or a simple matter of the chance selection of the client who saw some vague parallel in shapes? It is difficult to put one’s finger on the commitment to any particular enterprise here.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Gehry explains the client’s statement as referring to the repetitive simple shapes, the domes, one sees in mosques. Just to prove that the chosen scheme was ‘culturally referenced,’ the video presentation shows an interior and a silhouette of Hagia Sophia in Istanbul with its various curved shapes and profiles; and then, later, images of the Blue Mosque are revealed. This is Turkey, not the UAE. Gehry explains that this sense of repetition of simple forms “became an important architectural element” in his client-selected project, in spite of the fact that he had previously said that the inspiration had been ‘the tepee’ - ? Is the concept tepee or dome: climate or culture? He tells how “he has seen a lot of mosques” in the last few years, implying that it has been the mosques that have given a context for the meaningful inspiration rather than the tepee. Is this so? The suggestion seems to be that these great buildings have repetitive, curved profiles just like the Gehry scheme has, an analogy that he seems to think carries more richness than a simple similarity in descriptions. The Gehry ‘mess’ mocks the rigour of Hagia Sophia. Gehry mentions the works of Sinan, the architect Frank Lloyd Wright called the greatest, as though Sinan was his inspiration, his mentor. How? There seems to be just too much effort to get meaningful connections here. One senses a sort of ‘grab all’ rationalisation in the hope that something of the muddle might stick.
.jpg)
As if to explain away the obvious discrepancy between the mosques and his shambles, his ‘messiness,’ Gehry acknowledges the precise symmetry in the Blue Mosque, but points out how the experience “becomes messy” as one moves around, as if this might excuse his ad hoc randomness in form, and exaggerate the ‘meaningful’ cultural connection with his disordered expression. One is left bewildered; baffled. Does Gehry not know Coomaraswamy’s statement that reminds us that much of our great architecture was about God, not attractive form? Gehry seems to be defending his messiness with clever phrases, trying to prove cultural relevance in words alone, as if this might be enough to bluff everyone.
.jpg)
.jpg)
Gehry notes how “men are white; women black” in this culture; and tells us that this observation caused him to want a “black and white environment.” Is this strategy really ‘meaningful’? His ambition, apparently, was “to show different cultures together in one room,” a concept he sees as “a revolution.” Really?? How might this be so wondrous? Australia is an example of a multi-cultural society that has had its own easy evolution. Somehow glass floors and balustrades play a role in this strategy too. Is this the idea of literal transparency becoming used as an example of a moral stance?
Gehry closes his presentation with a reference to different cultures, noting “the political mess” the world is in; adding that he is seeking “a clarity in talking” while not wanting to “politicise” matters, avoiding “military options and threats” with a “more humanistic architecture; a more questioning approach” that can ask “Who are we? Why not talk?” The finale is grand: Gehry hopes his building will “deliver this message” – what precisely is this? - and that “his architecture will become a part of something bigger.” Is he serious, or just seeking something more meaningful than scribbles, crumpled, brown paper bags and quirky, ad hoc distortions? Has Gehry lost confidence in his visual deformities?
.jpg)
Gehry seems to be grasping at all of the right themes to explain his work as meaningfully rational, but it is difficult to take seriously. The early development models seem to reveal nothing of his new cultural sensitives. One is left wondering why he is attempting this explanation. What can one make of this? Is it merely propaganda; spin; empty words that seek to sound enriching? The problem is that Gehry has a history of what looks like carelessly considered randomness rather than creating buildings that might transform humanity. Has he really changed, or is he merely responding to the critics, seeking forgiveness for his extremes?
.jpg)
Soon after viewing this almost apologetic explanation that seeks to give real ‘meaning’ to the project’s conception, another site is discovered that presents the engineering work for this project.##
Here one sees sound studies, and rather ambitious, or maybe hopeful, rainwater studies for this project: Abu Dhabi has an average rainfall of 42mm. There are structural details too, showing joints and assembly methods; other studies show sunlight and shade. It is all very intriguing. The reality of the engineering thought and analysis gives some rigour to the project. It is the work of the Sydney Opera House engineers, Arup. One looks, but cannot see any study that might reveal the effectiveness of the curved shelters as cooling elements offering a dramatic 15 degree drop in temperature.
The Abu Dhabi Louvre experience makes one wonder about the whole climatic concept. After experiencing the Abu Dhabi Louvre in 46C heat, and finding the temperature under the dome simply intolerable, one cannot get over-excited with the effectiveness of these tepee shelter/place markers in the searing heat. Is it all simply fanciful; hopeful?*+
While the engineering bits and pieces might be intriguing, the wholeness of the scheme remains a question, as Gehry continues to present what must be a justification for his “speechless” mess that becomes, in his understanding, something of a conglomerate, humanistic, multi-cultural engagement enriched by its cultural references and climatic sensitivites.
.jpg)
What can one say other than that cultural meanings are much more significant than a mere similarity in profile and matching words. Architecture seems just too quick to use language to promote projects with a unique enthusiasm that frequently has little relevance to the experience of place other than offering ‘ways to see’ a project; providing words that shape visions yet to be beheld. Why is ‘Mr. Goldberg’ now seeking to explain his work as humanistic; sensitive; place-making; place-shaping; caring; politically correct; tolerant; and transformative when his previous projects appear more interested in being both different and alarming expletives; seemingly inexplicably arrogant and deliberately ad hoc as deformed, bespoke, ‘Gehry’ expressions?
#
Domes, Cones, and Inspired Messiness - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OMHvPsZ2kQ
##
The engineering:
https://www.robo-design.com/building-systems/gadm
It seems as though the rigour of resolution is left to the engineers. It is indeed a wonderful site to peruse, and highlights the extreme difference between how the architect and the engineer see things. Architecture needs more engineering thinking to inform it, because detail is critical. Gehry might see ‘cultural richness’ in his ‘inspired messiness,’ but it is the precise resolution of the fine detail that makes the project what it is. It is a delight to see, and becomes something of an embarrassment for the architectural profession that seems happy to muddle along in a fanciful world. It was Kahn who spoke about the transition from things vague and fanciful, into things factual, to become vague and fanciful yet again.
A great building must begin with the unmeasurable, must go through measurable means when it is being designed and in the end must be unmeasurable.
Architects appear to have given up, leaving the engineers to resolve all matters measurable. One has to consider Christopher Alexander’s ‘wholeness’ to understand the problem here.
Other reports on aspects of the project:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZafVyCFrGlo
*
Another report on the Guggenheim suggests that these forms were based on the traditional barjeel: see - https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2021/11/20/the-travails-and-bold-aims-of-the-guggenheim-abu-dhabi
The jagged towers and palm-fringed walkways of the proposed Guggenheim Abu Dhabi (GAD) take their inspiration from the wooden sailing dhows that ply the waters of the Gulf and the funnel-shaped wind towers, known as barjeel, built to bring natural ventilation into old houses in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
Gehry makes no mention of either of these sources. He mentions the tepee, and domes. The reference to the traditional wind tower is formal only, if at all, and seems to ignore the basic physics of these traditional structures: see - https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2018/08/abu-dhabi-louvre-labyrinthine-inferno.html
+
A NOTE ON THE TEPEE
Is Gehry using this report for his reasoning?
https://huberwoods.net/2018/06/are-teepees-easy-to-keep-warm-in-the-winter/ -
Throughout North America, numerous indigenous tribes used teepees for centuries prior to European colonization. Some indigenous Americans continue to use teepees today, both for ceremonial and practical reasons. It turns out that teepees feature a number of impeccable design elements that make them perfectly suited for modern use, particularly in harsh, cooler climates.
Unlike modern tents, teepees are actually suited for long-term, year-round habitation. Because teepee technology has had thousands of years to evolve, they continue to be relevant alternative lodging options. Whether you’re looking for a unique guesthouse, an interesting art studio or an extension of your living space, it’s hard to go wrong with investing in a modern teepee.
There are a number of benefits associated with teepee ownership. Here are just a few of the reasons you should consider investing in teepee poles in Utah:
Easy to heat: It’s surprising how much heat a canvas teepee can keep in! With just a few quick adjustments to the canvas, you can set your teepee to either vent excess heat or collect solar rays. Additionally, it’s possible to have an open fire inside your teepee, thanks to the exterior vent. Some modern teepees actually have stoves inside, for maximum safety and enjoyment.
Good air circulation: Teepees consist of canvas wrapped around a wooden frame supported by teepee poles in Utah. Using a few simple maneuvers, it’s easy to adjust the canvas to create perfect air circulation, even if the air outside of the teepee is relatively stagnant. It’s possible to create an updraft that can make the interior of a teepee as much as 15 degrees cooler than the temperature outside.
Wind-resistant: Have you ever woken up inside a tent that collapsed thanks to heavy winds? Sleeping in an unsteady tent isn’t just annoying—it can actually be dangerous! Teepees, however, boast an aerodynamic shape that moves with the wind. Even during intense outdoor storms, teepees are able to stand strong, and remain firmly planted. Unlike tents, teepees are a viable option for year-round habitation.
Flexible: Because teepees are constructed of wood and canvas, they’re extremely flexible. If you’re in an earthquake-prone area, you can rest easy knowing that your teepee will probably survive most tremors. Additionally, it’s extremely easy to set up and take down your teepee, meaning it’s possible to travel with it virtually anywhere you may want to go. It takes just half an hour to raise most teepees.
The words particularly in harsh, cooler climates are interesting.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.