Attachments
Last edited:
Sorry, I don't get the joke. Having spent a great deal of time in the building both visiting and working, I find it a lovely space and certainly enjoyed it.
The building has a constant stream of visitors, which might indicate some success. 😉
😱 Wow, wait till other nations hear this.
OMG the Chinese are now stealing your scaffolding! Last time I visited France and Italy there were more famous buildings covered in scaffolding than not! Obviously I wasn't saying no other countries use scaffolding, but go ahead and have your fun...
Last edited:
It is to show off of mechanical and structural system. It did so at great compromise. 1) So much of the windows are blocked by mechanical ducts. 2) Structural steel truss had to be clad in fireproofing but then it covers up the look of steel so they wrap the fireproofing with cosmetic metal cladding to make it look like bare metal.
What got built and what was imagined during design phase didn't match well at all. When it was finished, it became a cruel joke.
Not sure those are just stories people repeat or what actually happened. Not sure why the steel requiring fireproofing covered with cladding to look right is some sort of horrendous failure. I mentioned this in discussing Notre Dame using steel beams for the roof. Every architect knows this so I doubt it was overlooked. I have heard the story, but using a bit of artifice to make a something look right is pretty common in art and architecture.
As far as the ducts, it's pretty clear that they could have bundled the ducts 2 layers deep which would have allowed your windows, but intentionally spread them side by side to make their point. OK you don't like it, fine.
It would make a great department store. They generally don't have windows, just showcases. However I have been there and I like it just fine...
Last edited:
Lets say a baker promises that he will create an anniversary cake that has vanilla flavor and shaped like Eiffel tower. He showed you a drawing and the budget. You like the drawing and the budget, plus you like vanilla so you commission him to do it, thinking that it will be a wonderful anniversary. Then when the anniversary day comes, the cake that arrived to the event is chocolate flavored due to color matching challenge of cake to the real Eiffel tower and it has all sorts of spray painted wooden sticks holding up most of "cake" due to structural reason and the edible portion is at the top only. Not to mention the cost overrun by big margin when he sent you the final invoice. It's an important anniversary and many guests whom you've already told how wonderful the cake will be, already showed up. How would you describe that event? If it happened to me, I would say to the baker, "Is this a joke? 😡".
Financially? I guess it does. Architecturally? No.
If you are an architect, you would know because I've heard this from an architect who showed me the images.
Not look right but to make it look as if there is no fireproofing on. Since you already wrote about the steel structure and its weakness against the heat thus requiring the fireproofing, you would agree that steel truss to look right would be to have fireproofing material clad on.
Again, those roof beams and rafters would be in the attic which is concealed by ceiling tiles and roof cladding.
Could've, would've, should've... Easier said than done, especially after the fact. In Europe and Asia, where the energy price is higher per capita than USA, natural light availability in building design is more critical. Those ducts blocking windows... all in the name of an ill conceived design idea. It made a precedent (very expensive one) of one of those so called what not to do in architecture. Wouldn't you know it, the designer of Pompidou center doesn't do that anymore. Look at his later works.
I'm not criticizing people's personal preference. As they say, beauty is in the eyes of ....
It is - just because you don't like it doesn't negate its success. But I understand the objections, as they are pretty common in Paris. Not everyone has to like something for it to succeed. I can't stand ABBA or AC/DC, but I won't argue they are wildly successful in their endeavors. Some would even argue artistically successful. 😉
It is per your own architectural evaluation? OK.
Different criteria will show different success rate. There are movies with deep box office number that are very shallow in theme. It all depends on where you look.
Last edited:
You don't like the Pompidou Center, sure - we get it. That still doesn't negate its success as a wonderfully functional building, icon and a landmark.
Even, your arguments don't really make much sense to me. They ARE arguments, I'll give you that, and yes I've heard the stories, and sure, you are entitled to your opinion, and there are certainly weaknesses as well as successes in the design, but I don't think your analogies or cake drama really add up to more than: "I don't like it"
Last edited:
Which is just fine, but doesn't have much bearing on the building itself. Life would be boring if we all had the same tastes. 😛
Evenharmonics: I believe Rogers and Piano were using the ducts to refer to classical architecture and it's rows of columns, such as the paired columns at the Louvre. The Louvre columns are many in number, are non-structural, and block a lot of light, So I assume you hate the Louvre also? I believe R & P's intent was to reveal that the inner workings of a building can be as elegant as the shadows and rhythms of a classical Greek colonnade.
You seem to believe that "honesty in materials" is paramount, which is a modern concept. The Honesty here is the point that steel structure can be beautiful. Strong and elegant. The essence, or skeleton of steel is beautiful to some of us, but covered with gloopy fireproofing it isn't so attractive. So the architects did their best to demonstrate this "ideal" beauty in a world where practical concerns such as fireproofing are required. Art is like that. There are many examples of artifice in art which were used to reveal a deeper truth.
I find the effort and risk to make something "delightful" in a world of cookie cutter bland and uninspired construction, a thing to applaud. Yes the Pompidou no doubt has flaws and wasn't the same as the 2 dimensional drawings submitted to a competition. There are lots of challenges between a concept and a finished building, which no one can predict perfectly. Especially compared to a cake! Especially in a competition! There is no way that every detail has been worked out. I've entered competitions and I know this to be true. You have no idea if you are going to win so you can't spend years on every detail. Plus there's a deadline, which limits you even further. Their concept was brilliant IMHO.
You seem to believe that "honesty in materials" is paramount, which is a modern concept. The Honesty here is the point that steel structure can be beautiful. Strong and elegant. The essence, or skeleton of steel is beautiful to some of us, but covered with gloopy fireproofing it isn't so attractive. So the architects did their best to demonstrate this "ideal" beauty in a world where practical concerns such as fireproofing are required. Art is like that. There are many examples of artifice in art which were used to reveal a deeper truth.
I find the effort and risk to make something "delightful" in a world of cookie cutter bland and uninspired construction, a thing to applaud. Yes the Pompidou no doubt has flaws and wasn't the same as the 2 dimensional drawings submitted to a competition. There are lots of challenges between a concept and a finished building, which no one can predict perfectly. Especially compared to a cake! Especially in a competition! There is no way that every detail has been worked out. I've entered competitions and I know this to be true. You have no idea if you are going to win so you can't spend years on every detail. Plus there's a deadline, which limits you even further. Their concept was brilliant IMHO.
Last edited:
Rome has been sacked and rebuilt many times, some beautiful structures were lost to looting building materials, others for political reasons (the fascist Mussolini regime in particular), but many things have survived, some by being incorporated into newer structures. There are midievel towers that are now the corners of apartment buildings. Roquebrunn Cap Martin, a 10 century castle and village, the village is occupied today, built into, under, and around the castle, and it is well done (tasteful). New and old can be brought together, but so many modern designs seem to be to shock, and not live in harmony with the old, that should be a concern with the spire.
Somebody mentioned fusion food.
With that in mind may be the collapsed spire should be replaced with a pagoda.
Or may be not...
PS: I know a bunch of people who travelled to Paris to see just the Pompidou Centre.
With that in mind may be the collapsed spire should be replaced with a pagoda.
Or may be not...
PS: I know a bunch of people who travelled to Paris to see just the Pompidou Centre.
I have just visited the Pompidou Centre on Google Earth. What a fantastic building. It looks like the 1960's channeled into a Paris suburb and left there. It also reminds me of of a Kurt Schwitters 'Merzbarn', only turned inside out to reveal the hidden beauty within. Inversely, akin to the hidden oak beams of the Norte Dame ceiling. Or the exquisite functional beauty of point to point wiring inside a valve amplifier chassis. An infinite number of comparisons writ large.
It would be a good thing to replace the wooden spire of Norte Dame with a massive inverted LeCleach hornspeaker, so that heavenly spiritual entities could converse with us humans.
I put my name to this one. ToS
It would be a good thing to replace the wooden spire of Norte Dame with a massive inverted LeCleach hornspeaker, so that heavenly spiritual entities could converse with us humans.
I put my name to this one. ToS
Last edited:
So you like Pompidou center and don't like the criticisms of it, sure, we get it.
Which source did you find that it's a wonderfully functional building, icon and a landmark?
The anniversary cake example was to Pano who didn't understand why it's an architectural joke.
You don't have to rely on personal belief. You can read about the design idea used for Pompidou center.