-please note that the original essay was accompanied by detail drawings and photographs.
Selected Buildings -
Elbe Philharmonic Hall - Herzog & de Meuron - Concrete
Barajas Airport - Richard Rogers - Steel
Cologne Museum - Peter Zumthor - Masonry
Downland Gridshell - Edward Cullinan - Timber
British Museum Roof - Norman Foster - Glass
Allianz Arena, Munich - Herzog & de Meuron - Innovative Cladding
Project - Elbe Philharmonic Hall
The new Elbe Philharmonic Hall by architects Herzog & de Meuron will be situated directly on top of what used to be known as ‘Warehouse A’, a warehouse located in Hamburg harbour directly adjacent to the river Elbe. It was used to store cocoa, tobacco, tea and coffee. The original warehouse dates from 1966 and had a total floor area of around 4200 square metres over 7 floors. In 2001, having not been used for years, the warehouse started to develop into a cultural landmark of Hamburg, playing host to a nightclub, exhibition spaces, concerts and festivals.
In 2006, Herzog & de Meuron were granted planning permission to build a new philharmonic hall. Their proposal was a new ‘floating’ structure sitting on top of the old warehouse. The existing warehouse construction used a reinforced concrete frame sitting on more than 1000 piled foundations. Some areas of the building use steel to improve the performance of the structure in tension.
The main soil type in the area was silt, meaning the ground had a maximum bearing capacity of under 75kN per square metre. Like the builders of the original warehouse, the engineers behind the new building decided that any additional foundations which needed to be added would have to be piled. This is so as to avoid issues with bearing capacity and also variations in the volume of soil with moisture. Because of this, before the new hall could be constructed 600 additional piles were driven into the soil to support the loads of the new structure. Around 200,000 tonnes of new construction needed to be supported.
The existing warehouse had no windows and only 250mm thick concrete walls with no insulation, this made it unsuitable for a public building so it will be used mostly for parking and some basic public amenities. The new building sits directly on top of the old warehouse and follows the same footprint, adding 667,000 square feet and continuing it’s form 360ft upwards. The new structure will be supported by the warehouse using large, angled concrete columns.
Between the two buildings there is a public terrace where visitors can view the city and the harbour. This serves to separate the two buildings. The buildings are connected to each other by a 3-storey escalator. The building itself is reminiscent of middle eastern or European tent structures, with a number of peaks dominating its form. The tallest peak reaches around 100m sitting tall over the waters of the river, the lowest peak is around 80m at the other end of the building. The cladding of the building will consist of different styles of glass, varying with the use of spaces. Similar to Herzog & de Meuron’s BTU building, the glass will be imprinted with thousands of small white dots, controlling lighting, solar gain and levels of glare. A computer system will be used to calculate the density of dots on each pane of glass, this will be defined by the orientation of the glazing and the function of the internal space.
The building incorporates many spaces, the major on being a 2200 seat concert hall. There will also be a smaller, 550 seat hall for different styles of performance, a 220 room, five star hotel, restaurants, bars, a fitness suite and more than 30 apartments.
Project - Barajas Airport Terminal 4
The Barajas airport in Madrid is the largest project ever undertaken by Richard Rogers. More than 1,000,000 square metres of buildings and a budget of almost one billion Euros. The new terminal is designed to accommodate more than 35 million passengers per annum and is therefore 1.2km in length.
I am going to focus on the main terminal space and its large, distinctive roof structure. The building works on an 18m x 9m structural grid which was needed to give continuity and ease of production to such a massive design. It also allowed for flexibility and adaptation given that the number of passengers through the airport will increase over the lifespan of the building. The roof is held up by ‘tree’ structures every 9m and there are four supporting each main beam. These trees consist of a concrete base which holds two steel columns of elliptical cross-section. The columns are 16mm thick elliptical hollow pipes which are 800mm x 480mm at the base and 480mm x 200mm where they connect to the unique curved roof beams via a spherical joint and a steel pin.
In section, the main beams of the roof are 500mm by 30mm and the stem is made from 15mm steel plate. The depth of these beams varies, ranging from 1500mm in the centre to 750mm at the outer edges. They were designed to interrupt the ’flow’ of the roof as little as possible. The curves of the beams varies to create a sequence of repeated waves which. Running between the main beams are secondary beams at 3.5m centres, these were fabricated from rolled sections, upon these beams are the purlins which support the roof. The secondary beams are arched between the main beams to give the roof its distinctive wave form. The roof is punctured by large roof lights which allow natural light into the space. The ceiling is clad in Chinese bamboo, chosen for its ability to create smooth curves and because of its availability in such large quantities. What the architect describes as ‘light-filled canyons’ divide the floors of the buildings upper level. These floors are made from concrete planks sitting on post-tensioned beams cast 72m at one time.
The roof is the main focus of the design and as it also take structural priority. The exterior walls of the terminal are large expanses of glass. The roof overhangs the glazing to provide shade and reduce solar gain which is also achieved with an additional tubular steel shading system. Rogers claims that the building is the most environmentally efficient building which could have been build at this scale. The 3m x 2.3m glazing panels are fixed to steel rods and hung from the roof trusses every 9m. The need for any vertical support members has been eliminated which helps to emphasise the structure of the roof and make the building feel more open.
Project - Cologne Museum
Museum Kolumba in Cologne contains within it the ruins of the gothic church St. Kolumba, a chapel and an archaeological excavation. It is a unique project executed beautifully by the architect. The building is 4500sq metres and is divided into two wings, one for the church and another containing the chapel. The method of construction used relates to the church it houses, the thick masonry wall with high, large windows allowing light into the lower levels. The architect has used the language of construction to add a spirituality and contextuality to the design.
The 30m high façades are all finished in the same material, a light grey brick specially developed for the project by a Danish company, Peterson. The bricks were made to match the colour of mortar. Unusually each brick is only 36mm high and they vary in lengths, up to 520mm. Each course of mortar is also half the height of the brick. The walls are 600mm thick and uninsulated. The walls support the floors and roof, along with an internal concrete structure and provide the stability of the building. To avoid movement caused by temperature changes they are kept at a constant temperature by circulating water drawn by an aquifer from 70m below ground, keeping the temperature steady at all times of year. The cavity used to circulate the water also serves to reduce heat loss through the walls.
The room containing the ruins of the gothic church is 12m in height. Light enters the space through small perforations in the bricks which gives the room a similar climate to the outdoors, necessary to conserve the excavation site. The perforated bricks came to be referred to as “pullover brickwork” by Zumthor and his team. A timber walkway navigates you over the ruins towards and exterior courtyard created by the ruins of the church. Either side of the walkway are 250mm concrete columns which support the roof above, these are located carefully so as not to damage the ruins and thus, there is minimal structural order to their layout.
On the upper floors of the buildings, light is more prominent and large areas of glazing, supported by concrete, allow views over the city ensuring a connection between the city and the building. All the floors, ceilings and roof structures of the buildings are in-situ reinforced concrete. Internally the floors are finished in travertine. There are no joins or grooves visible in any of the internal brickwork, flooring or concrete.
Project - Downland Gridshell
The Downland gridshell is the first gridshell structure in Britain. The building is part of the Weald and Downland open air museum which dismantles old buildings and rebuilds them on their own grounds, where there are country walks, farm animals and a lake for visitors to enjoy. The gridshell itself is a conservation workshop for repairing large old timbers, the building also houses the museum’s collection of rural tools and artefacts as well as a classroom for visiting school children and for teaching workshops on timber construction methods, most of which are no longer taught in mainstream construction education.
The brief was to create a strong, well-lit building to be open to the public and used for repairing building components as well as storage of the museum collections and a small display area. The museum’s main concerns were materiality, contextuality, environmental issues and historical issues. Several architects were interviewed and asked to develop a design. Edward Cullinan Architects were chosen because the museum felt that the work of the practice displayed similar principles to that of the museum.
It was important to the museum that the new building was not an imitation of an old style, instead they wanted something modern and innovative, hence the use of the gridshell structure and not a more widely used building technique. The structural system used in the building was designed using a computer, the architects had to test the feasibility of using a grid structure and then build models to test its capacity for taking load, both in use and during construction. After constructing the concrete ground floor, the glu-lam beams for the first floor were installed and the spruce and ash flooring system was put in. After this the arches which act as the ends of the building, made using a glu-lam arch and a Siberian larch cross beam, were lifted into place.
To construct the gridshell, first the team had to construct 7.5m high scaffolding where the structure could be assembled. The gridshell is made from two layers of latticed laths, these were made from green oak, grown in France and chosen for it’s flexibility and strength, and were just 35mmx50mm in section. 600 laths in total were used in the final building. Each lath was 36m long and made from six 6m long lengths joined together by scarf joints. To construct the roof, the two layers of lattice were laid flat on top of the scaffolding, then the scaffolding was lowered at predetermined points by just a few centimetres each day. In order for the gridshell to move into it’s final curved shape, movement was needed between the two layers of timber lattice. For this to be achieved some innovation was needed which came in the form of the “Holloway-Happold Node Clamp” named after its inventor and the engineering firm who developed it. Basically it allows the outer laths to slip over the inner laths while still holding the joint in place. In total, 11,323 of these laths were used in the final structure and there were only 53 breakages which were soon fixed by carpenters. During the formation of the structure adjustments were made by eye while referring to a pre-produced computer model. It took 3 months for the roof to take its final shape and be attached to the first floor structure and a further 9 for the building to reach completion. Insulation of the structure was achieved using 25mm thick Foamglas panels covered by two layers of aluminium foil. The glazing on the building is polycarbonate, mainly for cost purposes. Sustainability was an important part of the design. Most of the building does not require heating because the people inside are working and therefore are unlikely to be cold, solar collectors heat water which is used in under-floor heading pipes when heat is required. The building is also uses very little electrical lighting because of the abundance of natural light.
Project - British Museum Roof
Foster’s roof over the Great Court at the British museum Joins the cylindrical reading room in the centre of the courtyard with the courtyard walls which define the rectangular space. Similar to other Foster designs, the roof is made up of a lattice of steel which supports triangular glass pieces. The difficulty in this project however was that the design team were not able to just design a shape and make it work structurally, they also had to think about the existing buildings and how the roof would integrate into these.
Several limitations on the design were imposed by the existing buildings and the demands of the client. The cylindrical reading room appears to be central within the Great Court, however it is in fact 5m closer to the North wall than to the South wall. This causes major problems because a symmetrical or regular geometry wouldn’t naturally work in these circumstances. Secondly, the roof had to be vaulted, further complicating the geometry, to clear the porticos at the centre of each surrounding façade but the roof structure also had to be as shallow as possible to reduce visibility from nearby streets, the client wanted the exterior of the museum to remain classical in character. These limitations, in my opinion make the design much more interesting than most Foster designs and understanding how the structure works around all of these issues is helpful when it comes to thinking about solving structural issues in my own designs.
Initially the design team intended to use inflated EFTE ‘pillows’ supported on a 4.3m grid. This technology has been used before by architects, notable examples being the Eden Project, the Allianz Arena in Munich by Herzog & de Meuron and the Beijing National Aquatics Centre. The problem with this design was that it would need a heavy steel structure to stop the roof being blown of by the wind, the system would have required fewer members but each one would have been a lot thicker than the chosen system. This was deemed unsuitable to the geometry an classical character of the courtyard.
The system used in the final design is a more conventional but complex system using glass panels and a steel supporting lattice. The roof itself covers the 110m x 70m courtyard with spans from the reading room in the middle to the outside walls varying between 14m and 40m. At one point in the design process there were more than 10,000 panels of glass, this was reduced to 3312 for the final design, this gives you an idea of the scale and complexity of the project. These 3000+ panels of glass are supported by a steel structure consisting of 5162 box beams which connect at 1826 points in a unique 6-way node, each of which was designed and located in 3 dimensions and was built to within +/- 3mm. In total there is 11km of steel members in the roof and including the glass, the roof weighs more than 800 tonnes. At the corners of the courtyard, where the largest forces are generated, tensioned cables help to strengthen and stiffen the roof.
The geometry of the roof consists of concentric circles from the reading room in the centre of the courtyard, these circles are then connected by two opposing spirals, creating the triangular openings. The dimensions of the steel box sections vary across the roof, starting thick at the reading room and becoming thinner as they reach the outer walls. The width of the members is always 80mm but the depth ranges from 80mm up to 200mm in the centre.
After construction, when the props supporting the roof were removed in Spring 2000 and the roof was supporting itself for the first time, the height of the structure dropped by 150mm and spread 90mm laterally on its sliding bearings, exactly as the engineers had predicted that it would.
Project - Allianz Arena
The Allianz Arena in Munich was designed by architects Herzog & de Meuron and constructed for the 2006 World Cup. The stadium can accommodate 70,000 spectators. The dimensions of the building are 258m x 227m x 50m, 205,000 cubic metres of concrete and 36,000 tonnes of steel were used in its construction. The 3 year construction cost more than €340 million. The most striking and innovative aspect of the building is its façade and cladding system.
The stadium is home to two club teams, FC Bayern Munich and TSV 1860 Munich, and also hosts national matches, such as during the World Cup. Because it is the home stadium of two teams the architects wanted the stadium to be able to change colour depending on which team was playing. The building glows red when Bayern Munich play, blue when TSV 1860 Munich play and white when the German national team is competing.
The façade of the arena is made using 2874 EFTE-foil (Ethylene Tetrafluoroethylene) air panels or cushions, the skin of which is only 0.2mm. Each cushion is unique and could only fit in its designated spot. The installation of the panels required 35 skilled climbers. These cushions are filled with air to a pressure of 0.038hPa. The EFTE, a kind of plastic, is strong and durable and performs well in a wide range of temperatures and weighs only one thirtieth of the weight of glass. The panels also require no cleaning due to a special surface coating. Each individual cushion can be lit either red, blue or white by a lighting system behind the panels. There are blinds within the building if it is necessary to reduce the amount of sunlight entering the internal spaces. Also, if the fans which keep air pressure in the panels fail and moisture builds up within them a valve is triggered which releases the excess moisture ensuring that a build up of water doesn’t put strain on the roof structure. Similarly, if snow collects on the roof, a number of sensors measure the increase in load and adjust the air pressure in the panels to compensate meaning the building is always in balance. Similar technology to this cladding was used in the Eden project in Cornwall.
The main structure of the building is a concrete frame consisting of 350 inclined pillars sitting on concrete foundations. Each pillar has a cross section of 650mm x 650mm and have a maximum bearing load of 10,000kN. The tiers for the seating in the stadium are made from 2446 pre-cast concrete sections and 3985 stair elements.
The roof of the stadium is made from 48 radial main beams connected by cross beams. The main beams are 65m long and weight up to 106t each. The cross beams, rectangular hollow sections measuring 180mm x 180mm, form a rhomboidal ‘steel net’ which holds the roof panels. In total the structural steel for the roof weighs around 8700t and can support 5000kN, its own weight plus a full load of snow at the centre. The roof has a maximum deflection of 550mm.
Overall, the building uses its innovative cladding system in an interesting and contextual way and achieves dramatic results.
Compare and contrast :
Each of these 6 buildings has a unique structural system with its own positives and negatives.
The Elbe Philharmonic Hall uses a large amount of concrete to ‘float’ above an existing building, something which would have been virtually impossible using any other material. It makes the building heavy and the structure bulky but frees up the façade allowing a very interesting appearance.
The Barajas airport uses a steel system which works perfectly with the design and the ease with which steel components can be mass produced was obviously an advantage on such a large project.
Zumthor’s museum in Cologne uses masonry in a very unique way which is not only interesting visually but connects to its context and purpose very well.
The timber system used for the Downland Gridshell is very lightweight and gives an organic form at a low cost both financially and environmentally, the craftsmanship and detailing in the project is astounding.
The glass roof at the British Museum is a very large and complex project which is solved very simply and elegantly and the finished product could have easily been a lot less interesting and a lot bulkier.
My favourite of the six buildings from a structural point of view is the Downland Gridshell. I think that the client and designer have worked very well together and developed a project that meets its brief but also pushes the limits of engineering. The quality of construction, scale and detailing all make it an elegantly complex structure which sets the standard for timber construction in Britain.
Tuesday, 16 December 2008
Saturday, 13 December 2008
Architecture, History and Theory 1 - Scotland Street School
My task is to examine Scotland Street School by Charles Rennie Mackintosh. I shall examine the architecture by first describing the building and then by making a comparison to a similar building to determine which features of Mackintosh’s design were original and which were typical of that building type or era.
Scotland Street School was completed in 1906 and was opened on 15th August of that year. The School is located in the south side of Glasgow and upon it’s opening it served to educate the children of the Kingston and Tradeston areas of the city. The population of these areas would have grown around this time due to the flourishing shipbuilding industry by the Clyde. The School was commissioned by the School board of Glasgow and Mackintosh was given a fairly strict brief in terms of what had to be included in the design: separate playgrounds, outside toilets, entrances and staircases for girls, boys and infants; teachers’ rooms on each floor; a drill hall and electric lighting. He had to allow accommodation for 1250 pupils and include a cookery room in his design ~ information gathered from leaflet available at Scotland Street School Museum ~. During the design of the school Mackintosh had a tight budget for several reasons. Firstly, the School Board exercised stringent cost controls ~ Charles Rennie Mackintosh: Architect and artist ~ on all of it’s buildings. The second reason is that the board had to pay a lot of money for the site of the school because it was situated in a highly sought after industrial area. The site cost £13,500 in 1904, compared to £2,100 and £4,358 for the site of other schools around this time. ~ Charles Rennie Mackintosh and Co. ~. These constraints fundamentally influenced the design of the school and many have asked how Mackintosh’s architecture would have developed without this influence. The final cost of the school was £34,219 which put it £1,519 over the loan that had been given by the Scottish Education Department. When it opened in 1906 the school had 205 boys and 172 girls, the school remained open for more than 70 years until it finally closed it’s doors in 1979 with only 89 pupils still attending the school. In 1990 it became Scotland Street School Museum and until this day continues to educate people on the history of education in Scotland.
The exterior of Scotland Street School is very interesting. As you approach it, the wall at the front makes it clear that this building is rather unique. The large arched entrances and curved fencing are more interesting and artistic than most schools and the way in which the janitor’s house forms part of this wall serves to make it less of a boundary because it gives the impression that you are not entering the school but simply transitioning into the grounds. It maintains the character and presence of a typical Victorian school but at the same time has some rather striking and original features. The main façade consists of a central block with a tower at each end, this is then flanked by two recessed wings. The towers are highly glazed as is the main block which has larger windows than one would expect. The design is completely symmetrical, not including the janitor’s house. At the base of the left tower is the girls entrance and at the base of the right tower is the boys entrance. The infant entrance is located in the centre of the and directly enters the drill hall. At each side of the building there is an arch which leads around the building to the 2 separate playgrounds at the back. The rear elevation of the building is flat and functional with nothing but a few small window details to break it up. The windows at the rear are very large to maximise the sunlight which is used both to light the classrooms and also to limit the amount of heating that would be necessary for the building. The most interesting aspect of the rear elevation is the use of the ’tree of life’ motif and the thistle, used regularly by Mackintosh. This is highlighted in Wendy Kaplan’s book on Mackintosh in which David Brett shows that these motifs are used in a much more complex but equally abstract formation of cubes and triangles. However, even this ornamentation is subtle and does not detract from the overall simplicity of the design.
Robert Macleod says that with Scotland Street School Mackintosh had created a building with the ’spirit of the new’. By this, he means that in the simplicity of his design and limited use of ornamentation he has created a new style separate from that of the past. I think that this phrase sums up exactly what Mackintosh has achieved with this building.
The internal layout of the building is rather straight forward. The rear of the building contains all of the classrooms. This means that all classrooms are south facing maximising heat and sunlight for the pupils. The front of the building is used for vertical circulation and utilities such as toilets, cloakrooms etc. This is a very good way of organising the school as it simplifies the circulation. The classrooms are located along one corridor which divides them from the circulation of the building, this would reduce noise and disturbance in the classrooms. The school has three storeys. The ground floor was used for infants and the top floor used for seniors with the first floor accommodating the middle years.
What struck me most about the interior of Scotland Street School was the visibility throughout the building. From the mezzanine level you can see almost all of the ground floor. I recognised how useful this would be in a school for supervision of the pupils. I noticed that the upper floors had slightly less visibility, this makes sense as these were used by older students who would require less supervision. Mackintosh achieves this visibility by opening up the stairwells to the corridor and drill hall. Another interesting thing which I noticed is that from the stairwell you can see most of the front playgrounds through the vast glazing on the towers. This is partly due to the fact that the floor on the stairwells does not reach the outside of the towers allowing views downwards. Mackintosh struggled to keep this feature, something which the school board did not wish to keep but it is one of the best features of the completed the building and it is very difficult to imagine what kind of atmosphere the school would have if the floor reached the towers.
While Scotland Street School is an interesting and unique building it also borrows a lot from the past in order to function so well as a school. The layout of the School with Classrooms at the back and facilities at the front is not an original concept however due to it’s effectiveness in this school mackintosh effectively showed it to be the best way to organise a school. In the years after the completion of Scotland Street School many architects utilised this layout in their designs for schools. David Walker points this out in his book showing that the schools built by J. H. Langlands and William Lamond at Dens Road and at Whinnybrae in Dundee use exactly the same arrangement, as do John Alexander Carfrae’s schools in Edinburgh. One unique feature of Mackintosh’s design was the amount of glass used. Mackintosh understood the need for light in a school and that sunlight provided the best solution to this. In his use of light he created an atmosphere unlike many schools of the time, instead of being oppressive and cramped his design gave a sense of space and openness whish was rare in Victorian Glasgow. I think that David Walker explained it best when he said the elements that made Mackintosh’s Scotland Street School remarkable were the stepping back of the mezzanines and the mullioned semi cylindrical stair towers. However, I would have to add that Mackintosh’s commitment to producing a perfectly functional building without un-necessary ornamentation is what makes this building so unique. In a way the building works so well because uses pieces from other designs and pulls them all together along with a few new elements to create a building perfectly fitted for it’s use.
In conclusion Mackintosh’s Scotland Street School is a fairly simple concept. It is a school built on a reasonably tight budget with a fairly closed brief. The brilliance of it is that Mackintosh was able to take both of these constraints to their limit in order to create a building whose perfect fitness for purpose and, for its time, ruthless simplicity gives it the spirit of the new.
References:
Charles Rennie Mackintosh,
W. Kaplan, Abbeville Press, London, 1996,
p.115-148
Charles Rennie Mackintosh : Architect and artist,
R. Macleod, Collins, Glasgow, 1983,
p.113-117
Charles Rennie Mackintosh - Synthesis in form,
J. Steele, Academy Editions, London, 1994,
p.139-148
Charles Rennie Mackintosh and Co.,
D. Stark, Stenlake Publishing, Glasgow, 2004,
p.101-107
Scotland Street School was completed in 1906 and was opened on 15th August of that year. The School is located in the south side of Glasgow and upon it’s opening it served to educate the children of the Kingston and Tradeston areas of the city. The population of these areas would have grown around this time due to the flourishing shipbuilding industry by the Clyde. The School was commissioned by the School board of Glasgow and Mackintosh was given a fairly strict brief in terms of what had to be included in the design: separate playgrounds, outside toilets, entrances and staircases for girls, boys and infants; teachers’ rooms on each floor; a drill hall and electric lighting. He had to allow accommodation for 1250 pupils and include a cookery room in his design ~ information gathered from leaflet available at Scotland Street School Museum ~. During the design of the school Mackintosh had a tight budget for several reasons. Firstly, the School Board exercised stringent cost controls ~ Charles Rennie Mackintosh: Architect and artist ~ on all of it’s buildings. The second reason is that the board had to pay a lot of money for the site of the school because it was situated in a highly sought after industrial area. The site cost £13,500 in 1904, compared to £2,100 and £4,358 for the site of other schools around this time. ~ Charles Rennie Mackintosh and Co. ~. These constraints fundamentally influenced the design of the school and many have asked how Mackintosh’s architecture would have developed without this influence. The final cost of the school was £34,219 which put it £1,519 over the loan that had been given by the Scottish Education Department. When it opened in 1906 the school had 205 boys and 172 girls, the school remained open for more than 70 years until it finally closed it’s doors in 1979 with only 89 pupils still attending the school. In 1990 it became Scotland Street School Museum and until this day continues to educate people on the history of education in Scotland.
The exterior of Scotland Street School is very interesting. As you approach it, the wall at the front makes it clear that this building is rather unique. The large arched entrances and curved fencing are more interesting and artistic than most schools and the way in which the janitor’s house forms part of this wall serves to make it less of a boundary because it gives the impression that you are not entering the school but simply transitioning into the grounds. It maintains the character and presence of a typical Victorian school but at the same time has some rather striking and original features. The main façade consists of a central block with a tower at each end, this is then flanked by two recessed wings. The towers are highly glazed as is the main block which has larger windows than one would expect. The design is completely symmetrical, not including the janitor’s house. At the base of the left tower is the girls entrance and at the base of the right tower is the boys entrance. The infant entrance is located in the centre of the and directly enters the drill hall. At each side of the building there is an arch which leads around the building to the 2 separate playgrounds at the back. The rear elevation of the building is flat and functional with nothing but a few small window details to break it up. The windows at the rear are very large to maximise the sunlight which is used both to light the classrooms and also to limit the amount of heating that would be necessary for the building. The most interesting aspect of the rear elevation is the use of the ’tree of life’ motif and the thistle, used regularly by Mackintosh. This is highlighted in Wendy Kaplan’s book on Mackintosh in which David Brett shows that these motifs are used in a much more complex but equally abstract formation of cubes and triangles. However, even this ornamentation is subtle and does not detract from the overall simplicity of the design.
Robert Macleod says that with Scotland Street School Mackintosh had created a building with the ’spirit of the new’. By this, he means that in the simplicity of his design and limited use of ornamentation he has created a new style separate from that of the past. I think that this phrase sums up exactly what Mackintosh has achieved with this building.
The internal layout of the building is rather straight forward. The rear of the building contains all of the classrooms. This means that all classrooms are south facing maximising heat and sunlight for the pupils. The front of the building is used for vertical circulation and utilities such as toilets, cloakrooms etc. This is a very good way of organising the school as it simplifies the circulation. The classrooms are located along one corridor which divides them from the circulation of the building, this would reduce noise and disturbance in the classrooms. The school has three storeys. The ground floor was used for infants and the top floor used for seniors with the first floor accommodating the middle years.
What struck me most about the interior of Scotland Street School was the visibility throughout the building. From the mezzanine level you can see almost all of the ground floor. I recognised how useful this would be in a school for supervision of the pupils. I noticed that the upper floors had slightly less visibility, this makes sense as these were used by older students who would require less supervision. Mackintosh achieves this visibility by opening up the stairwells to the corridor and drill hall. Another interesting thing which I noticed is that from the stairwell you can see most of the front playgrounds through the vast glazing on the towers. This is partly due to the fact that the floor on the stairwells does not reach the outside of the towers allowing views downwards. Mackintosh struggled to keep this feature, something which the school board did not wish to keep but it is one of the best features of the completed the building and it is very difficult to imagine what kind of atmosphere the school would have if the floor reached the towers.
While Scotland Street School is an interesting and unique building it also borrows a lot from the past in order to function so well as a school. The layout of the School with Classrooms at the back and facilities at the front is not an original concept however due to it’s effectiveness in this school mackintosh effectively showed it to be the best way to organise a school. In the years after the completion of Scotland Street School many architects utilised this layout in their designs for schools. David Walker points this out in his book showing that the schools built by J. H. Langlands and William Lamond at Dens Road and at Whinnybrae in Dundee use exactly the same arrangement, as do John Alexander Carfrae’s schools in Edinburgh. One unique feature of Mackintosh’s design was the amount of glass used. Mackintosh understood the need for light in a school and that sunlight provided the best solution to this. In his use of light he created an atmosphere unlike many schools of the time, instead of being oppressive and cramped his design gave a sense of space and openness whish was rare in Victorian Glasgow. I think that David Walker explained it best when he said the elements that made Mackintosh’s Scotland Street School remarkable were the stepping back of the mezzanines and the mullioned semi cylindrical stair towers. However, I would have to add that Mackintosh’s commitment to producing a perfectly functional building without un-necessary ornamentation is what makes this building so unique. In a way the building works so well because uses pieces from other designs and pulls them all together along with a few new elements to create a building perfectly fitted for it’s use.
In conclusion Mackintosh’s Scotland Street School is a fairly simple concept. It is a school built on a reasonably tight budget with a fairly closed brief. The brilliance of it is that Mackintosh was able to take both of these constraints to their limit in order to create a building whose perfect fitness for purpose and, for its time, ruthless simplicity gives it the spirit of the new.
References:
Charles Rennie Mackintosh,
W. Kaplan, Abbeville Press, London, 1996,
p.115-148
Charles Rennie Mackintosh : Architect and artist,
R. Macleod, Collins, Glasgow, 1983,
p.113-117
Charles Rennie Mackintosh - Synthesis in form,
J. Steele, Academy Editions, London, 1994,
p.139-148
Charles Rennie Mackintosh and Co.,
D. Stark, Stenlake Publishing, Glasgow, 2004,
p.101-107
Elements of architecture - What is architecture?
There are many different opinions on what constitutes architecture. Everyone will have a different answer to this complex question. Is architecture confined to building? Is art architecture? Is architecture art? Over the years our opinions towards architecture have changed, for example, the ancient Greeks would have had a different view on architecture from the Victorians. There is no definitive answer to this question but instead a combination of views. Through looking at these different views and opinions on ‘what is architecture?’ we can determine our own opinion.
Some people believe that architecture is solely about performing a function. A school should function as a school and a hospital should function as a hospital. What you must ask yourself is, is that really enough to be architecture. Many buildings perfectly perform their function but does that make them good buildings or great architecture? Or somewhere in-between? Almost all of the greatest architectural thinkers have believed architecture to be more than this. Even Mies van der Rohe who appeared to strictly follow Louis Sullivan’s “form ever follows function” of thinking was in fact searching for more than this. By uniting all building forms he sought to create a universal style, a perfectly formed world Cologne Cathedral where architecture wasn’t a concern, it never caused problems, architecture would serve mankind perfectly, silently and universally. So even Mies wanted to create more than mere buildings, he wanted to create spaces in which a new society could thrive. Sometimes the function of a building is to create more than just a building. Cathedrals are intended to bring people closer to god. The are meant to lift you, they draw your eye upwards with diffused light and bring in the beauty of the world with stained glass, glowing images of utopias. This is the function of the building but it is about far more than creating a volume in which things can happen.
Some people also believe that architecture is about materials. Van der Rohe became an architect who was very particular about his materials. Most noticeably in his Barcelona Pavillion where he used exquisite slabs of marble. It seems the case that most architects believe that architecture is about a lot more than just building, but respecting your materials is a very important aspect of the way in which many architects choose to design. Louis I. Kahn is famous for his use of brickwork. He once said “you have to listen to the material and ask it what it wants, a brick will tell you it wants an arch, you tell it you can use a concrete lintel, the brick will tell you it wants an arch” he refered to this as ‘the nature of the material’. It seems that the relationship between an architect and his material is the same as the between an artist and his medium, regardless of what you wish to produce, you must understand the nature of your medium.
Finally, there are the people who believe architecture is about far more than buildings. Many great architects, especially since the early 20th century, believed that architecture con mean so much more than just buildings to fit purposes. An early example of this would be Le Corbusier. He believed that a building should be a journey. He also created his famous ‘five points of architecture’. This is a perfect example about the shift of thinking in the early 20th century. Corbusier did more than just design buildings, he made theories about them, he created a style and he broke new ground. This daring innovation set the trend for many architects to follow, no longer would they look to the past for inspiration they would try to create something new. After this point architecture could be anything. Architects could write poetry in their buildings. They sought to create emotion, depth and imagery in their buildings in a way that had never been done before.
One architect whose work was vastly beyond mere buildings was Louis I. Kahn who is widely regarded as one of, if not the, most influential American architect in the second half of the 20th century. Not only were his buildings functional and bold but they were unique and era defining. Kahn’s buildings redefined architecture. He took his inspirations from classical ideas of forms and old Scottish castles and created buildings that expressed geometric patterns and light in a completely new way. Kahn said “when you decide on the structure you’re deciding on light”, this was in reference to the way in which classical columns interrupted light. When criticising post-war architecture in America he stated “Classical allusions were there in abundance, classical Principles were almost entirely lacking” showing that many architects never truly understood the idea behind the classical forms, Kahn could be said to be classical in his thinking but revolutionary in his execution of those thoughts. He was an architect that knew about the past, so didn’t have to borrow from it.
Following in the footsteps of Louis Kahn 20 years after his death was Daniel Libeskind. Libeskind’s level of theory behind his buildings is something new to architecture. I wont go into the metaphors of his buildings but it’s fair to say that he is looking at architecture in a way that is entirely new. As the conclusion to his book, Daniel Libeskind wrote “If designed well and right, these seemingly hard and inert structures have the power to illuminate and even to heal. … You have to believe.”. This depth to architecture, this extra level of thought, passion and emotion is something which many modern architects are keen to embrace. One of my favourite comments that I have read by Libeskind is that painters, sculptors and writers can all be pessimists but as an architect you must be an optimist, you must believe that you can make something great. A new generation of architects are now developing with this optimistic view.
Architecture has definitions in every dictionary and many people will try to tell you what it means but in the end you must make your own decision and find what you believe it to be.
Some people believe that architecture is solely about performing a function. A school should function as a school and a hospital should function as a hospital. What you must ask yourself is, is that really enough to be architecture. Many buildings perfectly perform their function but does that make them good buildings or great architecture? Or somewhere in-between? Almost all of the greatest architectural thinkers have believed architecture to be more than this. Even Mies van der Rohe who appeared to strictly follow Louis Sullivan’s “form ever follows function” of thinking was in fact searching for more than this. By uniting all building forms he sought to create a universal style, a perfectly formed world Cologne Cathedral where architecture wasn’t a concern, it never caused problems, architecture would serve mankind perfectly, silently and universally. So even Mies wanted to create more than mere buildings, he wanted to create spaces in which a new society could thrive. Sometimes the function of a building is to create more than just a building. Cathedrals are intended to bring people closer to god. The are meant to lift you, they draw your eye upwards with diffused light and bring in the beauty of the world with stained glass, glowing images of utopias. This is the function of the building but it is about far more than creating a volume in which things can happen.
Some people also believe that architecture is about materials. Van der Rohe became an architect who was very particular about his materials. Most noticeably in his Barcelona Pavillion where he used exquisite slabs of marble. It seems the case that most architects believe that architecture is about a lot more than just building, but respecting your materials is a very important aspect of the way in which many architects choose to design. Louis I. Kahn is famous for his use of brickwork. He once said “you have to listen to the material and ask it what it wants, a brick will tell you it wants an arch, you tell it you can use a concrete lintel, the brick will tell you it wants an arch” he refered to this as ‘the nature of the material’. It seems that the relationship between an architect and his material is the same as the between an artist and his medium, regardless of what you wish to produce, you must understand the nature of your medium.
Finally, there are the people who believe architecture is about far more than buildings. Many great architects, especially since the early 20th century, believed that architecture con mean so much more than just buildings to fit purposes. An early example of this would be Le Corbusier. He believed that a building should be a journey. He also created his famous ‘five points of architecture’. This is a perfect example about the shift of thinking in the early 20th century. Corbusier did more than just design buildings, he made theories about them, he created a style and he broke new ground. This daring innovation set the trend for many architects to follow, no longer would they look to the past for inspiration they would try to create something new. After this point architecture could be anything. Architects could write poetry in their buildings. They sought to create emotion, depth and imagery in their buildings in a way that had never been done before.
One architect whose work was vastly beyond mere buildings was Louis I. Kahn who is widely regarded as one of, if not the, most influential American architect in the second half of the 20th century. Not only were his buildings functional and bold but they were unique and era defining. Kahn’s buildings redefined architecture. He took his inspirations from classical ideas of forms and old Scottish castles and created buildings that expressed geometric patterns and light in a completely new way. Kahn said “when you decide on the structure you’re deciding on light”, this was in reference to the way in which classical columns interrupted light. When criticising post-war architecture in America he stated “Classical allusions were there in abundance, classical Principles were almost entirely lacking” showing that many architects never truly understood the idea behind the classical forms, Kahn could be said to be classical in his thinking but revolutionary in his execution of those thoughts. He was an architect that knew about the past, so didn’t have to borrow from it.
Following in the footsteps of Louis Kahn 20 years after his death was Daniel Libeskind. Libeskind’s level of theory behind his buildings is something new to architecture. I wont go into the metaphors of his buildings but it’s fair to say that he is looking at architecture in a way that is entirely new. As the conclusion to his book, Daniel Libeskind wrote “If designed well and right, these seemingly hard and inert structures have the power to illuminate and even to heal. … You have to believe.”. This depth to architecture, this extra level of thought, passion and emotion is something which many modern architects are keen to embrace. One of my favourite comments that I have read by Libeskind is that painters, sculptors and writers can all be pessimists but as an architect you must be an optimist, you must believe that you can make something great. A new generation of architects are now developing with this optimistic view.
Architecture has definitions in every dictionary and many people will try to tell you what it means but in the end you must make your own decision and find what you believe it to be.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
