15 min of Googling revealed existence of whole industry around Calatrava - his 3 offices in Paris, Zurich and Valencia, pilgrimages of architects from all over Europe (at least) coming to see his concrete calculations and the end result, architectural schools writing thesises and PhD's on his bridges and buildings, and simply massive amount of books and sites dedicated to him. He was nominated for Gold Medal-2005 by American Institute of Architects and recieved his award, if I'm not mistaken, yesterday, in Washington, DC.

So, with little that I know, I'm afraid I am not qualified to write all-encompassing essay on Calatrava in your comments, Michael.

After looking at images of his works done 10 and 15 yrs ago (railway stations, bridges, stadiums) and feeling extreme envy to people who can walk by - and through and into- them, I keyworded in Google "maintenance problems Calatrava" and was able to fish out two (2) results. Only.
Here's one, mentioning issue with whiteness that bothers you:

"...While Calatrava's flawless white surfaces invite maintenance problems (graffiti, water stains), the whiteness has a purity and crispness that become all the more striking against the backdrop of blue sky and water"

Now - personal experience.
The most uplifting, closest to religious feeling in my life I, an atheist, had 2.5 years ago, on a brilliant August morning, in Milwaukee, when I walked towards the building on the footbridge of Calatrava's Art Museum.
And later, in that long asymmetric dynamically balanced like ikebana arrangement sculpture gallery at its base, and than on a second floor in expositions' enfilade, with breathtaking views of the lake. Talk about masterful framing... Francis, have you been there?

Those moving "seagull" wings of the brise soleil, with it's shadow and light touching my face as I looked up walking...I understood than how a peasant felt entering medieval cathedral.

As somebody with engineering and design degrees I had a general idea of the structure beneath this miracle; I could even guess who the manufacturer of the mosaic walls is and what technological process was used to achieve the beauty of those polished concrete floors. And it's all such a secondary topics, so irrelevant in light of absolute astonishing beauty, this prayer expressed with architectural and engineering means.

And what was more striking - the building is not tremendous in size, definitely not compartible to Metropolitan Museum, f.ex., or Hermitage. You don't feel like a pigmy next to it, but the opposite - like some kind giant just shared his joy of life with you ant lifted you up, to the clouds.

Now, on a prosaic note - opinions of fellow architects, and I'll keep my opinion of these opinions to myself.

"...One architect who would speak openly about what he sees as Calatrava's limitations was Aaron McDonald of New York City. McDonald dismisses Calatrava as "more of an engineer than an architect," who will be seen less as a pathbreaker than as a brilliant oddity in the vein of Antoni Gaudi, the Barcelona visionary (1852-1926) whose undulating, Art Nouveau buildings had little impact beyond their own time and place.

"I don't use him for inspiration, because there is nothing I can steal from him," says McDonald, who worked under the modernist pioneer Philip Johnson. "Calatrava's buildings are exercises in structural issues. You could chop off pieces of the buildings, and it wouldn't change them. Conceptually, they're a little thin - they're one-liners. Seeing them as skeletons is as good as it gets."

But author and architectural theorist Alexander Tzonis strongly disagrees. Tzonis, who teaches at the University of Technology in Delft, the Netherlands, compares Calatrava to Leonardo da Vinci, the very definition of a Renaissance man, and to Mozart. Like them, he says, Calatrava holds out the vision of better life.

"He is polyphonic," says Tzonis, who has written extensively about Calatrava. "His is the voice of a mathematician, an engineer, a symbol-maker, a sculptor, a painter. His works don't just solve structural problems, but they also pose questions. He is concerned about landscape and neighborhood. And he will be remembered as someone who desperately tried to find meaning in technology. There is the hope that when you look at his work, you will say, 'Let's do things better.' "

More information (and images) you can find here, here, and here

Posted by: Tatyana on February 12, 2005 6:19 PM

""...One architect who would speak openly about what he sees as Calatrava's limitations was Aaron McDonald of New York City. McDonald dismisses Calatrava as "more of an engineer than an architect," who will be seen less as a pathbreaker than as a brilliant oddity in the vein of Antoni Gaudi, the Barcelona visionary (1852-1926) whose undulating, Art Nouveau buildings had little impact beyond their own time and place."

Wow. And being in league with Gaudi is a BAD thing?!?!!?!?! What planet does this guy inhabit? I plan to go to architecture school and if anyone ever mentions my name next to Gaudi's, I might die from joy.

I dislike this building because it towers over all the other buildings in the city. The height and cost of the building screams extremely wealthy people literally looking down upon the rest of us. It's a living manifestation of economic inequality and the supposed superiority of enormous wealth. This is why I object to it. I want New Yorkers to storm it one day the way the French stormed the Bastille, assuming it does get built.

Posted by: lindenen on February 12, 2005 8:34 PM

Coquette: love the new color scheme.

Posted by: Tatyana on February 12, 2005 10:24 PM

Hi Lindened -

Okay, I'll tell you what planet I inhabit. You'll note the quotes around what I said, and no quotes around what I didn't say, which is the Gaudi analogy, so please chill out.

The article referenced was three lines culled together from an hour long discussion I had with the author on the subject of architecture and influence. It wasn't a discussion of whether Calatrava was good or bad, or Gaudi was good or bad, read the quote again. The negative statement I had about Calatrava is that conceptually his work is thin, which is something I stand by.

But the more interesting question for me, and the point I was discussing with the author, is why some architects have followings and some do not. Wright had hundreds of followers and did everything in his power ot make sure of that, even starting his own school. Le Corbusier has imitators to this day. But there are brilliant architects out there -- even mainstream ones -- like Renzo Piano, who are doing sophisticated, beautiful work and do not have a school of imitators. And I was placing Calatrava in the context of those doing strongly individual work but are not apparently pulling others in his direction. That's not necessarily either a good or a bad thing, and furthermore it's too early to really say what kind of impact he'll have.

I was explaining to the author that for me personally, in my own work, I am always more interested in architects that I feel work in a similar vein to me but are different enough that I can learn new things from. That's where the rather facetious quote about "nothing to steal from" comes from.

Posted by: Aaron on February 24, 2005 11:28 AM

Thank you! Chinese Apes.

Posted by: Yellow Monkey on February 28, 2005 5:52 AM

Thank you! Chinese Apes.

Posted by: Yellow Monkey on February 28, 2005 5:52 AM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?