Hi All,
I’m catching up again, first with Thursday and Friday, then today (Sunday) and finally a quick post about the project. Here goes…
Thursday morning we went to Bonaval Park designed by Alvaro Siza. The park, right next to Siza’s CGAC (the contemporary art museum) is very pretty and features a number of different sections — an open section, a grove of oak trees, the old cemetary and a small formal garden. The museum and park sit on what used to be part of the convent just outside the old city. Siza attempted to keep much of the land as it was, retaining paths, trees, fountains, etc. and only adding a few consistent elements to make it complete (some walls that blend entirely into the old ones, some trees, a couple of doorways).
After our trip to Bonaval Park, we got to see a stone work demonstration and got to try it out for ourselves. I did it too, but the photos of me didn’t come out very well, so I posted ones of my classmates.
Friday morning we toured Peter Eisenman’s Ciy of Culture, which is just south of the main part of town. The City of Culture is somewhat controversial group of buildings that are still under construction. The Wikipedia page is here as a starting place if you want to know more.
Photos from Thursday and Friday are here. Enjoy!
So, for my architect/designer friends, let me add a bit about the City of Culture. In short, I was unimpressed. Eisenman took a plan of the city of Santiago and the curvature of a scallop shell (remember I noted that those are important here) and twisted them around and played with them in Maya and Rhino and ended up with this three dimensional realization of the combination. Fine. But once he has created that concept, he pretty much hands everything else off to the contractor, so the details are completely lacking. The transitions and junctions are bad, the forms are needlessly complex (lacking elegance), the material choices aren’t great (I never could get an answer about why cream-colored metal is used between the stones — that HAD to be a conscious decision at some level, but I have no idea why) and it just lacks the polish and detail of other great architecture.
Also, from a functional perspective, the buildings are huge, costly to run and have not yet found their purposes (the program keeps changing). The access to the site is awkward and only by car (even though it is theoretically within walking distance of the city).
And, finally, the models of the site in the visitor’s center pale in comparison to those at Sagrada Familia (in Barcelona). I mean, to begin with, where is the entourage, people?