40581216

The Musee du Louvre and its Pyramid, and Street Paul’s Tall with the local 30 Street Mary Responsable were the chosen issues by both members of our group. Many of these buildings are iconic building within their towns, and all were designed and built with vastly different contexts and purposes in mind. With this essay we all will compare the different buildings in a manner that will help us be familiar with juxtaposition of old and new structures.

All of us will also research what made the contemporary structures in question change status coming from controversial to widely acknowledged as exceptional and brilliant pieces of buildings. After taking into consideration the different context(s) and style(s) of the building we will show our informed personal opinions based upon our research, to reach a summary in accordance with your research question. Just before we carry out an research we will begin to summarise what has been above mentioned in Patchworks 1 , 2 . The two buildings that you of the associates of the group researched were the Musee ni Louvre plus the Pyramide ni Louvre.

The Musee since it stands at this point, was designed by Pierre Lescot for the King of France (at the time Francis I), though the designed and context in the building was radical and completely out of context with the european style of it is time (THOMPSON, Renaissance Paris, france: Architecture , Growth 1475-1600, p183). The style of architecture which the Louvre is of Renaissance origin, the builder, Pierre Lescot was said to have never frequented Italy, and studied Italian Renaissance buildings only from businesses.

Meaning his point of reference was only those of textbooks, sketches and other can be (HANSER, Buildings of Portugal, 2006, p116). However this does not mean this individual didn’t find a way to create a Renaissance style building, the design and elegance of the Louvre is common of the Renaissance, with the over-ornamentation and comfort, and not ordinary surfaces. These are examples of typical French Renaissance over-decoration (MOORE, Character of Renaissance Structure, 1905, p200). In miscuglio 2 primary was on the Pyramide ni Louvre (a. k. a.

The Louvre Pyramid), the appearance of which was done by I Meters Pei (as part of a commission by the president Francois Mitterrand). The need for a reception/ welcome place for the museum was urgent, although space was scarce. Pei constructed a good idea to go subterranean, topped with a pyramid made of glass and steel. A somewhat major idea when it comes to a great architectural structure would be placed next towards the Renaissance age architecture of the Louvre Museum (PIMLOTT, With out and Within just: Essays about Territory plus the Interior, 3 years ago, p255, HEYER.

American Structures: Ideas and Ideologies back in the Twentieth 100 years, 1993, p275-278). Of course placing pyramid (being a symbol of burial, and of a completely different culture) in front of The Louvre did not get too easily with the community, and many rebuked both Pei and Mitterrand’s intentions. Even so the pyramid was not a direct connotation to Ancient Egypt, but rather a fresh approach to a classical design.

Mitterrand was likewise criticised pertaining to blocking the view outside the window of the traditional buildings by simply putting the pyramid in the midst of the courtyard, but because of semi-transparent characteristics the pyramid juxtaposes The Louvre properly with the distinction of visibility and opaqueness (RUSTOW, ‘Transparent Contradictions’: Pei’s Pyramid on the Louvre, 06\, p6). The two buildings the other part of the group researched were St Paul’s Cathedral created by Christopher Wren, (construction completed in 1677), and 35 St Mary’s Axe designed by Norman Promote and companions, (construction completed in 2003).

Both these buildings were made to replace recently destroyed buildings. St Paul’s was built to replace outdated St Paul’s which was one of the primary buildings in Europe at the time. Most of the building was damaged by the Superb Fire of London and 1668 a Royal Cause was given for the whole demolition of old St Paul’s (GERAGHTY bbc. co. uk). Also in the period of time between 1540 and 1650 the population grew by 5 to 6 fold. (ALLISON , Architects and structures of London, uk page 48) Ken ALLINSON notes, “it is from this background that Wren began creating Saint Pauls cathedral”.

Wren selected white Portland stone which had been utilized to great accomplishment by are usually before him, one example getting Nicholas HAWKSMOOR’s St Mary’s Church (GLANCY- The story of architecture site 84-85). 40 St Mary Axe was created by Grettle Foster and Partners and AUP Technical engineers and was built for the company Switzerland RE. Swiss Re had been working out of any number of buildings in London plus the company was looking to build one building that would exchange all earlier buildings to help unify the organization.

The purpose of this kind of focusing on a single building was “getting visitors to interact, exchange idea’s, become a creative community” in the words of John COOMBER the then CEO of Switzerland Re if they planned to develop 30 St Mary Axe. Many locations were deemed for home but in 1992 a bomb with 100lbs of Semtex destroyed the Baltic Exchange (POWELL, 31 St Mary Axe A tower intended for London, 06\, page 14). This offered the ideal site for 40 St Martha Axe being built. The original plans intended for 30 Saint Mary Responsable were to get a much bigger building than the one finally constructed.

To get planning permission Norman Foster and lovers had to reduce the design. The look was defined by Birmingham advisory committee as being “unduly dominant and assertive simply by reason of its level, form, mass, massing and relationship to nearby large buildings”. (POWELL, 30 Street Mary Responsable A tower system for Greater london, 2006, web page 19) A single comparison to get made among St Paul’s Cathedral as well as the 30 Street Mary Axe, and The Louvre and its Pyramid, is that of circumstance at the time of design and style and construction. The London, uk buildings were both designed and made within the framework of their time.

St Paul’s was designed at the start of an English-Baroque movement (similar to that of other Western movements, yet much more conservative). (WHINNEY, Wren, 1971, p81, GLANCY, The Story of Structure, 2000, p84), It comes after very extraordinaire traits, which usually would have came out on different buildings developed before this. The Tall was built in the circumstance of it is surroundings. The same could also be explained about the 30 St Mary Responsable. It was built in a really modern era where the type of high tech/modern architecture is incredibly common. For that reason relating to the quote in front of you, we believe which the London buildings are grounded in the framework of their natural environment.

On the other hand, this kind of conclusion can not be said intended for The Louvre, and especially designed for The Pyramid. The Musee du Louvre, (at enough time, Palais i Louvre) was built as a one of a kind building, it did not follow a design that was already prominent in Paris, or indeed most parts of Portugal at time of design and construction. We did acknowledge that subsequent completion, The Louvre do fit the design more strongly when the renaissance and extraordinaire movement hidden through France, therefore even more buildings of any similar style/context appeared.

As a result creating significance to the Louvre’s style. As for the Pyramid, although it is an interesting rapport with the older style Louvre, its circumstance is certainly not rooted with all the Louvre. Acquired it been constructed close to l’Arche de la Defense, inside the more professional part of Rome, then yes it would possess context within it’s surrounding(s). This is probably the reason that it induced so much controversy upon completion, and seen as such an misplaced building.

An additional comparison we made is usually that the London properties were accustomed to replace complexes that had been pre-existent and consequently demolished (Old Saint Paul’s by Great Fire of 1666, and The Handmade Exchange by simply an IRA terrorist attack). This means that the context of which the new structures are built after is relevant with their purpose right now. Old Street Paul’s as well as the previous structures before completely always been regarding a religious framework: Roman forehead, Saxon chapel and a Norman church (ALLINSON, Can be and Architecture of Birmingham, 2006, p49).

The Handmade Exchange becoming the predecessor of the Street Mary Axe means that the financial context of the building has remained, staying in the heart of London’s financial region brings this kind of truth home, along with the unison of all five ‘Swiss Re’ buildings into one, again uses the economical context in the building (Swiss Re is known as a major insurance company). The between them as well as the Louvre as well as the Pyramid is the fact both Louvre and Pyramid were intended for purpose but not to replace older buildings.

The Louvre, actually a fortress-turned-palace was removed of its living needs and changed into a art gallery, no building was essential. The Pyramid was designed and built because of a lack of reception and url to all wings of the museum. Both are original builds and thus have created their particular context within their surroundings as opposed to relying on the context of its surroundings to determine the style. To conclude, as a group we believe which the context of the building can be not simply seated in the placing, and building can determine the circumstance of a placing just as much like a setting can easily determine the context of a building.

We were given two examples, one out of London in which the setting offers driven the context, plus the other in Paris where a new style had transformed the circumstance. So to connect with the original quotation by Dalibor Vesely, the relationship between properties and intervening spaces is formal, but where the context is grounded is a chicken-or-egg question, a single will govern the other, but this really is likely to modify based of multiple factors including position and the reason for the building. [Word count with recommendations: 1619] Word count without references: 1512] Bibliography •Renaissance Paris: Buildings and Progress 1475-1600, David THOMPSON, School of A bunch of states Press, La 1984 Extract paraphrased, site 183 •Architecture of Portugal, David A. HANSER, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006 Remove paraphrased, page 116 •Character of Renaissance Architecture, Charles Herbert Moore, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1905 Extract paraphrased, page 200 •Without and Within: Essays about Territory plus the Interior, Draw PIMLOTT, 3 years ago, Episode Publishers.

Extract paraphrased, page 255 •American Structure: Ideas and Ideologies in the Late Twentieth Century, Paul HEYER, 1993, David Wiley and Sons. Extract paraphrased, site 275 – 278 •’Transparent Contradictions’: Pei’s Pyramid at The Louvre, Stephen L. RUSTOW, 2006 Paper given at the Annual Getting together with of the Society of Architectural Historians Draw out paraphrased, web page 6 •30 St Mary Axe A tower for London: Kenneth POWELL, published by Merrell 2006 Web page 13 , 15 •2000+ London: Mike LUBELL, printed by Maconcelli press 08

Page 164 -165 •Article published simply by Dr Anthony GERAGHTY 17-02-2011 http://www. bbc. co. uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/gallery_st_pauls_01. shtml(Referenced within the 19-11-2011) •Margret WHINNEY: Wren, Published simply by Hudson the year of 1971 Page seventy eight , 84 •Christian NORBERG-SCHULZ: Baroque Buildings, published by simply Electra structure, 2000 Site 194 , 195 •Jonathan GLANCY: The storyplot of Buildings, published simply by DK, 2000 Page 84 , eighty five •Ken ALLINSON , Designers and Structures of Greater london, published by Architectural Press, 2008