Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris - Literature review Example

Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris (Renzo, Rogers & Franchini) Name: Institution: Identification and selection In the year 1970 there was an international architectural competition which was specifically launched based on the program to build one of the art cultural complex in the city center of Paris and this competition and location of the building was set out by France president Georges Pompidou. The site where this building was to be located was where there was vacant site of the Plateau Beau Bourg which was to be used in construction of a multidisciplinary cultural center. This particular decision gave room for several projects that would now be united in the new center where the main focus was to establish the new reading library within the city center. The competition was chaired by French architect Jean Prouve and the prize winner was selected by Ove Arup and Partner (Ednie‐Brown, Burry and Burrow 2013). The center was named after President Georges Pompidou and the building was in Paris France. The building design was done by Richard Rogers and Renzo Piano. The building is classified as one of the postmodern high tech building in Paris and across the globe. Many have called it an architectural King Kong and some of the critics drolly states that some of the best views of the city normally comes from the rooftop of this structure (Ednie‐Brown, Burry and Burrow 2013). This building is one of the most iconic modern building in the architectural world. This building was built between the year 19970 and 1977 in what was viewed as one of the building which came up during a period considered as radical fashion period. The structural engineer for this building was Arup while the building covered area of a round 5 acres of land. Initially, the building was to be a more than just a museum, rather Renzo and Piano and Richard Rodgers sought to create what is known as iconic cultural center. In the entry of this competition was a simple proposal of a building using one of the pieces of land which was available on site. The structural skeleton itself turns the building inside out with a lot of color coding having different mechanical, structural systems and circulatory among other considerable layout of the building. The building was constructed to host 1000 users at any given time having offices and reading room areas. The structural layout is shown below:- The structural design concept of this building was turned upside down by the designers while exposing the skeleton of the building which are brightly colored with the blue color representing air green for fluids, yellow for electricity cables and the color red for the movement and flow of elevators, stairs and safety. This building influenced many constructions in the early 1980’s. In 1992 there was the reorganization of the building which saw the creation of the cultural department which was specifically responsible for the live performance programs, filming among other activities within the building. There were symposia in the building under the department of culture. The combination of modern art museum and the center for industrial design helps in laying foundations for the architect paving way for modern architect. Romero Castillo (2014) states that the Pompidou’s rises up above the enclaves of the so called Haussmannian surroundings of the 4th Paris arrondissement. The overall outline and the structure attract both lovers and haters in equal measure. The location of the building is the center of discussion as it protrudes out as a standalone monument in Paris. Comparison of different writer’s point of view Rivera Cepeda (2014) in his article states that the main objective of this building was to create a building which appeared to be inside out. This particular design require that the building from the faced in, be uninterrupted by columns, walls, and stairs. This was not an easy task and for the building to meet the required architectural design requirements, then the designers of the building had to think outside the box, they had to be more creative in their design. The building uses a repetitive steel bay system which was repeated more than six times vertically with high floor ceiling heights to help in creating space for the deep beams which it was to take in spanning the entire building width. Throughout the plan implementation, the structural engineer were successful and it gave the building the required shape in the plan. Each of the 13 bays consist of truss which is supported by columns on both sides. In order to stabilize each bay on both sides, the engineers used gerberettes. Gerberettes can be described as cantilevered pivoting beams that allow the tie roads and the columns to share the vertical load in the structure. These are what supports the overall building structure. The figure below shows the Gerberettes:- The figures above indicate with and without gerberettes in the building. Romero Castillo (2014) in his article describes the connection of the components as a rarely seem in the construction industry where there are far reaching fabrication of steel which was used in the construction of the building. They further states that every gerberettes was connected to an outer tension column while the other support steel lattice beam. The stability of the building was achieved by introducing the diagonal bracing in the long facades and by stabilized end frames. The structural engineer further introduced supper structure which consisted of the thirteen bays, six floors high, which was about 16,000 tones high. The two main structural support planes comprises a series of 800 mm in diameter spun steel hollow columns and each supports at least six gerberettes or the brackets. This can be shown in the diagram below:- This was the supper structure which was capable of holding the weight together including the roof of the building. From the discussion of these two authors, each and every person describes the magnificent design of the building structural system in different way. They bring the concept of material used to ensure the stability of the structure in a unique manner, using different verbs but all have one vocal point of the description. They have failed to point out some of the key issues which were not achieved by the structural designers. The main challenge was to give access to all resources produced by the center. The center was to give everyone art of creation. Since 1977, the center has strived to broaden the scope of its audience. The overall structural design with floor area of around 103,305 m2 with super structure 7 levels and infrastructure of level three. The building is 42 m tall. The building length was 166 long with 60 m wide and 50,000 m3 of reinforced concrete. The most magnificent aspect mentioned in all the three articles is the color code used in the building and overall interior design of the building. This can be shown in the diagram below:- Every color code represent specific item. The structural design concept of this building was turned upside down by the designers while exposing the skeleton of the building which are brightly colored with the blue color representing air green for fluids, yellow for electricity cables and the color red for the movement and flow of elevators, stairs and safety. The similarities and differences From the three text, the main differences is the opening introduction of the building where in the first case, it gives detailed account of what transpired before the competition of architectural design could come up. This was a more detailed using unique words to capture the history of the building. The second writer emphasized on the new development and 40 years of the building since its inception. It gives an idea that though the building is old, it still stands out among the modern buildings in Paris and the main objective of the building has been achieved not only through helping the community but through the structure itself. The third author begins of the revolutionary nature of the building and its contribution in the field of architecture. It is the reference point of open thinking but still meets the architectural standards. It argued that the building appear inside out and all the designers can borrow heavily from its design. The major similarities among the three writers concerns the structural design and framework of the buildings. They discussed the building stability and overall structural framework of the building. The concept of color use in the buildings especially the pipes and their functions are similar in both cases. From the discussion of these two authors, each and every person describes the magnificent design of the building structural system in different way. They bring the concept of material used to ensure the stability of the structure in a unique manner, using different verbs but all have one vocal point of the description. However, the third author touched on the interior design of the building and spaciousness which was not discussed by other authors. The building is an icon of architectural achievement of 19th century and still being used as a sample of modern architectural design. Reference Ednie‐Brown, P., Burry, M. and Burrow, A., 2013. The Innovative Imperative: Architectures of Vitality. Architectural Design, 83(1), pp.8-17. Rivera Cepeda, J.R., 2014. Propuesta de centro cultural para el arte en el parque Bicentenario de Quito (Bachelor's thesis, Quito: UCE). Romero Castillo, D.R., 2014. Diseño de un centro de arte contemporáneo para el circuito los Ceibos del distrito Tarqui-3 ubicado en la zona 8 de la ciudad de Guayaquil (Bachelor's thesis, Universidad de Guayaquil Facultad de Arquitectura y Urbanismo). Read More