Issuu

The role of an arch as an image, as an icon and as a performance in contemporary architecture

by Aleksandra Shymanskaya

IFA TU Berlin Department of Architecture Theory 2024

Declaration that the thesis was completed independently in accordance with Section 60 (8) AllgStuPO: I hereby declare that the thesis submitted is my own, unaided work, completed without any unpermitted external help. Only the sources and resources listed were used.

Berlin, 19.01.2024

Contents Abstract Preface Introduction

Extra Arches and vaults, but not domes Arch as a historically significant form...

Collections

Topology Metropolitan Opera House by Wallace Harrison and Max Abramovitz, 1966 Kimbell Art Museum by Louis Kahn, 1972 Markthal Rotterdam by MVRDV, 2014 Forum Museumsinsel by David Chipperfield Architects, 2016 ORO, Am Tascheles by Herzog de Meuron, 2023 Comparison Categories

Analysis ORO, Am Tacheles vs Bundeskanzleramt vs Arches Boulogne Forum Museumsinsel vs Indian Institute of Management vs Werdermühle Metropolitan Opera House vs Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana Markthal vs Grande Arche vs Gateway Arch The Kimbell Art Museum vs Étienne-Louis Boullée Nationalbibliothek

Conclusion Endnotes Image credits Bibliography 3

Master Thesis by Aleksandra Shymanskaya at the Institute of Architecture of Technical University of Berlin January 2024

Master’s degree in Architecture Typology Department of Architecture Theory In cooperation with:

Abstract This thesis aims to offer the reader a visual and textual introduction to the world of arches(vaults) in contemporary architecture. The project is done in an empirical way and starts from a visually experiential collection of arches, introducing a rich diversity of arched forms in typologies across different time periods, regions, and functional types. The topic for the main work has been narrowed down to the arch as a form beyond its structural significance. It raises questions such as: What are the reasons behind the use of arches in contemporary architecture? How do those reasons affect the architecture of the building, its construction, and its materiality? The thesis examines a hypothesis of a different expression of an arch in contemporary architecture. This project aims to investigate five categories based on the appearance of an arch: arch as a pure archshaped form, arch as an image of materiality, arch as an image of historical significance, arch as an iconic form, and arch as a spatial performance. Exemplary buildings presenting one each of the categories are ORO, Am Tascheles by Herzog de Meuron in Berlin (2024), Metropolitan Opera House by Wallace Harrison and Max Abramovitz in New York (1966), Markthal Rotterdam by MVRDV in Rotterdam (2014), Forum Museumsinsel by David Chipperfield Architects in Berlin (2016) and Kimbell Art Museum by Louis Kahn in Texas (1972), respectively. Five chosen categories and their representative example aim to help understand architecture

and create a starting point for a line of history where buildings with the exact reason for an expression of an arched form are juxtaposed. This type of analysis aims to avoid segregating buildings into particular categories but instead uses categories as an analytical tool to understand deeper the reasons behind formal choices for architects, to notice what stays behind, in between categories, where the meaning and symbolism of arches deviate from classical. The crucial task of that work is to synthesise and harmonise the various codes indicated by the use of arches in chosen examples so the formal language becomes a structured interaction that enables communication and understanding for the one interested. To be more conscious as architects and recipients about the use of arches in shaping the character of buildings and spaces in contemporary architecture, as it is still gaining (remaining) its popularity these days.

First advisor, Professor of Architectural Theory: Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Jörg H. Gleiter

Professor of History of Architecture and Urbanism: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Hermann Schlimme

Second Advisor: Prof. Dr. Rainer Hehl

Co-Advisor: Prof. Dr. Maarten Delbeke, ETH Zürich

Zusammenfassung Ziel dieser Arbeit ist es, dem Leser eine visuelle und textliche Einführung in die Welt der Bögen (Gewölbe) in der zeitgenössischen Architektur zu geben. Das Projekt ist empirisch angelegt und geht von einer visuell erfahrbaren Sammlung von Gewölben aus, die eine reiche Vielfalt von Gewölbeformen in Typologien über verschiedene Zeiträume, Regionen und Funktionstypen hinweg vorstellt. Das Thema der Hauptarbeit wurde auf den Bogen als Form, jenseits seiner strukturellen Bedeutung, eingegrenzt. Es werden Fragen aufgeworfen wie: Welche Gründe stehen hinter dem Einsatz von Bögen in der zeitgenössischen Architektur? Wie beeinflussen diese Gründe die Architektur des Gebäudes, seine Konstruktion und seine Materialeigenschaften? Die Thesis untersucht die Hypothese der verschiedenen Ausdrucksformen eines Bogens in der zeitgenössischen Architektur. Es werden fünf Kategorien untersucht, die sich auf das Erscheinungsbild eines Bogens beziehen: Bögen als reine Bogenform, Bögen als Bild der Materialität, Bögen als Bild der historischen Bedeutung, Bögen als ikonische Form und Bögen als räumliche Leistung. Beispielhafte Bauten, die jeweils eine der Kategorien präsentieren, sind ORO, Am Tascheles von Herzog de Meuron in Berlin (2024), Metropo litan Opera House von Wallace Harrison und Max Abramovitz in New York (1966), Markthal Rotterdam von MVRDV in Rotterdam (2014), Forum Museumsinsel von David Chipperfield Architects

in Berlin (2016) und The Kimbell Art Museum von Louis Kahn in Texas (1972). Die fünf ausgewählten Kategorien und ihr repräsentatives Beispiel sollen zum Verständnis der Architektur beitragen und Ausgangspunkt für einen historischen Zeitstrahl schaffen, in dem Gebäude mit gleichem Grund für den Ausdruck einer Bogenform gegenübergestellt werden. Diese Art der Analyse zielt darauf ab, die Gebäude nicht in bestimmte Kategorien einzuteilen, sondern die Kategorien als Analyseinstrument zu nutzen, um die Gründe für die formalen Entscheidungen der Architekt*innen besser zu verstehen und zu erkennen, was zwischen den Kategorien zurückbleibt und wo die Bedeutung und Symbolik der Bögen von der klassischen Form abweicht. Die entscheidende Aufgabe dieser Arbeit besteht darin, die verschiedenen Codes, die durch die Verwendung von Bögen in ausgewählten Beispielen angedeutet werden, zu synthetisieren und zu harmonisieren. Die Formensprache soll zu einer strukturierten Interaktion werden, welche Kommunikation und Verständnis zwischen I nteressenten ermöglicht. Ziel ist es, dass Architekt*innen und Rezipient*innen bewusster mit der Verwendung von Bögen bei der Gestaltung des Charakters von Gebäuden und Räumen in der zeitgenössischen Architektur umzugehen, da diese heutzutage an Popularität gewinnt.

Preface The topic for a current work is an outcome of personal observation and unresolved questions towards contemporary architecture, its formal language and contained messages. Passing through Weidendammer Brücke in Berlin, I always feel observed, both scared and attracted. It’s a ghost that is more present than anyone else from the neighbours. Big arched eyes are looking at me and seem to be close, when the body of the observer is at least 300 metres away. Architecture has the power to generate emotions. If a building has an image so strong that it is capable of causing interest and fascination, creating an atmosphere or inspiring countless works of art, I believe it can be considered – if not great architecture in the strict sense – at least an outstanding example of figurative art.1 In architecture, archetypal forms may manifest in iconic shapes, structures, or symbols that resonate with people on a subconscious level. These forms often transcend specific cultural contexts and are recognised and appreciated on a more universal level. Architects and designers may intentionally or unintentionally incorporate archetypal forms into their work to evoke certain emotions, convey symbolic meanings, or establish connections with a broader cultural context. As I felt that architecture speaks to me, but I was not sure what it was about, I decided to dive deeper into details and study the reasons and effects of using arches in contemporary architecture. In the ancient world, buildings were not only a backdrop and setting for social interaction but also a form of social language. This language had meaning not just for the professional group who constructed those buildings but for the whole population who experienced them.2

Fig. 1: Forum Museumsinsel by David Chipperfield, a view from Weidendammer bridge

Introduction The arch, an intimate part of the vault, is not only a construction but a compelling form. As soon as the form is so aesthetically convincing, it starts to work on its own. There is immediately a metaphoric dimension in it. The form that fascinates embodies multiple contradictions, like stones that are held together by force of falling apart. Form that has no end and no beginning. On the one hand, it was developed for purely structural purposes and the specificity of building materials. On the other hand, it has a meaning without its structural component, which was a base for the development of that form. Current work is done as empirical qualitative research through experiencing buildings on-site (European examples), through images, selective views presented in publications on chosen examples, as well as interviews with architects. The great emphasis of the work is on visual dissimilarities and commonalities of arches in collected cases. The crucial task of that work is to synthesise and harmonise the various codes indicated by the use of arches in chosen examples so the formal language becomes a structured interaction that enables communication and understanding for the one interested. The work aims to reveal the reasons behind the use of arches in contemporary architecture beyond their origins as significant structural typology. To distinguish categories according to similarities of meanings, making comparisons with visually similar historical examples based on an expression of arches. To learn how to read architectural signs communicated by arches, to look through history, how arches can be read through times and show how the semiotics and perception of arches were interchanging through times, to understand why architects use arches in contemporary architecture and to formulate a new meaning of this form in contemporary architecture. The main part of the work consists of three chapters preceded by the statement on the subject of research work, an overview of the

significance of an arch in architectural history, and its monumentality, visually, emotionally and symbolically outstanding nature. In the first chapter – Collections, I would like to visually introduce you to the world of arches(vaults). Collections were the starting point of approaching such a wide topic of arches in architecture, which is, of course, too big and rather impossible to be fully presented in one work. Collections are created based on the topics of typology, their role in the building, and relevance for a particular architect or culture, based on the references I was able to collect while analysing chosen case studies. This chapter aims to be empirical, “experiential and perceptual” for the reader. To make my research more specific after this step, I decided to concentrate on the examples where the arch or vault has no structural significance. Thus, in the second chapter, Topologies, five chosen examples of buildings from contemporary architecture containing arches are studied in detail and categorised according to the role and topology of an arch. Formal, structural, material, cultural and symbolic aspects have been taken into consideration here. An overview of reasons and visual references was created. In the third chapter, Analysis, chosen examples are extended with more contemporary references, which are assigned to one of five categories by the same expression of the arch or reason behind its use in the building. Several pairs or groups inside categories are then chosen and juxtaposed for closer analysis, making visible connections between examples as well as similarities behind the reasons for using arched forms by architects. The third chapter can be read right after the first, when the reader already possesses a comprehensive knowledge about the architecture of the chosen example. In that case, the second chapter can be used as an additional source of knowledge whenever it is needed while reading the third.

Extra

Arches and vaults, but not domes Arch – a curved symmetrical structure spanning an opening and serving as a support. Vault – an arched structure of stone or concrete forming a ceiling or roof.3 Arches and vaults are closely related in terms of their structural behaviour. A vault is an extension of an arch, where a series of arches are arranged to create a continuous, curving ceiling or roof structure, such as a barrel vault or a ribbed vault. An arch receiving depth becomes a vault. Arches primarily have a two-dimensional curvature. Vaults add an extra dimension, extending the arch’s curvature into a third dimension.4

Fig. 2: Arch as a base for a form

As architecture explicitly functions in a three-dimensional space vault as a special element is more likely to be used than an arch, being also a two-dimensional figure. In that sense, it can be said that the vault becomes first, and the arch is an outcome of the vault. A vault can become an arch being in a section or perceived from one (front, back) perspective. Taking into consideration the similarities and interdependencies of arches and vaults, I let myself collect and analyse both buildings with arches and vaults under one topic of the new role of arches in contemporary architecture. I would also often refer to arches, which predominantly should be read as arches and vaults. The notion of domes, however, would not be expanded in the current work. Arches and vaults are essentially linear structures, transferring loads along a curved path. Domes, on the other hand, involve a more complex three-dimensional geometry and distribute loads radially from the apex to the supporting structure. Domes, while sharing a curvilinear form, serve a different architectural purpose and are not directly connected with arches in a functional, symbolic, or structural sense. That is why I restrict myself from looking at the examples of buildings with domes.

EXTRA

Arch as a historically significant form. Arch as a monumental form. Arch as form that is visually, emotio nally and symbolically in demand Originated from brick, transitioned into stone, construction that extremely probable for the first time appeared over the entrance, these days may be considered a prototype of an arch. The invention and incorporation of arches represent a crucial and transformative moment in the history of architecture. With an ability to distribute and redirect forces, allowing for the creation of larger openings and more expansive interiors, arches acquire an important role in architecture. However, even though originated from structural purpose, from the very beginning, an arch got its aesthetic, cultural, and symbolic dimensions. Architecture uses construction in a narrative, so the first moments when an arch as a form is enough can be seen in ancient times. Already in Ancient Rome, the arch also became a very important decorative and monumental element. Romans, as pragmatic technicians, thought big and had good material practices. Greek, as good philosophers, but less ambitious builders from the Archaic period onward, preferred post-and-beam structures. Because of its stability, the column was also a natural image of individual human endurance in Greek poetry. Greek and Roman geographical conceptions show that the heavens were conceived as a great vault over the earth, supported by column-like mountains at its corners or other places. To the Romans, the form of the vault provided an analogy for the structure of society. But, most of all, the vault was a symbol of the universe. The Roman arch was the foundation of Rome’s architectural mastery, as well as for massive expanse of building projects across the ancient world. Apart from making bigger buildings, longer roads, and better aqueducts, the architecture of Rome was used to communicate the strength and power of the empire. The free-standing arch – a distinctively Roman creation of monumental value. Erected from at least the early second century BC by Roman generals to commemorate their military glory, the

EXTRA

Fig. 3: South-east façade of the Arch of Hadrian, Athens, 131 or 132 AD

triumphal arch under the Empire became associated with the Senate and People as an honorific award to the emperor alone. (Fig. 3) To Hadrian succeeding Trajan. In an arch, the central keystone, which had the greatest stabilising effect, was symbolically the most important. For this reason, keystones on Roman buildings are often decorated. (Fig. 4). Elements of architectural vocabulary that today we take for granted as being monumental’columns, arches, and pediments-and show through their associations’ particular symbolic meanings.5

Fig. 4: Western façade of the triumphal Arch of Titus, Rome, 82 A.D.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the term monumental architecture, which from today’s perspective has a negative connotation, was a synonym for well-designed architecture that was exaggerated in its artistic impact and therefore committed to transcendental ideas.6 The term, borrowed in the 16th century from the Latin monumentum, acquired the meaning “very large” over time, given the above-average size of many buildings that were erected as monuments and memorials. Although often interpreted as synonymous with commemorative structures or buildings of unusually great size, monumental architecture has a much wider range of meanings, including the social ambition of the builder, the political identity of a community, and the sacral identity of a cult. Certain architectural forms, such as an arch, arcade, vault, and in three-dimensional space, a dome, were used to lend authority to monumental structures, partly through their potential to resemble forms from the natural world, either the elemental forms of the universe or more familiar forms such as the human body. There was also the expectation that users would not only use a building for its practical purpose but also respond to it as a work of art or a monument. In the long history of architecture, this quality

EXTRA

of “monumental” has been reserved for sacred and palace buildings or public secular buildings. At the beginning of the 20th century, industrial architecture became a monumental task in the complex context of economic and social upheavals. The buildings of this genre developed into representational and advertising media. Nowadays, more and more examples of residential architecture acquire the possibility to be representative, monumental, to be “arched”. Arches and vaults in architecture are often associated with monu mentality due to their structural significance, historical and cultural associations, aesthetic impact, and symbolism. Their graceful and often symmetrical appearance contributes to a sense of balance and proportion, enhancing the overall visual impact of a structure. On the one hand, to make its mark in history, monumental architecture needed to exhibit grandeur and brilliance that would inspire spectators with awe; on the other hand, there was perceived to be something ‘uncivilised’ about buildings which set out only to impress and which reduced viewers to irrational beings.7 Modern buildings, which, by definition, lacked associations, could, it seemed, only make an impression by being more imposing and on a scale too large to invite direct comparison, but, in that, they ran the risk of appearing inhuman. Modern architects, too, have argued that the association of buildings of vast dimensions with undemocratic governments or imperialistic ideas discredit the ideal of monumentality and should not be a characteristic desirable for buildings in a democratic society. Even though the lack of arches should be logical in classical modern architecture through its rejection of monumentality, several building examples featuring arches can be found in the portfolio of modernist architects. The same architect who had just designed the most obviously modern thing, the New Canaan Glass House, offered an old-fashioned façade that bore the characteristics of an architecture that Rockefeller had wanted to distance himself from at all costs but which Johnson had preferred had already returned from weariness with modernity. Good taste goes hand in hand with seriousness and monumentality. The tasteful choice of materials, the tasteful detailing that takes no risks. And even the breathtaking risk of crowning a skyscraper with a Chippendale top is tasteful.8 You enter the precisely cut building block of the sleeping house and suddenly find yourself in a flat-domed bedchamber (Fig. 5), which brings the presence of the purist modernity that prevails outside into the interior and makes you completely forget it.9 The Brick House was designed by Johnson in conjunction with the Glass House between 1945 and 1948. The Brick House serving as a counterpoint to the transparency of the Glass House is not only striking because of its dwarf proportions but also becomes a piece of anti-modern modernism thanks to the sequence of its segmental arches. (Fig. 6) Johnson, too, has always asserted absolute freedom of choice and has never found it necessary to explain why it is precisely these and not other historical forms to which he orients himself.10

EXTRA

Fig. 5: Philip Johnson, Rockefeller family guest house, first (left) and completed design(right), New York, 1960 Fig. 6: Philip Johnson in the Brick House, 1966

EXTRA

Collections Arches are a fundamental architectural element used throughout history and various architectural styles. The use of arches influences the form, function, and aesthetics of buildings, contributing to their spatial characteristics and symbolic connotations. Arches can define entrances, frame windows, and create covered walkways. Apart from being one of the structural typologies in architecture, the use of arches beyond the structural role has evolved, also leading to the development of new architectural typologies. The rich diversity of arched forms in architectural typologies is observed across dif ferent periods, regions and functional types. The possible sources and outcomes are collected together on the next pages. As the topic of my work states, I decided to concentrate on the examples where the arch or vault has no structural significance and look into the reasons behind the growing as well as remaining popularity of an arch in contemporary architecture. To exclude “structural” as a reason for using arches (vaults) and explore the other possible meanings. Famous contemporary examples featuring the distinctive presence of an arch were collected for visual exploration.

Fig. 7: Visual overview of arches is architectural typologies, part 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

East Gate, Lincoln Castle, restored in 1983 Metz, Place Saint-Louis, 13th century Karl-Marx-Hof by Karl Ehn,Vienna, 1930 Cadence by Alison Brooks, London, 2020 Laherrère Center by CoBe Architecture & Paysage + WEEK, 2023 6. West Beat Amsterdam by Studioninedots, 2023 7. Gare D'Orsay by Victor Laloux, Paris, 1900 8. Milano Centrale railway station by Ulisse Stacchini, 1906 9. AEG turbine factory by Peter Behrens, 1909 10. Hamburger Bahnhof by F. Neuhaus and F. Holz, Berlin, 1846 11. Tianjin West Railway Station by gmp Architekten, 2011 12. BingDing Wood Kiln Factory by AZL Architects, Qiancheng, 2019 13. OFMA by MAPAA, Chile, 2018 14. Pont du Gard, southern France, first century AD 15. Glenfinnan Viaduct by Simpson & Wilson, Scotland, 1897 16. New Aare Bridge by Christ & Gantenbein, 2023 17. Ribbon of Light bridge by Michael Maltzan Architecture, LA, 2022 18. The Arches by The D*Haus Company, London, 2019 19. Tama Art University Library By Toyo Ito & Associates, Hachioji, 2007 20. The Arch of Titus, Rome, 1st-century AD 21. Colosseum, Rome, AD 70–80 22. Taq Kasra or Arch of Ctesiphon, Iraq, 3rd-6th century AD

23. Gateway Arch by Eero Saarinen, St. Louis, 1965 24. Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana by G.Guerrini, E.Lapadula and M. Romano, Rome, 1953 25. Arches Boulogne by Antonini Darmon, FRANCE, 2016 26. ORO, Am Tascheles by Herzog de Meuron, Berlin, 2023 27. View of an antique roman bath by Charles-Louis Clérisseau, 28. Public bathhouse by Ludwig Hoffmann, Berlin, 1902 29. Lindley's Filters by William Lindley, Warsaw, 1886 30. Six Senses by Patricia Urquiola, Palazzo Salviati Cesi Mellini, Rome, 2023 31. Hotel Milla Montis by Peter Pichler Architektur, Maranza, 2020 32. Forum Museumsinsel by David Chipperfield Architects, Berlin, 2016 33. Mosque-Cathedral of Córdoba, 785 34. St. Louis des Invalides Cathedral by L. Bruant, J. Hardouin-Mansart, Paris, 1676 35. Basilica of San Lorenzo by F.Brunelleschi, Michelangelo, Florence, 393 36. St Moritz Church by John Pawson, remodeling, Augsburg, 2013 37. Riola Parish Church by Alvar Aalto, Grizzana Morandi, 1978 38. Avadh Shilpgram by Archohm, Lucknow, India, 2016 39. Arcade by Gijs Van Vaerenbergh Architects, Antwerp, 2019 Fig. 8: Visual overview of arches is architectural typologies, part 2 1.

Palazzo della Ragione, Padua, 1219

2. Friedrichstraßenpassage by Franz Ahrens, Berlin, 1908 3. Galleria Vittorio Emanuele II by Giuseppe Mengoni, Milan, 1877 4. Cleveland Arcade by John Eisenmann, 1966 5. Mall of Berlin, nps tchoban voss GmbH, 2014 6. Fendi store by Curiosity, Tokyo, 2017 7. Pécs' New Market Hall by Allplan Engineering, 2021 8. Ospedale degli Innocenti by Filippo Brunelleschi, Florence 1419 9. Passage to Royal Palace of Madrid, Armory Square, 1735 10. Zwinger by Matthäus Daniel Pöppelmann, Dresden, 1728 11. Metropolitan Opera House by W. Harrison and M. Abramovitz, New York, 1966 12. Ferguson Center for the Arts by Henry N. Cobb, New Port, 2005 13. The Kimbell Art Museum by Louis Kahn, Texas, 1972 14. Cinema De Riom by Tracks Architectes, Riom, 2018 15. The Crystal Palace by Joseph Paxton, London, 1851 16. The Crystal Palace by Ricardo Velázquez Bosco, Madrid, 1887 17. Königliche Gartenakademie, Berlin, 2008 18. Chalet C7 by Max Núñez + Nicolas del Rio, Chile, 2008 19. University Island Design, 2016 20. Souk Mirage Complex by Sou Fujimoto Architects, 2022 21. Sainte-Geneviève Library by Henri Labrouste, Paris, 1838 22. The National Library of France by Jean-Louis Pascal, 1875 23. Tama Art University Library By Toyo Ito & Associates, Hachioji, 2007 24. Winter Park Library & Events Center by Adjaye Associates, 2021 25. Heyuan City Library by C&C Design Co, 2023 26. Passage des Panoramas by Jean-Louis Victor Grisart, Paris, 1800 27. The Spice Bazaar passage, Istanbul, 1660 28. Meyer’s Courtyard, Berlin, 1910 29. Indian Institute of Management by Louis Kahn, Ahmedabad, 1962 30. National Museum of Roman Art by Rafael Moneo, Mérida,1980 31. Aube Wedding Venue by PHTAA Living Design, Thailand, 2019 32. Aircraft hangar at Orly Airport by Eugene Freyssinet, Paris, 1921 33. IKARUS Hangar 7, Salzburg, 2010 34. Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, 1928 35. Cargolifter AG, Wiesbaden, 1996 36. Berliner Bogen by Hadi Teherani, Hamburg, 2001 37. Markthal Rotterdam by MVRDV, 2014 Fig. 9: Visual overview of arches is contemporary architecture, part 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana by G.Guerrini, E.Lapadula and M. Romano, Rome, 1953 Forum Museumsinsel by David Chipperfield Architects, Berlin, 2016 ORO, Am Tascheles by Herzog de Meuron, Berlin, 2023 S.Pellegrino Flagship Factory by BIG, 2017 Tama Art University Library By Toyo Ito & Associates, Hachioji, 2007 The Kimbell Art Museum by Louis Kahn, Texas, 1972

Metropolitan Opera House by W. Harrison and M. Abramovitz, New York, 1966 8. The Factory by Ricardo Bofill, Barcelona, 1973 9. Mosque at the University of Baghdad by W. Gropius & TAC and H. Munir, 1960 10. Winter Park Library & Events Center by Adjaye Associates, 2021 11. Pécs' New Market Hall by Allplan Engineering, 2021 12. BingDing Wood Kiln Factory by AZL Architects, Qiancheng, 2019 13. Werdermühle factory project by Hans Poelzig, Breslau, 1908 14. National Museum of Roman Art by Rafael Moneo, Mérida,1980 15. Indian Institute of Management by Louis Kahn, Ahmedabad, 1962 16. Health Center Hubland by AllesWirdGut, Wurzburg, 2019 17. Tomba Brion by Carlo Scarpa, Altivole, 1978 18. The Chamber Church by Buzz / Büro Ziyu Zhuang, 2021 19. Musée d'arts de Nantes by Stanton Williams, 2017 20. Chandigarh by Le Corbusier, 1951 21. Maritxell Sanctuary by Ricardo Bofill, 1978 22. Liège-Guillemins station by Santiago Calatrava, 2009 23. The Mondadori Editorial Headquarters by architect Oscar Niemeyer, Milan, 1975 24. New Nocia Cathedral by P. L. Nervi, Perth Australia, 1955 Fig. 10: Visual overview of arches is contemporary architecture, part 2 1.

Grande Arche by Johann Otto von Spreckelsen, Paris, 1989 2. Markthal Rotterdam by MVRDV, 2014 3. Gateway Arch by Eero Saarinen, St. Louis, 1965 4. Student housing by Bruther and Baukunst, Paris-Saclay, 2021 5. OLMA by Caruso St John Architects, St. Gallen, 2021 6. Perm Museum XXI by Valerio Olgiati, 2008 7. The Big Bend by Oiio Studio, NY, 2017 8. Sheraton Huzhou Hot Spring Resort by MAD, 2013 9. Arcade by Gijs Van Vaerenbergh Architects, Antwerp, 2019 10. Residential building by Valerio Olgiati, Zug Schleife, 2012 11. Porter House Hotel by Candalepas Associates, Sydney, 2021 12. ’Labels 2’ building by HHF Architects, Berlin, 2022 13. Taichung Metropolitan Opera House by Toyo Ito, 2016 14. Bundeskanzleramt by C. Frank and A. Schultes, Berlin, 1993 15. Vanna Venturi House by R. Venturi, Pennsylvania, U.S, 1964 16. Arches Boulogne by Antonini + Darmon Architectes, Paris, 2016 17. Bezana Cultural Center by CLK Architects, 2020 18. Proposal for Ardia Palace by Valerio Olgiati, 2005 19. Chrysler Building by William Van Alen, NY, 1930 20. Heydar Aliyev Center by Zaha Hadid, Baku, 2007 21. Cinema De Riom by Tracks Architectes, Riom, 2018 22. OFMA by MAPAA, Chile, 2018 23. Hotel Milla Montis by Peter Pichler Architektur, Maranza, 2020 24. Tagh Behesht by RVAD Studio, Mashhad, 2021

Topology

Fig. 11: Chosen examples of contemporary architecture featuring arches for a detailed analysis 26

Making a hypothesis that there are differences in the roles of an arch in contemporary architecture. I would investigate 5 examples of architecture featuring arches: Kimbell Art Museum by Louis Kahn in Texas (1972) Metropolitan Opera House by Wallace Harrison and Max Abramovitz in New York (1966) Markthal Rotterdam by MVRDV in Rotterdam (2014) Forum Museumsinsel by David Chipperfield Architects in Berlin (2016) ORO, Am Tascheles by Herzog de Meuron (2023) By going deeper into understanding chosen buildings, I will map differences in the topology of an arch and both the reason and the outcome of the choice of a particular expression of an arch.

Metropolitan Opera House by Wallace Harrison and Max Abramovitz When the original Metropolitan Opera House built in 1883 on Broadway and 39th Street ceased to perform the desired function due to lack of space and a Slum Clearance plan for the so-called San Juan Hill11 came together, Lincoln Square was established. (Fig.12) A place for a new performing arts complex in New York City was founded between 1959 and 1969. Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts was planned to have ballet and theatre venues with training facilities in drama and music for young professionals. The first site plans and models were developed between 1956 and 1958 by a board of architects, including Sven Markelius, Pietro Belluschi, Alvar Aalto, Philip Johnson, Eero Saarinen, and Max Abramowitz, headed by Wallace K. Harrison. In 1958, the Explo ratory Committee decided that different architects should design the constituent buildings. Wallace K. Harrison, with the Harrison & Abramovitz office, was officially commissioned to design the Metropolitan Opera House building. Not only did Harrison’s extensive work in New York bring him into frequent contact with important figures like Robert Moses or potential clients like John D. Rockefeller III, but it was also known

Fig. 12: Lincoln Center bird’s eye view, 1940 Fig. 13: Scheme for a grand approach to Lincoln Center from Central Park, 1966

TOPOLOGY

Fig. 14: Hopkins Center for the Arts at Dartmouth College, designed by Wallace Harrison, 1962 Fig. 15: Metropolitan Opera Hause, model by W. Harrison, spring 1958 Fig. 16: Metropolitan Opera Hause, model by W. Harrison, autumn 1958

TOPOLOGY

Fig. 17: Metropolitan Opera House with louvered sides, December 1961

that Harrison had been making drawings for a new opera house for over twenty-five years, from the time it had been planned as the focal point of Rockefeller Center.12 The new Metropolitan Opera House was decided to be the focal point of the master plan for the Lincoln Performing Arts Center. It was located on the east side of Amsterdam Avenue between West 62nd Street and West 65th Street, facing the public square in front of Columbus Ave. (Fig.13) Harrison began the design for the Metropolitan Opera House in 1956 with aspirations of evoking the grandeur of traditional opera house in contemporary terms. He was testing some of his most imaginative ideas, dreaming of designing the finest modern opera in the world. He sought of a timeless, enduring quality throughout its potentially long life and a focal point of the Lincoln Center. The design variation visually close to the one finally built appeared in sketches in 1958. When the architect started to work on the Metropolitan Opera House, he was commissioned to design the Hopkins Center, a performing art complex at Dartmouth College. (Fig. 14) He was inspired by Florence’s 14th-century Loggia dei Lanzi and tried to work with an existing context of Dartmouth’s neo-Georgian campus. This led to a design based on a series of arches composed of thin concrete shells. By the spring of 1958, a design featuring variations of arches was used in the Metropolitan Opera House design.13 In October 1959, Harrison presented two designs. The first design made in May 1958 was the barrel-vaulted scheme; the barrel vaults of a

double arcade were exposed, enclosing structurally independent stage and seating. The facade was to have five glazed arches, each more than eight stories high in front; a vaulted ceiling, 228 feet wide (69,5 m) and 225 feet long (68,6 m), hung on a cantilever principle, extended over the lobby and auditorium to meet a fourteen-story stage loft. The north and south sides of the building were to be flanked by recessed lower wings. (Fig. 15) After the call to reduce costs, the second design made in the first part of 1959 enclosed the vaults in a stiff rectangular box. Both designs included the slab-shaped office building for services behind the opera.14 The side arches in the second project were replaced with masonry fins. (Fig. 16) The Rockefeller group went along with the classical design of the second project, which approximates what we see today and is hence less significant in terms of the usage of arches. Despite Harrison’s desire to design one of the most significant opera houses of the postwar years, his work was severely compromised by many individuals and committees in charge of the Lincoln Center project. Moreover, by April 1960, Harrison was once again called upon to modify his design, this time reducing the height and width of the entire buil ding. By June 1961, the Lincoln Center building subcommittee decided to suppress the tower and substitute the arches on the sides. The north, south and west facades are covered by vertical travertine fins at three-feet-four-inch (1m) intervals. The building totals 14 floors: 9 floors above the ground and 5 underground. The final design is a 100 m long, 50 m wide, and 29,2 m height

TOPOLOGY

Fig. 18: Metropolitan Opera House under construction, May 1964 Fig. 19: Longitudinal section of Metropolitan Opera House, indicating vaulted part

TOPOLOGY

Fig. 20: Scheme far Metropolitan Opera House at Lincoln Center, fall 1955 Fig. 21: Bernini’s original plan for St. Peter’s Square, Rome

box-shaped structure with a semi-circular barrel-vaulted roof extending from the front facade over the lobby and auditorium. (Fig. 17) Each of the five arches is 10 m in diameter and stands on double columns. The construction method used to create these arches is reinforced concrete shell construction. The arches were built simply and economically by using a form five times: after the concrete was poured into a form, it was moved back on rails and poured again.15 (Fig. 18) The overall dimensions of the stage space are 90 ft (27 m) deep and 103 ft (31 m) wide, with seating for 3,794 and 245 standing positions on six levels. As it can be clearly seen in the section, vaults cover only the entrance part, working as doors to the world of Opera. (Fig. 19) On the one hand, multiple project changes and funds shortages may negatively affect the strong idea of an architect, weakening the almost archetypal exposition of the barrel vaults of a double arcade. On the other hand, the reduction of

side arches in the second proposal can be seen as a concentration of attention on the only five facade arches, resulting in a cohesive and visually appealing architectural feature of the Opera buil ding. The main facade was made emphasising the importance of the plaza. Arches are no longer visually suggesting to play a structural role but the enhanced role of an image. Another observation that can be made is that the proportions of the building suggest the facade consists of two parts: vertical and arch-shaped, but not five self-supporting arches. Much longer columns make arches more monumental but visually less “believable”. The Metropolitan Opera House building has a lot of positive and critical impressions about how it was designed. After a deeper study of the buil ding design process, one can notice that Harrison’s intentions were more stunning and radical and that the effect is rather reserved. Alternatively, an arch can be described as a good compromise between immersive and classical.

TOPOLOGY

The architect argues his choice of arches by saying, “I like traditional arches...there’s something human about them. I think an opera house should look like an opera house. And the soaring arches, I hope, help”.16 This argument can be read in a way that Harrison found something exceptional in arches, as he was perceiving an opera building as an exceptional type of building, he found the grandiosity he was looking for, like in the best opera houses in Europe, which were the subjects of aspirations for him. Moreover, Wallace Harrison was trained at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts of Paris. He received the Rotch Travelling Scholarship in 1922, a remarkable opportunity to go on a Grand Tour across Europe, allowing him to fulfil his strong desire to spend a period of his life living in Rome, where he studied ruins from Michelangelo’s ama zing masterpieces. To better understand the architect’s intentions (and the reason behind the use of arches), it is worth looking through several of his concepts for the Opera House. The influence of classical and Renaissance architecture for the Metropolitan Opera House project is evident in the use of classical elements such as columns, arches, porticoes and symmetry. A preliminary Wallace K. Harrison design for the Opera House envisioned a building rising around a circular piazza (Fig. 21), which resembles Bernini’s San Pietro design. (Fig. 20) The final version of the square, which is perceived as a fortress-like space elevated from street level, appears as an island of monumental

buildings around the main square. (Fig. 22 )With an arrangement of the buildings and pavement design, Lincoln Center looks similar to Miche langelo’s redesign of Capitoline Square. (Fig. 23) Through comparison of both squares, one can notice that the Metropolitan Opera House is on the Palazzo Senatorio place and is on the main entrance axe. The emphasis on axial alignment contributes to a sense of order and grandeur; likewise are symmetrically placed semi-circular soaring arches. Michelangelo’s redesign of the Capitoline Square in the Renaissance aimed to create a mo numental civic space that would symbolise the authority of the city government. Even though changes in scale and architectural language, I would suggest that the reference to the Piazza del Campidoglio in the design of Lincoln Center is present and reflects a deliberate effort to evoke the timeless qualities of Roman civic architecture and to create a sense of civic pride and cultural heritage in the heart of New York City. Throughout its history, arches have collected several symbolic meanings. In that example, arches can be read as an image of grandeur and elegance associated with opera and classical performance, as well as a gateway to the world of opera. Arches, especially when used in entrances or passageways, can create a ceremonial or monumental effect. The act of passing through an arch can feel like crossing a threshold, emphasising the significance of the space behind.

Fig. 22: Lincoln Center bird’s eye view, New York, 2010 Fig. 23: Piazza del Campidoglio bird’s eye view, Rome, 2014

TOPOLOGY

Kimbell Art Museum by Louis Kahn The formal opening of the Kimbell Art Museum was celebrated on October 4, 1972, eight years after the death of Kay Kimbell, Art collector and founder of the Kimbell Art Foundation, who charged in his will that trustees build a museum of the first class in the city of Fort Worth, Texas. The newly appointed Kimbell Art Museum director Dr. Richard Brown prepared general objectives for a building and specific requirements, and after having interviews with many well-known architects, commissioned the design to Louis Kahn on October 6, 196617. The agreement with L. Kahn was made under the condition that he would work with the local firm, Preston M. Geren, architect and engineer, as associates.18 After the beginning of the work and some difficulties with a local architect, Kahn approached his trusted structural engineer, Dr. August Komendant, to join the project as a consulting engineer. A. Komendant made Kahn’s ideas structurally logical and possible to build. Another important figure was Richard Kelly, who developed the design of the light reflector, making possible the important for an architect topic of light wor king together with the structure. Kahn started the design for the Kimbell in 1967, and during his three-year work on the Kimbell Art Museum, he developed four distinct plans; when finally, a C-shape plan was chosen.

Fig. 24: Areal view during the construction, 1971

TOPOLOGY

Fig. 25: Louis I. Kahn’s Kimbell Art Museum bird’s eye view, Fort Worth, Texas

Fig. 26: First floor plan at the main entrance level: 1. Portico 2. Plaza/entrance court 3 Entrance gallery 4 Stair to lower level 5 Book store and shop 6 Toilet 7 Library 8 Gallery 9. Light courts 10 Upper part of two-story conservator’s studio 11 Auditorium 12 Snack bar 13 Kitchen

TOPOLOGY

The museum is situated on nine and one-half acres on the gentle slope of Amon Carter Square Park, about two miles from downtown Fort Worth. The structure is bounded by Camp Bowie Blvd., Arch Adams St., and West Lancaster Ave. and is part of several cultural institutions in the vicinity. The museum incorporates the site’s slope and has entrances at lower and upper levels. Public access for pedestrians is offered on the west side, at the upper level, whereas the parking lots are located on the east side, at the lower level.19 There are also 2 porticoes from the west side that anchor the building to the existing double row of elm trees, which were an important part of Kahn’s design. In front of each portico is a reflecting pool, which drops its water in a continuous sheet about 70 feet (21 m) long. A double-square overall massing is divided into 3 equal volumes to form a C-shape in plan. (Fig. 24) The final design consists of 16 narrow rectangular vaulted elements, each measuring 104 feet by 23 feet ( 31,7 m x 7m), laid out in three sections, six side by side on the north and the south ends and four in the middle. There is a central axis passing through two water pools, porticos, the front and the rear entrances, the lobby and the stairs, along with the vaults, making the structure symmetrical. (Fig. 26) The permanent collection, an auditorium, a cafe and the galleries occupy the northern part. The central part provides an entrance court, including the main entrance hall, the lobby, a bookstore, the museum shop, and the library. The southern part holds galleries for temporary exhibitions, the reception hall, and a kitchen. A large open block is dedicated to staff facilities, including offices, shops, storage, conservation and photography studios, and workplaces for shipping and receiving on a lower level. After an extended study, the structure of the Kimbell is as impressive as its form. The Kimbell Art Museum’s building structure is characterised by its innovative use of reinforced concrete with imagination and application of high-quality structural knowledge. The roof structure is pushed beyond the conventional knowledge of typical vault structures. The location of skylights at their apex (an opening where the keystone, the main element of an arch structure, is usually placed), the slender columnar supports and the use of concrete reveal that these forms are not true vaults.20 The aerial photograph of 1971 explains the process of vault

Fig. 27: Isometric section showing the structure of the building. From left to right: entry portico, gallery spaces and double-floor auditorium

construction in its various stages. (Fig. 25) It can be seen here that vaults are supported on their curved ends instead of longitudinal, and they behave like a beam instead of a row of arches. Vaults do not start from the ground but are made with the help of a substructure, where the contractor Thomas Byrne suggested re-usable plywood formwork, which made the construction of the cast-in-place possible and significantly sped up the construction process.21 After a closer look, it can be noticed that the structure does not pretend to be an arch or vault but underlines its logic as a beam in detail, like the joint where the roof and corner column meet and a joint where post-tensioning cables are placed. (Fig. 28) As architect Thomas Leslie explains, for architects, Kimbell is the structure of Roman vaults; for structural engineers, it is a series of gull-wing beams. The museum’s vaults are roofed by 23’ x 100’ ( 7 m x 30,5 m) clear-span cycloid shells of post-tensioned reinforced concrete. Each is supported on four 2’ x 2’ ( 0,6 m x 0,6 m) corner columns. The cycloids are basically curved beams when separated by a slit at the apex for galleries, and thin-shell forms completely solid for the porches. (Fig. 27) To conserve the geometry, A. Komendant used post-stressing of the shells with wires that covered the inferior half; in this way, the tensions generated by the shells were cancelled. The glass located between the walls and the cylindrical shells indicates that these walls are non-bearing and that only the pillars support the cycloids.22 (Fig. 29) The concrete used to cover their ends was left visibly distinct on the end arch stiffeners. The gutters bigger than the ones needed for rainwater go deep in a horizontal direction, working as a span beam and taking a horizontal

TOPOLOGY

Fig. 28: Close-up of the portico, joint of the vault and the column

reaction. Those visible structurally conditioned messages suggest that Komendant’s solution is not dishonest but remains a means of possibility for a chosen form. There are vaults outside the enclosed part of the building – porticoes (Fig. 30), which may be read as a presentation of a building’s structure. It would seem that Kahn presented one building module in full view without functional obligations to explain the logic of the entire construction. Even though one can describe porches as indicatives of the entire design, it should be realised that there are two or even three types of structural conditions for the vaults: cycloid shell in porticoes, gull-wing beams with one wing at the long end of the buil ding and gull-wing beams with two wings as the inside structure. (Fig. 33) Vaults covering interior spaces have a longitudinal 2½’ ( 0,76 m) slit at the apex with concrete cross struts every 10’ (3 m), covered by acrylic plexiglass. The lower edges of the shells support 7’ (2,1 m) reinforced concrete channels. Vaults as servant spaces and stripes in-between as served spaces establish a strong spatial composition. Served spaces, such as galleries and public areas, are meant for visitors’ use, while servant spaces, like corridors and utility areas, support the func-

tionality of the museum behind the scenes. The steel soffit between each pair of cycloids contains three ducts that carry conditioned air and electric wires. (Fig. 31) Between the ducts are slits through which the air enters the galleries. Arch-shaped roof modules determine an interior by the placement of light along the top part of the vault and by long vaulted modules that affect the direction of movement, providing it with horizontal character and creating a defined rhythm. Exterior travertine infill walls have a reinforced concrete core between columns. The discussion of natural light in the Kimbell begins with its absence. The cycloid vaults and the lighting reflectors were carefully designed to control the quality and intensity of daylight in the museum. There are four types of natural light in Kimbel: first, the intended absence of light counterbalanced by light reflected from below the porches (Fig. 34); second, the ‘slice of the sun’ that created a line of light admitted from the vault’s apex (Fig. 35), third, the diffuse, silvery, reflected light on the gallery ceilings (Fig. 32), and finally the light that entered the museum horizontally through vertical glazing (Fig. 37). Each of these lights was made possible or deliberately impossible by the solid structure of the concrete

Fig. 29: Structural details of the cycloid shell

TOPOLOGY

Fig. 30: Exterior view of the Kimbell Art Museum showing the building’s modularity, portico and the pool

Fig. 31: Daylighting strategy in the Kimbell Museum through light reflector devices

TOPOLOGY

vaults, with only two openings in the vaulted roof and upper part of the walls. The most important light in the galleries was articulated by upward-curving wings-shaped reflectors inserted in its central spine into the vaults’ skylight slot to bounce as much light as possible.23 In the gallery spaces, the central part of the reflector is solid, while the wing sections to either side are made of perforated aluminium. (Fig. 31) In the spaces where art is not exhibited, the reflectors are perforated through all of the curves. In addition to illuminating artworks indirectly, the Kimbell gallery vaults established a strong, easily understandable system of light and darkness by creating high and low spaces, servant and served spaces, and parallel and perpendicular movements.

Fig. 32: Reflected light on the gallery ceilings

Fig. 33: East-west section of southwest corner showing three types of Kimbell’s vault structure

TOPOLOGY

Fig. 34: View of the portico to express column and beam structure Fig. 35: Kahn in the auditorium on opening clay, 1972, when direct light enters the space Fig. 36: Articulation of the light, glass strite between vaults and non-bearing travertine wall Fig. 37: Kimbell Art Museum’s east entrance on the main floor

TOPOLOGY

Markthal Rotterdam by MVRDV In 2004, the city of Rotterdam initiated a competition inviting property developers to revitalise and to make use of a large square that appeared after relocating the train tracks underground in the late 1990s. To bring vitality back to central Rotterdam, the city unveiled the concept of constructing a market hall. To offset the costs of the market, the developers were encouraged to integrate housing into the project24 – another feature desired by the city to tackle a consequence of Rotterdam’s post-war reconstruction, which had shaped the city centre into a business and retail hub with a limited residential presence.25 Between the competition entry and the building’s opening, a full ten years passed and finally, in 2014, it was finished. (Fig. 38) Several different stories can be found about how the very special arched shape of the building was chosen. From the turned upside-down, as cliché goes, napkin sketch of a U-shaped buil ding26, to the changing regulations on open-air markets during the design process leading to the necessity of having an enclosed structure. Initially conceived as a market flanked by two parallel apartment blocks, the structure morphed into a flattened curved arch whose feet were flared out to accommodate the developer’s desire for additional floor space. Markthal spans about 40 metres in height, extruding to the vault with 70m wide and 120 m long dimensions. The arch made it possible to create more square metres at the top of the building that could be used for more expensive penthouses with larger terraces. Therefore, it appears to be a logical and justified incentive for the developer to offset the additional construction expenses by increasing the total square footage. The two sides of the

TOPOLOGY

Fig. 38: Center of Rotterdam, aerial drone shot Fig. 39: Markthal inside, Rotterdam, 2015

Fig. 40: Palazzo della Ragione, 1219 Fig. 41: Markthalle Hamburg, 1962 Fig. 42: Military Aircraft Hangar, model Fig. 43: Gare-d’Orsay, Paris railway station, 1900

Markthal are occupied by 102 apartments each, of which there are five types with a total of 19 variations in layout. The standard housing units are a mix of rental and units for sale, with an average size of around 75 m2.27 Another distinctive feature of the building is the choice between a 13-m-deep apartment with windows to both the outside and the inside into the market or an apartment with views to the outside only, with floor-to-ceiling windows looking out, providing more natural light. The arch is constructed using a combination of steel and concrete by means of standard tunnel shuttering. On the one hand, the megastructure with seemingly calculated jolie laide proportions evokes many questions and a “never seen such thing before” feeling of weirdness. On the other hand, it formally resembles the origins (Fig. 40) and

accepted features of market hall typology (Fig. 41), as well as going with its proportions in the direction of a classical hangar (Fig. 42 ) or railway station typology. (Fig. 43) Spatially building is an enclosed passage, which can be entered from the main square and led through to the other part of the city. The entrance from the east side has a square and a lot of free space in front, seasonally used for an open-air market, from where most of the photos are done. From this perspective, an arch-shaped portal frame is perceived as a gate, a 2D element during the day. At night, it reveals as a vault-based 3d performance, being presented as colourful digital supergraphics of giant fruits and vegetables likened to poppy Sistine Chapel-style frescoes placed on the inner edge of the vault. (Fig. 39)

TOPOLOGY

Forum Museumsinsel by David Chipperfield Architects The Forum an der Museumsinsel, built in 2016 by David Chipperfield Architects, located on Tucholskystraße 2 in Berlin. The monolithic volume added to an old building grabbed my attention with monumental rows of arched windows opening up to the Spree and the Museum Island. (Fig. 45) From 1810, the area between Ziegelstrasse and the Spree was developed into an important clinic location. The main building of the first Charité University women’s clinic (Institut fur Gebursthilfe), designed by Martin Gropius and Heino Schmieden, was built between 1879 and 1883 in neo-Renaissance style between Ziegelstraße 14–18,

Fig. 44: View of the Ebertsbrücke, 1895 Fig. 45: View of the Ebertsbrücke, 2016

TOPOLOGY

Monbijoustraße, and Tucholskystraße.28 After the Second World War, the main building of the clinic, situated at Tucholskystraße 1, was partially demo lished and disfigured. In 2014, it became a part of a restoration and modernisation project held by David Chipperfield Architects. Initially, the building consisted of a three-storey central structure with two flanking towers and adjacent corner buildings.(Fig. 46) After the destruction of the building, the south facade of the main building (the right tower and the right corner building) was destroyed, leaving a wide gap through to the Spree. Volumetry, materiality and formal choice of the new design resign from avant-garde modernity. It is not forcibly cutting off from the existing original language. On the contrary, it is embedded in the convention of the existing building, in a different language of forms, thus based on consistency with the existing one, not contrast. (Fig. 47)

The architectural renovation strategy was chosen not to repeat the old version of the buil ding but to take into account original construction and interpret it creatively (for example, borrowing the motif of arches), leaving the possibility of recognising newly added elements. However, apart from adding a superstructure to the existing part of the building, a four-level, 20 m long, 30 m wide, 15 m high box-shaped building was built right next to the water. A distinctive feature of which are exclusively arched windows, that change their size depending on the height of the floor. Not only is the building with solely arched openings archetypal and visually appealing (like buildings in ancient Rome), but also arches themselves, with glazing divided by 2 mullions, just like the Diocletian window in Thermae. Those mullions by divisions are additionally enhancing the dimensions of the windows. When arches

Fig. 46: Institut fur Gebursthilfe, main facade by Gropius and Schmieden Fig. 47: Gropius Ensemble renovation strategy, main façade drawing by architects

TOPOLOGY

create a performance outside, inside they are just repeated by interior finish and adapted by the space for every function and every floor, when even the last floor feels like the ground floor, providing delightful contrast because of the same big arched openings. (Fig. 50) It can also be noticed that arches are a common motive for the David Chipperfield Architects practice, the language of an architect especially speaks to the bourgeoisie, by identifying them with the greatness of ancient empires through the use of specific architectural elements like arches. The special representative language of architecture, the choice of materials and the neighbouring location may motivate the choice of an architect. Special attention should be given to the facade of the Forum an der Museumsinsel. As an outside skin, we have a big brick wall with huge

arched openings that seem aesthetically and structurally convincing. The self-supporting brick facade is made by using “der Blockverband” masonry bond, creating a one-brick thick wall and, were openings are placed, a one-and-a-half-brick thick wall. (Fig. 48–49) Der Blockverband bond structure is close to an English masonry bond system but ends with ¾ “dreiquartiere” brick and not with ¼ brick, which is usually called “queens closure”. Discipline is something that creates that bond, and bricklayers play an important role there. Their precision contributes to aesthetics and quality of elevation. Structurally and materially (in terms of material possessions) arch is also in the high logic of the masonry, which is emphasised in that work, giving the building’s architecture a strong character and visual appearance. Brick manifests the arch, like a craftsman manifesting quality for its own sake29.

Fig. 48: Façade detail, selfsupporting brick masonry outer wall Fig. 49: Close-up of the brick structure, indicating the width and structure of the masonry bond

TOPOLOGY

Fig. 50: View from Tucholsky straße, showing changing size of the windows and floors

ORO, Am Tascheles by Herzog de Meuron An urban block framed by Friedrichstrasse, Oranienburger Strasse, Johannisstrasse and Tucholskystrasse, where the new Am Tacheles project is located, has a varied history spanning more than a century. Based on designs from the architect Franz Ahrens, the five-story reinforced concrete structure was constructed between 1907 and 1909, combining both a department store and a shopping arcade, creating what was called Friedrichstraßenpassage.(Fig. 51) Between 1914 and 1928, its ownership and function remain unclear, but after becoming a showroom for the General Electric Company (AEG) in the late 1920s (Fig. 52), it was then taken over by the National Socialists and became the central office for the Schutzstaffel (SS).30 From 1948, the building was used by the GDR as the headquarters for the Free Trade Union Federation. Partially dismantled in the 1980s, it was due to be finally demolished in 1990. At the last moment, a group of artists called the Kunstlerinitiative Tacheles occupied the building, which was subsequently called Art House Tacheles. (Fig. 53) Artists reactivated it until 2012, when further changes of ownership occurred. Artists were evicted, and the development of the new mixed-use project by Swiss architectural firm Herzog de Meuron started.

TOPOLOGY

From the very beginning of the building’s history the motif of arches was strongly present, starting from extensive arcades inside of the Friedrichstraßenpassage going to the arches on the remaining building facade of Art House Tacheles at Oranienburger Straße. The architecture office of the new development decided to use the motif of arches in one of the new buildings. (Fig. 54) Not only use it but also make it the dominant form of the opening in the entire “ORO” building, designed on a trapezoid plan located at Aaron-BernsteinPlatz 1, which is of “arch-based” interest for that work.

ORO is located 500 m from the Forum an der Museumsinsel, described in the previous chapter. At the time of writing this work, so in July 2023, it is already close to being finished and is going to perform residential functions with expectations to be a “new landmark”. The landmark among residential buildings in that area, with its shape and location on the masterplan, as well as in the central district of Berlin. Moreover, it can be noticed that arched windows have less effect on the interior. The north facade, which looks to the Oranienburger Str. affects by the shape the atmosphere inside. (Fig. 56)

Fig. 51: Friedrichstraßenpassage, 1908

Fig. 53: Kunsthaus Tacheles, 1990s

Fig. 52: General Electric Company (AEG), 1927

Fig. 54: Am Tacheles project aerial render H&dM, ORO with arches to the left, Kunsthaus to the right

TOPOLOGY

Fig. 55: Am Tacheles plan development by H&dM

The south and narrow east facades are designed like arched shape loggias, being rectangular windows from the interior. In that example, I found it difficult to name the exact connection to one building or epoch made by the author. Maybe the arched motif was inspired by the only historical building on site – Oranienburger Str. 54, originally Passagekaufhaus, von Franz Ahrens, from September 2023, the new home for Fotografiska, photography museum. According to the Herzog & de Meuron project architect, the development of the Am Tacheles area, even though being done by different authors, carries one common motif for the whole complex. Starting from the FPX building, all of the windows on the ground floor have rounded bottom corners, resembling big flipped arches. (Fig. 58) ORO, JSW, JON, JNO, JOX, JOS, and JSO, buildings with a housing function, were assigned

to different architectural firms so they would speak to a variety of clients. (Fig. 55) ORO, which is of the main interest for my work, was chosen as a less affordable building appealing to wealthy clients. The apartments size starts from 130 m2 and only 3 of which are available for the open market on the official website. More than an image of the history of the site, I see ORO as an image of remarkable housing. Indicating the image of “landmarkable”, and “standing out” architecture that arches create. As happened to the Colosseum once, to become an attractor with the help of architectural design, here we can see the avant-garde image of housing that impresses and confuses by the exclusiveness of architectural means of expression. The design lead of the ORO building, Simon Davis, decided to flip back the ground floor motif or consciously choose arches as a representative language of the facade. (Fig. 58)

TOPOLOGY

Fig. 56: ORO, H&dM render, view from Oranienburger str. Fig. 57: ORO, H&dM render, view from Aaaron Berschtein square Fig. 58: Close-up of the groud floor motif of the Am Tacheles development

TOPOLOGY

Comparison After giving a brief description of each project, which I tried to carry on concentrating on the presence of arches, it is worth juxtaposing five chosen examples to each other to see the differences of the expression of an arch(vault). All of the examples in this work show arches that do not work structurally in a building, but comparing Kimbell Art Museum and Metropolitan Opera House, it can be noticed that Kimbell, all in all, looks possibly structural, even though confusing. The building honours the proportions of an arch and plays with the form within its logic. On the contrary, the Lincoln Center destroys the proportions of an arch, making the ‘legs’ far too long and thin to be true, presenting an arch without connection to its archetype. However, soaring arches appeared in several projects at that time, still being described as “arches”. For example, grounded as modernised. Phillip Johnson’s eclectic arched façades (Fig. 59) are solely concerned with “modernising” the historical formal apparatus. They seriously want to make it plausible that they have gained life, that they are contemporary. 31 Comparing both the Kimbell Art Museum and the Metropo litan Opera House examples, it should be said that each of the two projects was redesigned several times because of budget reductions even though the approach to a reduction was different. Kahn reduced the size but did not touch the shape. In the case of MET vaults, their performative possibilities were reduced together with the size. The design underwent several changes (Fig. 15–17), including the addition of screened walls. While barrel-vaulted roof forms and arches

Fig. 59: Philip Johnson, Nebraska Sheldon Museum, Lincoln, 1962

TOPOLOGY

Fig. 60: ORO facade, showing the location of arched windows in the facade plane. Fig. 61: Forum an der Museumsinsel facade, presenting depth and division of the arched windows.

were removed from the building’s north and south sides, only the arched front façade was retained. It can be argued that vaults were not the main or the most important elements of the Opera House, which is understandable and proves the theory that their function was more of an image referring to a special atmosphere, visual grandeur, and grand face of Columbus Avenue. In the case of Kimbel arches are used as bases, omnipresent in the building. On the contrary, in the Metropolitan Opera House, cohesive visual language ties the different structures together. All other elements of the Kimbel, like light, mecha nical services, room sizes, building height, sequence of spaces, structure, materials, and even exterior spaces, are dependent and adjusted to the

form of the vault. Kahn’s vaults were, at the same time, adapted to the needs of the museum to facilitate spatial, mechanical, and lighting solutions that may not have been possible with a ‘true’ vault. Comparing ORO, Am Tascheles to the Forum an der Museumsinsel, one can notice that arched openings are similar to the one used by Chipperfield in terms of shape and proportions (4,1 m wide x 3 m high). However, there are some significant differences between the use of arches in both projects. In the ORO project, arches are not made out of brick masonry logic (no relieving arch, no lintel), but built from concrete and cut from the face brick instead. Brick is used here as a textile surface, as a decorative element over the concrete. The arched windows are also not recessed

TOPOLOGY

into the facade of the building, as is implied in brick masonry but are located in the same plane as the main facade material. (Fig. 60–61) Arched windows are not divided by mullions, remaining as one glass panel. It can be read as a declaration in the facade that arches here are purely a form choice, diversifying the appearance of housing in Berlin. It is not boring housing. It is definitely something new, which was achieved by using arches beyond construction. The choice of the shape of the windows is non-obvious, while an arch as a window is historically rather linked to public functions like thermal complexes in antiquity or, for example, stock exchange or storage buildings by K.F. Schinkel, but not the housing. А question arises of why the architects use arched openings for housing. As a whole, the new residential building looks like the Colosseum, which was an event venue with a retail function or an unrealised Werdermühle factory building designed by Hans Poelzig. (Fig. 73) In spatial configuration, Kimbell Art Museum and Markthal Rotterdam, even though described with the word arch(es) in several texts, are vaults. Being quite different examples of an expression of an arch(vault), I would like to compare them as the only two case studies that work three-dimensionally. Each of the builds has a passage-like moment, in the case of Kimbel multiplied 16 times, as a module, and in the case of Markthal, as one huge space. In both examples, all other elements of the building are dependent on and adjusted to the form of the vault. However, I would argue that in the case of Kimbell Art Museum, the dependence on the vault is thought through and works “for” the quality of the space, filtering the light, damaging for artworks, creating a sequence of gallery spaces, and organising the movement. Even the structure is made here as an expression of modern engineering, being changed from vault to gull-wing beams, it remains impressive and performative on its own. On the contrary, in the case of Markthal, I would argue that the structure and functions were dominated by the form, sometimes even compromised. For example, the structural decision was common, made by conventional in-situ concrete technique with the help of substructure. Most apartments are one-sided, with the walls changing their angle along the vault’s inner curve. Apartments located in the “keystone” of the vault have dark rooms with only one window on the floor. Therefore, being both vaults, I would see the Kimbell emphasising the importance of the spatial experience and the Markthal pointing to its iconic form, being an example of visually striking, standing-out architecture.

TOPOLOGY

Fig. 62: Exterior view of the Kimbell Art Museum vaults Fig. 63: Exterior view of the Markthal Rotterdam vault

TOPOLOGY

Categories After analysis of five main case studies, I see a possibility to classify them based on the topology (expression) of an arch in the building. Those are: arch as a pure arch-shaped form, arch as an image of materiality, arch as an image of historical significance, arch as an iconic form, arch as a spatial performance. Pure arched form – it is not an arch, but an arch-shaped form, detached from any construction consideration or resemblance even though originally being connected to a particullar building technique and material. ORO, Am Tacheles by Herzog de Meuron is an exemplary building for this category. The facade of the building is made of arch-shaped windows. From a closer perspective, it can be seen that windows have no depth and are almost “drawn” on the facade, being placed on the same plane as the outer facade layer, cut from the facing brick, outside of the masonry logic. Even though the arch is the main and the strongest motif of the ORO building, it remains only an icon of an arch, the arch-shaped form, which is enough to make an impression from the outside. Image of materiality – the arch honours its origins from brick construction, which is shaped with respect to the masonry logic. Forum Museumsinsel by David Chipperfield Architects, even though being a neighbour and having a lot of visual similarities in shape, size, and material with ORO, Am Tascheles by Herzog de Meuron, has one significant difference. In opposition to the ORO, facade of the Forum Museumsinsel is done in the high logic of brick material by using “der Blockverband” masonry bond. Both buildings are structurally made of concrete, but the facade decision is fundamentally different. The materiality of the self-supporting facade is exposed and is a significant part of the expression of arches in the building. Image of historical significance – arches are used to indicate the importance of the building to the city, a sense of pride in cultural heritage, and the wealth of patrons. Metropolitan Opera House is an exemplary building of this ca tegory, where five soaring arches work as a spatial formal element of the whole square, creating a sense of civic pride in the heart of New York City’s world of music, resembling the Capitoline Square in it spacial configuration, pavement composition and facade materials. Arches trace back to the symbolism indicating an entrance, a process of walking through which is becoming important, as something big is happening behind, majestic preface of even more grandeur event

TOPOLOGY

inside. Special language chosen to represent the patron’s status and the timeless qualities of monumental civic space. Iconic form – the arch is the whole building, an icon of its form and the symbol of the city. That category is represented by Markthal in Rotterdam. The arch as a central feature of the building structure, interior and materials were compromised by the choice of an arched form. Arch is becoming an attractor, a visiting card, a part of the city marketing campaign, referring to itself, resembling people its own uniqueness and iconicity. In its arched form, Markthal is presenting a new prototype; the arched shape is spatially merging two conflicting functions, it is working as a catalyst for a new typology, a form that represents the new, uses the potential of an arch even though being reshaped from classical form of an arch. Performance – we may not understand the structure, but the atmosphere is the first and the most important. Arches (vaults) are omnipresent, creating a spatial experience.

Fig. 64: Expression of an arch in chosen examples

Vaults of the Kimbell Art Museum refer to the beginning of architecture while connecting to the present moment through the excellence of modern engineering. Empty porticoes can be interpreted as an offering to think beyond the form or to look for an expression beyond the structural. It is the spiritual essence of the Kimbell Art Museum, the creation of sacredness by the choice of a form. All other elements of the building are dependent and adjusted to the form of the vault, vaults at the same time adapted to the needs of the museum, which may not have been possible with a ‘true’ vault. So it can be said that the performance category means going beyond the classical vault, giving it special features that make it a signature element of the project, an architectural masterpiece.

TOPOLOGY

Analysis

Fig. 64: Expression of an arch in chosen examples 58

The introduced above categories can be extended with more examples based on formal similarities or the similarities behind the reason for using arches. In the current chapter selective examples are chosen, juxtaposed and analysed based on similarities and differences. To make the structure more readable, arguments made by architects/ external critics/ found in books would be aligned to the left and written in italics like this sentence. Arguments made by me would be left as “normal” text in this paper.

ORO, Am Tacheles vs Bundeskanzleramt vs Arches Boulogne In analysing the appearance of arches, ORO, Am Tacheles is an extreme case when arches are reduced to just a form. No arch-related building technique, not even on the facade, like in the case of Forum Museumsinsel. Being connected to an actual arch only material wise, by the use of brick on the facade, arches are just a cut in a facade “textile”, placed into a brick wall without creating voussoirs along intrados, no soldier or two-piece bonded course edge. The cut is done as a “scissors cut from the paper”, leaving pieces of brick in with accidentally curve-shaped edges along the window edge. This shows no structural significance of an arch for the facade structure. Additionally, windows along the narrow facade and courtyard facade are parts of the loggia and doubled as “normal” rectangular windows from the interior side. Windows (sometimes only their outer frames) are just in an arched shape, nevertheless creating such a strong emotional effect, iconic comment. Somehow visually similar to Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana, also in its metaphysical dimension of alien-like beauty. (Fig. 68) Here are two more examples of forms used in contemporary buildings that looks like arches but not arches at all.

ANALYSIS

Fig. 65: ORO, Am Tascheles facade close-up showing archshaped windows, Berlin, 2023 Fig. 66: Lunar window shape, model from competition for Bundeskanzleramt in Berlin, 1993 Fig. 67: Arch-shaped facade panels of social housing by Antonini + Darmon Architectes, Paris, 2016

ANALYSIS

Fig. 68: ORO in building juxtaposed to facade of Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana

Bundeskanzleramt in Berlin, designed by architects Axel Schultes and Charlotte Frank between 1997 and 2001, is also a great example of a purely arch-shaped form. The arch here, being a strong comment on the facade (Fig. 69), is not a window or a part of a functional facade but just a shape, to be precise, not even fully arched, more of a curved one. (Fig. 66) Described by architects as an enormous ‘lunar window’ with a hint of the Far East32, it can be a playful spatial and planning idiom with its roots in Expressio nism. At some point, for its special institutional function, apart from the Far East aesthetics, it may refer to Rome: Their architecture requires no symbolic overlay because it illustrates the essence of building to house the institutions of a democratic state. Amazingly, it is Rome that most resembles Berlin as a seat of government. 33 It can evoke a sense of authority and importance, highlighting the significance of the building as the official seat of the Chancellor of Germany. The arched shape may be a nod to classical architecture, symbolising a connection to timelessness,

balancing within the overall modern and linear design of the Bundeskanzleramt. Arches Boulogne is part of the urban development zone called Seguin Rives de Seine near Paris, which was once home to Renault car factories. The social housing block with 33 apartments was fi nished in 2016 by Antonini + Darmon Architectes. Arched colonnades surround all five facades, giving the building a Classical aesthetic. (Fig. 70) “The arch compositions are a contemporary interpretation of the Classical vocabulary of the former Renault factories, yet this second skin is not just a formal one,” they added. “The arches, in fact, extend around the building, fulfilling different functions, with the accent on accommodation.” 34 Just like in ORO, arches are presented here by curved shapes outside of the structural logic of an arch, not cut in the facade finishing, but constructed of white concrete panels consisting of half an arch + four arches + half an arch module. (Fig. 67) As the arch is cut in the middle, in a keystone moment, it is sure that there is no intention of presenting the arch

ANALYSIS

Fig. 69: South facade of Bundeskanzleramt, Berlin Fig. 70: Arches on all facades of Arches Boulogne

itself, but it is visually appealing characteristic. Even though they are just facade panels without presenting or honouring the logic of an arch, arched shapes create such a strong emotional effect and iconic comment. Arches extend along the building perimeter, making a monumental, representative block out of housing. What makes this example interesting to compare with ORO is its specific function as a social housing. In ORO, the use of arches was based on the desire to create a representative, visually appealing facade for

the special social group, the wealthiest clients, while here, the motif of arches is used for social housing, which can be optimistically interpreted as a highly egalitarian gesture. The other way of reading can suggest that the list of previously representative functions, such as governmental, administrative and cultural buildings, is now extended with housing when the same special/ archetypal/symbolic language appears more often on the facade of the high-end as well as affordable housing.

ANALYSIS

Forum Museumsinsel vs Indian Institute of Management vs Werdermühle The most striking and relevant for the current work feature of Forum Museumsinsel is its archetypal and visually appealing only-arched openings on the facade. They are made as self-supporting brickwork, using “der Blockverband ‘’ masonry bond, creating a onebrick thick wall and at the place of openings one-and-a-half-brick thick wall. The chosen language and materiality of the facade are both giving a strong character and aesthetics to the building. Where are the arches coming from? Is it an outside performance of contemporary architecture, a moment of new encounter with romanity or a historical reference to the Gropius Ensemble and the past appearance of the Ebertbrücke neighbourhood? This building is not at all popular in publications, and the only one mentioning it, which I was able to find was an article with an intriguing title Operation Gelungen (eng. Operation successful) in Bauwelt architectural magazine: This building neither hides its role as a technically sophisticated conference and meeting area, nor does it deny the connection to the 19th-century architecture, which has also been carefully restored. The first sentence remains a mystery for me, as I would never assume that the building is currently an office of Google. The second is interesting. On the one hand, the refurbishment and transformation process are done volumetrically, materially and formally in dialogue with an existing structure. (Fig.47) On the other hand, from the opposite bank of the Spree, the head building looks like a solitary building, with dimensions enhanced by divisions of the overscaled windows. (Fig.45) On the one hand it uses the same materiality as on the exi sting building facade, possibly also referring to the historical background by bringing back the motif of arches, which are still present as arches on the top of the left tower or round-headed windows, which remained only on a central portal of the historical building. This arched motif is enhanced and maximised by using semi-circular arches. Their scale, which is “normally” suitable for arcades on the ground floor, is now duplicated on each floor so that one window of a new part is three times the size of windows of the historical one. Roman bath window organisation of mullions (win-

ANALYSIS

Fig. 71: Forum Museuminsel façade drawing by architects, 2014

Fig. 72: Institute of Management-Ahmedabad by Louis Kahn, facade close-up

Fig. 73: North facade drawing of Werdermühle factory project, 1908

Fig. 74: National Museum of Roman Art by Rafael Moneo, 1980

ANALYSIS

dow division) remains a question for me and can be only interpreted as a connection to representative architecture. (Fig.75) Brick manifests the structure. Was it, as Richard Sennett says in his book “The Craftsman”: “an enduring, basic human impulse, the desire to do a job well for its own sake”, or what is the reason behind such highly qualified brickwork on top of the concrete structure? Here I would like to look at several historical examples that seem visually and material similar and search for the reasons behind the design decisions. Brick arches are used in Louis Kahn’s Indian Institute of Management-Ahmedabad completed in 1974. (Fig.72) Arch is originally in high logic of the mansory. Kahn proves: “I asked the brick what it liked, and the brick said, ‘I like an arch.’ And if you say to brick, ‘Look, arches are expensive, and I can use a concrete lintel over you. What do you think of that, brick?’ brick says, ‘I like an arch.’ ” 35

Poelzig did not randomly insert the arched windows that recur in his work into the load-bearing walls. The curves carved out of the wall structure once again challenge comparison with the principles of Roman architecture.37 A closer look at Poelzig’s curves shows that they correspond to the proportions described by Alberti in his Ten Books on Architecture:

More importantly, Kahn decided to use the cheapest and most readily available indigenous material – brick, which require little maintenance. Keeping in mind the economic and technological constraints and respecting the actualities of Ahmedabad’s local hand-manufactured bricks and labour-intensive construction. Kahn is also incorporating concrete in his work, not hiding it behind the brick but being honest in using the materials. The use of concrete chords increases the structural efficiency of the arch, allowing for longer spans and higher loads. Compared to Forum Museumsinsel, concrete elements here are visible and leave brick the main load-bearing function. Kahn invents new vocabulary that could re-interpret tradition through technological sophistication without creating an outer facade layer, even though, in the case of Forum Museumsinsel, is quite impressive in its technique. Another example of brick semi-circular arches as a main facade motif can be found in several examples of Hans Poelzig architecture between 1900 and 1916. I would like to concentrate on visual similarities of Forum Museuminsel facade to the Werdermühle factory project. (Fig. 73) Poelzig stages the difference between the opposing construction methods on parallel le

vels: the transparent metal framework appears to be suspended from the closed wall core. The orthogonal structuring system of the bay windows stands in sharp contrast to the wall shell, which is characterised by the rounding of the edges and windows. The only structural motif of the solid brick building is semicircular windows in two sizes. A smaller window format marks the position of the vertical access routes, while a larger format serves to illuminate the production rooms.36

For all openings that are spanned by an arch, care should be taken that this arch is not less than half of a circle, more than a seventh of the radius. So the formal decision for a window is in a high logic of building structure and material. Kahn’s and Poelzig’s examples, compared to Chipperfield’s (Fig.71) show that the arch, which historically goes together with brick as a part of the masonry structure, is now being faked on top of the concrete structure, leaving apart the structural role of the brickwork and the arch. Rafael Moneo uses an arch, and more importantly, a brick arch on top of the concrete structure in its National Museum of Roman Art, built in 1980, to present romanity and show the arch in its timeless meaning. (Fig.74) Together with Roman bath windows or at least characteristic division of them can suggest the willingness to take advantage of such a strong representative form. In both cases of ORO building and Forum Museuminsel, located in historical center of Berlin, arches with its representative language of the facade, appealing to elites and can be seen as an image of the bourgeoisie. In that scenario, the arch is taking its historical connotation as a special language and form that can create architecture and parti cular communicate, position, with which people

ANALYSIS

can associate themselves, becoming something like the Berlin Palace being reconstructed in its historical form. The comparison with the original form of the basilica, the Roman market hall, may have formed not only typologically but also functionally for the antique-loving Poelzig the actual reference point. Poelzig’s historical reference can be seen as a transfer of the structure of ancient architecture into a new context. A similar “Roman” trend can also be seen in American industrial architecture in the 19th century, the machine age, and the concept of the cathedral of work. Returning to the notion of the new roles of an arch, the Forum an der Museumsinsel buil ding may show us a mix of an image role and of a performance role. The role of an image as a communicator is shown by dwelling on the structural idea behind the mansory bond and characteristics of the Roman bath complex windows, so it can be viewed as an image of material, image of historical architecture of a place, image of language appealing to bourgeoisie. The role of performance is played mostly outside by the extra facade layer transforming monumentality made by repetition and formal exclusiveness into creative interplay between size of arches and slabs positions, proportions of openings to the solid structure. (Fig. 76) For the solid, self-supporting brick facade, a strongly flamed brick with a colour similar to the material of the 19th century was used. Originally it was even planned to use used stones, but this failed due to their lack of approval.38

Fig. 75: Illustrative drawing of the Roman baths complex, showing Diocletian windows’ division Fig. 76: Forum Museuminsel façade close-up, showing Diocletian-like window form

Unfortunately, my attempts to contact the Forum Museumsinsel team of architects were unsuccessful, so I can not confirm the information from the Bauwelt article. Assuming that it can be true and considering the difficulty of explaining Diocletian-like window form, firstly assigned an Image of the materiality category of the Forum Museumsinsel may intersect with the next Image of historical significance category, which I would try to expand on next.

ANALYSIS

Metropolitan Opera House vs Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana As was already mentioned in the second (Topology) chapter, Piazza del Campidoglio has been a symbol of civic power in Rome, the political and religious centre of the city, whereas Lincoln Center – a symbol of culture, the world of performing arts. Lincoln Center was to be an acropolis for New York; in a secular city, it was to be a shrine for the arts, a testament to man’s capacity to imagine and represent an ideal world of beauty and harmony.39 Moreover, the York State Theatre, also a part of Lincoln Center in its facade, bears a resemblance to the facades of the Esposizione Universale Roma (EUR) district of Rome. Can we assume that Piazza del Campidoglio meets the EUR on the streets of the Upper West Side? Architects of Lincoln Center attempted to cling to their modernist principles while at the same time making a nod toward the tradition of classical architecture. Then, to ground the choice of arches under the Image of historical significance category is worth looking closer to the one of the most significant parts of the EUR district project – Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana. The construction of Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana was initiated in 1935 by Benito Mussolini for the planned 1942 world exhibition and as a symbol of the Fascist regime. The building was originally intended to host the Exhibition of Italian Civilization during the Universal Exposition and later to become a permanent museum of Italian civilisation, however, the World’s fair was cancelled on June 3, 1941, while the building was being finished until 1943. In the imagination of Mussolini, its primary function should have been that of a great display of power, and a political statement of economic independence of Italy. However, this was just a temporary function: the complex was also planned as a triumphal monument to represent the glory of the “Italian Empire” for generations to come. As the American opera depends almost entirely on private donations, it must appeal to its patrons’ vanity and tastes. That means that the architecture, its representative language and grandeur of cultural institutions like Lincoln Center may be associated with wealth and status, both of the institution itself and its patrons. Therefore, compared to Mussolini’s intentions in the case of MET, it is a triumphal monument to represent the glory, status, and power of patrons.(Fig.79)

ANALYSIS

Fig. 77: Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana competition drawing by Ernesto Lapadula, 1939 Fig. 78: Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana modified and built version of the facade, 1953 Fig. 79: Metropolitan Opera House main facade from the square, 1966

ANALYSIS

It actually has an almost container-like character, as if it ultimately didn’t matter at all which kind of exhibition it would be housing. The inside of the building was truly of no importance when related to its powerful image: the facade.40 The examining board chose the project that had been entered by Giovanni Guerrini, Ernesto Lapadula, and Mario Romano, which described a building that was substantially cubic, and had four facades characterised by round arches. At first, there would be 77 arches per facade (11 across and 7 from top to bottom), but these were eventually reduced to 54 (9 across and 6 from top to bottom). This is so only because of those round arches. Its image as a ruin is thus more powerful than its former purpose as a place of entertainment: the “Colosseum” prevails on the “Amphitheatre”. The most important and recognisable part of the Colosseum is now the exterior,i.e. the facade.41 After the reduction, the Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana gets a different appearance, definitely less scary and more visually appealing. I very much appreciate the possibility of having a competition entry placed next to the actual building, as it shows the original intention of the effect only-arched motif should have had on an observer. (Fig. 77–78) It nonetheless maintained the character that was inherent to it from the start: that

is, its grandiose solemnity, the clear expression of romanity. To emphasise the existing connection to romanity, it is worth mentioning that Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana has its second name – the Square Colosseum. How can the same name be used to refer to an amphitheatre, that is, construction shaped like a doughnut, and a building that is cube-shaped? In “Square Colosseum” arches are used as only one motif, becoming the most important. The form has such visually strong connotations that even starts to work on its own. “The round arch is used here as an element that is typical of Italian Civilization. And to further assert this eternal significance of the arch, we have left it so that it is purely constructive, with no accentuation that might recall a particular era or style; it was repeated on all the facades with rhythmical insistence, the idea being that it is a statement of eternal essentialness.” 42 I found a description “purely constructive, with no accentuation that might recall a particular era or style” a bit confusing as arches in Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana have no structural purpose. I would change constructive to figurative / representative as it communicates a strong symbolic meaning. Looking at the MET and the Lincoln Center as a whole can be said that the inside of the building is detached from the function inside; it has its own significance. (Fig.80) A sign of an entrance,

Fig. 80: An early Wallace K. Harrison design for the new opera house at Lincoln Center, 1956 Fig. 81: Metropolitan Opera House inside during Opening Night, 1966

ANALYSIS

Fig. 82: Side facade of MET cladded with travertive Fig. 83: Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana, close-up showing materiality of the facade Fig. 84: Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana, reinforced concrete covered with travertine, explanatory axonometry

ANALYSIS

Fig. 85: Walter Gropius & TAC and Hisham Munir, Second design of the mosque at the University of Baghdad, 1960 Fig. 86: The Factory by Ricardo Bofill, 1973 Fig. 87: Metropolitan Opera House, 1966, facade at night

ANALYSIS

constructing the indexicality of something big happening behind. (Fig.81) Another aspect worth mentioning comparing those two buildings is construction and materiality. The building’s arches are not meant to be structural, nor do they simulate structure; the fact that they aren’t so is clear for all to see. If that had been the case, it would have been impossible to not imagine the building collapsing like a house of cards.43 The aim of the autarchic economy in the building sector in the country, which began to develop in 1936 after the economic sanctions against Italy, consisted of the utmost exploitation of the country’s resources and the reduction to a mini mum of trade with the rest of the world. Being more pragmatic and disposing of fewer economic resources, fascism accepted the “compromise” between stone to ennoble the facade and concrete, chosen because it was less expensive and required less time, as well as because of its “performance” from a structural standpoint.44 Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana building technique is a load-bearing reinforced concrete framework and representative classical-style travertine facade. (Fig.84) A choice that was, on the one hand, meant to recall the values of Romanitas that inspired the regime and, on the other, to cele brate autarchy. While both travertine and marble are high-quality natural stones, there can be cost differences between the two. The availability of locally sourced travertine may have influenced the decision. Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana draws inspiration from classical Roman architecture, and the use of travertine aligns with this aesthetic choice. The Metropolitan Opera House is also cladded in travertine. It may seem to hark back to a stone past, instead hiding its modern soul, where reinforced concrete already speaks the language of the future. By incorporating travertine, Lincoln Center pays homage to the rich cultural and archi tectural heritage of classical civilizations. This way travertine works as an image of historical

significance, additionally representing the status and power of patrons, creating a ceremonial or monumental effect. The base for comparison of the Metropolitan Opera House and Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana can be found in materials, urban structure, comments or sources of inspiration for an architect. Another examples, which I found interesting to collate, is based exclusively on formal parameters of arches, the visual appearance of so-called soaring arches. The proportions of the arches in the Metropolitan Opera House are similar to the one used in a design of the University of Baghdad done in 1960 by Walter Gropius, The Architects Collaborative, and Hisham Munir. The reason for the use of arches in this project was to give the traditional mosque a new form. (Fig.84) Transformed in 1973 by Ricardo Bofill, a di sused cement factory in Barcelona into his studio, La Fàbrica also has a visually similar motif. The postmodern and eclectic style of Bofil enabled the incorporation of arched motifs and the creation of La Catedral space in the middle (The Cathedral) with Giorgio de Chirico-esque arched openings. In both cases, it can be noticed that arches do not even visually try to pretend to perform a structural function, left purely as an image, as a connector to historical motifs, creating a particular impression. What do we see juxtaposing those examples? Does that mean that the arch as a form goes through different epochs across periods or maybe architects were using the same sources of inspiration? It is a very intriguing but difficult question. The lack of arches can be experienced in classic modern architecture, as it was a moment of rejecting monumentality. From early modernism (the 1920s), arches were meant to be reserved for technical architecture, for spanning purposes. At the same time, if Bofil’s choice can be described as the comeback of arches within postmodernism, the other examples, especially modern ones and Roman ones, must have different reasons for arched forms.

ANALYSIS

Markthal vs Grande Arche vs Gateway Arch The bulky shape of the arch, which is a result of constraints imposed by its financing and construction, was discussed by some critics as much as its iconic qualities and its supposedly monotonous conceptual clarity, both recurring remarks about MVRDV’s work. Winy Maas, one of the founders of MVRDV, on the contrary, sees the arch as a container for ambiguity and multiple layers of interpretation.45 An attempt to reveal those layers is of interest for the current chapter. One of such layers, oriented towards the new role and importance of an arch (vault, arched-shape structure), which is a topic for that work, is the catalyst role of an arch. The arch shape of the building makes two conflicting functions work together, presenting a model of change and working as a catalyst, merging the private housing and public market that historically were separated. For Maas, his building does exactly what it says on the tin – communicating its functions directly to a viewer who doesn’t need to be sophisticated to understand it. It is unashamedly populist without becoming decadent or elitist.46 If populist does not mean literal in its idea, then I can not agree with an architect on that point. Markthal is big and monumental, visible from far away and striking in its form and design of the inner side of the vault. However, it is not ordinary, but rather new or alien. If it then communicates its function to the viewer, becomes a question. Personally, I see only the night moment as a “communicating directly” feature of the building. When the huge concrete flattened curved arch perforated with windows disappears at night, leaving only shiny overscaled fruits and vegetables flying above the city. (Fig. 91) The inner side of an arch becomes the only one visible in the darkness and is important offering an experience going through it. Sistine Chapel-like printed artwork works as a provocation to enter. (Fig. 92) Placed in an urban context Markthal becomes oriented to the central square, getting a large foreground for visual interaction of the viewers. Almost like an open-air cinema, it attracts people by its vaulted screen. Entering from the city’s main square becomes

ANALYSIS

Fig. 88: Markthal view from the Rotterdam main square, 2014 Fig. 89: La Grande Arche view from the La Défense main square, 1989 Fig. 90: Gateway Arch, St. Louis, view from the river front, 1965

ANALYSIS

important, and a space for Markthal to communicate is created. However, for me, huge abstract pictures of flowers and fruits allure more than communicate the function. The architect of the Building, Jacob van Rijs says: “The arch is of course a classic symbol in architecture, but there are not that many ‘inhabited arches’, maybe the Grande Arche in Paris is the most well-known, but that is a square arch. By making an arch, we could create a much higher indoor space that is more pleasant and attractive for the market. So, to seduce the visitors to come inside it had to be something special.” 47 As was discussed before the arch became a very convincing form through history, incorporating several symbolic meanings as well as characteristics. One of the strongest, the most common, is monumentality. Markthal is definitely a monumental building, blowing up a scale, creating estrangement.(Fig. 88) What a historical overview/comparison can tell us about scaled up monumental arch-shaped buildings? Since the 1950s, the so-called La Défense 4 district has appeared as an area awaiting the development of a modern office district. In 1982 the competition was launched, and in April 1983 the Grande Arche de la Défense project by the Danish architect Johan Otto von Sprekelsen was chosen. (Fig. 89) A late-20th-century version of the Arc de Triomphe which actually has the shape of a cube with a width, height, and depth of 110 m. The square design of the Grande Arche symbolises modernity. It contrasts with the traditional arch structures, reflecting the values of liberty, equality, and fraternity. “Arc de Triomphe” is now a monument to humanity and humanitarian ideals, rather than military victories. This is a moment where the arch monument is taking an alternative, even polar, square shape (as Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana becomes Square Colosseum) as well as changing its symbolic meaning. The free-standing arch – a distinctively Roman creation of monumental value, erected to commemorate generals’ military glory or later as an honorific award to the emperor alone is now used for honouring the bicentennial of the French Revolution.

Its monumental silhouette finally stands out, in the middle of the towers, like a large window onto the sky. The President of the Republic said that it is remarkable for its purity, for the force with which it sets a new milestone on the historic axis of Paris and for its openness.48 It symbolically marks the perspective, the triumphal axis to the West, while allowing the gaze to pass through. The “dimensions” of the new monument are multiple. Politically, the President of the Republic wanted to build a building, recognized nationally and internationally, thus strongly mar king his seven-year term; architecturally, because it was appropriate to complete the historic axis; culturally, the La Défense business district provided itself with the animation necessary for its prestige. In the case of Grande Arche the shape has changed, as well as symbolic connotations; only the name is left. MVRDV’s building remains a curved form, merges the function of inhabiting people and being an icon as the Grand Arch in Paris. The shape of Markthal’s arch was thus not so strongly compromised by the “inhabiting” function. Moreover, it is rather the structure, interior and materials were compromised by the choice of an arched form. It is not honouring any important person or historical event, if any symbolism is hidden there it would be – the city of Rotterdam, becoming an attractor to tourists, referring to itself, resembles its own uniqueness. As was already mentioned in the description of Palazzo della Civilta Italiana, the outright intention of the Expo 1942 (E42) was to demonstrate Italy’s cultural supremacy in the past, present and future to the world. However, apart from the “Square Colosseum” the other aspect of that project is worth mentioning. To be precise – an unrealised project of the Monumental Arch, one of the entrances to the EUR (Universal Exhibition in Rome), is called the most spectacular image of visionary modernism. (Fig. 93) The entire EUR project was based on the system of the cardo and decumanus maximus: the cardo was via Imperiale, connecting Rome to the sea. At the end of the street The Sea Gate was planned – a monumental arch crossing Via Imperiale to the south. Two groups offered elaborated plans and specifications for a proposed arch. The first proposal submitted in 1937 by the engineers

ANALYSIS

Fig. 91: The Sistine Chapel of Rotterdam, 2015 Fig. 92: The Sistine Chapel in the Apostolic Palace in Vatican City, 1483

ANALYSIS

Cirella and Covre and architects Ortensi and Pascoletti was rejected due to the anti-autarchic cha racter of their proposal. The spectacular structure, a 600-meter span arch – had to be made entirely of steel, which was against the sanctions situation and political direction of Mussolini towards the “produced within Italy” approach. On the contrary, the second proposal submitted in March 1938 by Libera and the engineer Di Berardino was autarchic: it included a smaller arch envisioned to be built in concrete and without steel. Materials made a difference.49 However, technical problems were not solved by the time the war came to Italy and Rome. In the 1950s, the idea was set aside for other building priorities. It may be Rome’s most important building, that is, among those that were never constructed. “It would have become the symbol of modern Rome.” 50 Mussolini was infatuated with the E42 project and, especially, with the arch. From the beginning, he saw it as “The Arch of the Empire” and desperately wanted it to be built. (Fig. 94) Today we can still enjoy the appearance of the Monumental Arch, but it is a bit overseas. It seems likely that architect Eero Saarinen got the idea from posters, designs and publicity for E42.

The 630-foot tall Gateway Arch (Fig. 90), which is uncomfortably similar to the Monumental Arch in the EUR district, is situated on the west bank of the Mississippi River, and symbolises St. Louis’ historic role as the “Gateway to the West.” The construction process on Saarinen’s stainless steel arch was between 1963 and 1965 leading to the Gateway Arch standing as a symbol of national identity and an iconic example of mid-century modern design. The great world fairs of the past had been represented by, and left behind, iconic constructions: London’s Crystal Palace from the 1851 fair, Paris’s Eiffel Tower from 1889 and, it was expected, Rome’s triumphal “Arch of the Empire”, a gateway to Rome”, from 1942.51 Even though three of the examples are mo numental. Taking into account the intentions of Mussolini I see Gateway Arch leaving behind the willingness to be a monumental display of power and a glorification of the “Empire”. Markthal goes a step further, leaving behind any political connotations, or national ideas, presenting more of a way of living. At that point Winny Maas’s description of Markthal as “unashamedly populist without becoming decadent or elitist” can be interpreted as presenting “ordinary” people, not authority, what

Fig. 93: Via dell’Impero, 1938 illustration Fig. 94: Ludovico Quaroni’s 1937 poster for E42, the monumental arch which was to be built for the Expo 1942

ANALYSIS

on another layer clashes with the fact of limited affordability of “populist” Markthal, both in costs of housing or market hall goods. Both of those two buildings (the Monumental Arch and the Gateway Arch) formally as well as with the storyline about the intention of Expos, creating a symbol of the city, can be an inspiration or a starting point for the MVRDV’s idea for Markthal. The last example, however, does not want to be a pure symbol, but becomes an actual “building” with an everyday function and strong iconicity of its distorted, special shape of an arch. Main events happening in Rotterdam often take place on the square in front of the Markthal. Most people in Rotterdam are fond of it… “only in Rotterdam” they say. The building became part of a city marketing campaign. Doubling the amount of tourists coming to Rotterdam.52 The building itself, its function and the iconic arched shape then became a symbol for Rotterdam. Not only using the existing symbolism of an arch but going beyond it, creating a performance out of the previously accepted shape of an arch. I see it as both an outcome as well as an intention. A distorted shape as an outcome of an attempt to create a housing inside as well as a shape itself as an intention to disturb, bother, at the end aiming to attract the viewer. “Intriguing contradiction”, says Winy Maas. Compared to the elegantly shaped form of Gateway Arch, the iconicity of Markthal is mixed with a provocation about scale, contextuality, food culture and how we live. Thus for Illinois, the shape is not only iconic but also exceptional, whereas in Rotterdam it is “one of“ unusual shapes. “It is a very strange city. It is contextual in another way. In Rotterdam you can only connect through diversity.”53

ANALYSIS

Kimbell Art Museum vs Étienne-Louis Boullée Nationalbibliothek Taking into account Kahn’s soleness and influence in architectural discourse it is quite hard to find examples that have the same reason behind the use of the form (in this case, vault) or atmosphere-wise comparable to Kahn. Kahn was known to be fascinated by a particular study of Palladio. In a personal notebook from the time, Kahn recorded his thoughts on rooms defined by structural bays, which he referred to as the “Palladian Plan”. The influence of Palladio on Kahn can also be traced through the continuity of classical traditions in architectural discourse, often employing monumental forms. Palladio realised that there was more to ancient architecture than an abstract set of mathematical rules available in one text made by Vitruvius. Since the Renaissance, classical architects have been intent on imitating antiquity. But their knowledge of it was chiefly drawn from the one text available to them, the treatise of Vitruvius, who reduced architectural design to the rule of the orders. Only a few discerning spirits, in particular Palladio, realised that there was more to ancient architecture than an abstract set of mathematical rules and made their way towards a more exact and thOROugh knowledge of it.54 Later designs of French visionary architect Étienne-Louis Boullée by their rediscovery of the natural sources of architecture, also gave a new meaning to the exploration of antiquity. Boullée reproached the Greeks for failing to “stamp their works with a character of their own”. According to him only the Romans had succeeded in adapting architectural form to the underlying symbolic function. We are beginning to realise that the monuments of the ancients were in a much grander, much more imposing style than anything that has been done since. Though the Romans confined themselves to following the five orders, they varied them endlessly and they were more attached to the principles.55 The vault is the primordial image that Kahn treasures above all. The architect states:

ANALYSIS

My mind is full of Roman greatness and the vault so etched itself in my mind that, though I cannot employ it, it’s there always ready. And the vault seems to be the best.56 Looking into the sources of Kahn’s inspiration in classical traditions, as well as his desire to create ageless compositions, and achieve the feeling of timelessness in his architecture, I was able to find one example which may serve as an inspiration for the Kimbell Art Museum and tried to look for a reason behind the use of vault in Étienne-Louis Boullée Nationalbibliothek. In the mid-1780 a mature Etienne-Louis Boullée was commissioned to redesign the royal library of the French monarchy located in the Rue de Richelieu. The best-known drawing Boullée produced for this project is a single-point perspective depicting the library’s reading room.

(Fig. 96) Boullée has succeeded here in inserting an iteration of his ideal conception of space into the normally disordered and constrained reality of Paris, an achievement that would probably have led visitors to forget the complexity of their urban surroundings and to enjoy the grandeur of this self-contained interior, thus loosening their sense of location within geographical space and historical time. In the case of Kimbel, the surrounding trees and shrubs created a living wall that effectively filtered both the intense sunlight and traffic noise of Fort Worth. The landscaping and architecture merged and reinforced the feeling of a completely autonomous environment, detached from the cares of the outside world. (Fig. 25) Both the Kimbell Art Museum and the Boullée’s Nationalbibliothek are strongly oriented to the use of natural light. As both functions of the library

Fig. 95: Light reflection in the Kimbell art museum, interior before collection was installed, 1972 Fig. 96: Étienne-Louis Boullée, perspective view of the Bibliothèque du Roi reading room, 1785

ANALYSIS

and art gallery need to be protected from direct light, the top lighting strategy aimed to provide a diffused and even illuminating light throughout the central space. For Kahn, the aim was the creation of silence and the elimination of interruptions. In the case of Kimbell the answer to the well-known and important question for Kahn of “What does the museum want to be?” was silence and the quality of light.57 Light for Kahn was a “giver of the present”, which made exhibits perceptional. However, in the case of gallery function extreme care should be given to the light, with particular attention to the harmful effects of direct sunlight on the art objects, or shadows that may grab attention or raise questions. Simplicity, clarity, and exquisite elaboration were required and the gently curved shape of the vaults, along with their orientation and arrangement, helped to scatter and soften incoming sunlight. It creates a gentle and controlled lighting environment that enhances the presentation and preservation of the artworks on display. (Fig. 95) Boullée himself had initially wished to become a painter, rather than an architect, and this ambition remains visible not only in the pictorial conception of his drawings but also, in his inspiration from Raphael’s “The School of Athens” (Fig. 97) Besides painting, Boullée’s works should also be compared to the theatre, then immensely popular, to the point of constituting an essential component of the French elites’ visual culture. The

open space thus created in the drawing (Fig. 96) resembles a theatre stage occupied by actors.

Fig. 97: Raphael’s “The School of Athens” fresco, painted between 1509 and 1511 as part of the decoration of the rooms now known as the Stanze di Raffaello in the Vatican.

Fig. 98: Interior of the first Unitarian Church of Rochester made by Louis Kahn, 1969

The sublime conception of Raphael’s School of Athens gave him the idea of assembling all human knowledge under an immense vault, a symbol of the universe.58 “Like an author who captures readers from the first page, Kahn immediately establishes an ethos that lets visitors feel they are entering an almost sacred precinct, a treasure house.” 59 The atmosphere of silence was what Kahn was looking for, referring to the atmospheric phenomenon of the church when you almost immediately put in the totality of silence. The shape of the arched vault has also been well-known since the beginning of sacral architecture history. The feeling of silence can be achieved phenomenolo gically by us describing our feelings visiting sacred architecture. August Komendant in his book compares Kimbell Art Museum to the Church of Rochester. (Fig. 98) In the Rochester church, the atmosphere of silence was achieved by modesty and clarity of the folded plate roof structure, simplicity of the surrounding brick walls, colour and light. The architectural feature that helps to achieve the same silence in Kimbel is the vault – soaring, yet human-scale form, reaching toward sunlight at its apex communicates both serenity and aspiration, creating a smooth transition from

ANALYSIS

Fig. 99: Étienne-Louis Boullée, Bibliothèque Royale de France, long-section drawing of the building, 1785

wall to ceiling without allowing the eye to linger on their connection. Museum Director Richard Brown remembers Kahn’s description after seeing the cycloids for the first time. The architect said nothing during dinner and the drive to the site and after walking around in the partially finished building for some time, he finally broke into a smile and said, “It works.” 60 Firstly, Boullée also envisioned the library as a sacred and contemplative space, isolated from external distractions, secondly, the windowless facade contributed to the overall monumental, emphasising its significance as a repository of know ledge. (Fig. 99) While there is no direct evidence to confirm that Kahn took specific inspiration from Boullée, it is possible that both architects shared

Fig. 100: Étienne-Louis Boullée, Bibliothèque Royale de France, cross-section drawing of the building, roof structure, 1785

an interest in the expressive and monumental potential of architecture, as well as in its spiritual dimensions. He spontaneously took over the vocabulary and principles of sacred architecture, the only field in which the monumental style had been cultivated since the fall of ancient Rome. It was of course to rediscover the secret of monumental architecture that artists turned to the study of antiquity.61 Although it might have appeared monumental from the interior, it is clearly visible in the section that the vault would have been sculpted of plaster and paint on a wood lattice frame. (Fig. 100). Boullée is not envisioning an impossible-to-build structure (as he often did), he is being practical beyond even the expectations of his

Fig. 101: Section of a cycloid vault, 1968

ANALYSIS

Fig. 102: Kimbell’s Portico, photograph by Nic Lehoux Fig. 103: Unesco Porticoes in Bologna Fig. 104: Venetian window designs

ANALYSIS

bureaucratic patrons. We can possibly see the architect desperately wanting his project realised. Kahn, with the great help of his structural engineer August Kommendant, is also making the structure efficient and possible to build. The form of the Kimbell Art Museum is striking, and the structure is not easily understandable. As a whole, the arches of Kimbell may seem to be structural before we pay greater attention to details. The slit at the place of a keystone is confusing. (Fig. 101) Thus, this confusion leads us to think that it is not the point. The building appears as a spatial performance, where we should not get the structure but the atmosphere. The design of the Nationalbibliothek reflects Boullée’s fascination with geometric precision. The cylindrical form, the oculus, and the emphasis on symmetry and proportion were all aligned with Boullée’s belief in the expressive power of pure geometric shapes. The curved-beam roofs of Kimbell over interior spaces successfully create associations to archetypal form, while the modern technology of the thin-shell construction results in a design that fosters numerous, ambiguous readings. It is the given spiritual essence of the Kimbell Art Museum, the creation of sacredness by the choice of a form. “You know what is so wonderful about those porches? They are so unnecessary.” When you look at the building and porch, it is an offering. You know it wasn’t programmed; it is something that emerged.” 62 That thought of Kahn gives us a chance to guess that the porches are nothing else, but the performance, showing off a form, presenting the significance and archetypal characteristics of vaults. (Fig. 102) The vaults refer to the beginning of architecture at the same time connect to the present moment through the excellence of modern engineering. Exposed porticoes can be interpreted as an offering to think beyond the form or to look for an expression beyond structural. So it can be said that Louis Kahn goes beyond the classical vault, giving it special features which make it a signature element of the project. He is being modern and flexible, ancient and rigid.

ANALYSIS

Conclusion Methodologically, this thesis started with an overview of the buildings that were found based on the presence of arches or vaults in them, which affect the perception of the building. Many of the ideas conveyed in this work could not have been possible without extensive research on the history of arches, as well as without an overview of their different visual expressions. I would argue that some things can be understood exclusively in comparison and juxtaposition with other examples. That is why I started from Collections. This chapter is used to enrich the possible connections to sources and combinations of historical references that led to the use of arches (vaults) in contemporary examples. The categories suggested in the Topology chapter are intended to work as an analytical tool and provide an important critical overview of the reasons behind the use of arches in contemporary architecture. Through the process of my work, I found several answers for the “Why arches?” question, through analysing texts and listening to the architects. Chosen examples for the Analysis part introduce several roles of arches in contemporary architecture. Firstly, arches can be used to convey a particular message that was already accepted in historical architectural discourse. Secondly, an arched form may gain a new contemporary meaning on top of the existing historical. In architectural expression the same language of arches can be also found for a different, contrasting with historical meanings. The arched language can be chosen for “profiting” through association or symbolical background. The arch can also be presented as a new shape, challenging any historical or formal connotations. The interest and intention of the current work is

to avoid segregating buildings into particular categories but to use those categories as a tool to compare, to understand deeper the reasons behind the formal choice for architects, to notice what stays always in between categories, where the meaning and symbolism of arches deviate from classical. Understanding the variety of reasons behind the use of arches in contemporary architecture enriches our appreciation of the built environment. It allows us to engage with architectural history, semiotics and symbolism, appreciate the diversity of formal expressions and be aware of the significance of arches in shaping the character of buildings and spaces in contemporary architecture, as it is gaining (remaining) its popularity nowadays. There is a shift in perception from the do minant indexically of arches to the dominant iconic-symbolic resemblance of the arches, which corresponds to a shift of interest from being a structural element to a form and the symbolic meaning connoted with form. The use of arches along architecture history, at both moments of being “popular” or “backwards-looking” is a clear indication that semantic issues take precedence, in the public’s mind, over technical or functional ones. The interesting question is do we have to “justify” the use of arches anew and to whom whose justification has to be given? Or the arch is tacitly accepted as a timeless and very convincing form, which works on its own. If architecture is to communicate as intended it should avoid signs that have only one meaning and, secondly, it should be overcoded, using redundancy of popular signs and metaphors to survive the transformation of fast-changing codes and codes of the locale.63

Endnotes 1

3 4 5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Alan Josef Alexander Mair, ‘the “Square Colosseum”: Architecture As Metaphysical Sculpture – An Acknowledgement of Artistic Value of the Palazzo Della Civiltà Italiana’, n.d. Roger Bradley Ulrich and Caroline K. Quenemoen, eds., A Companion to Roman Architecture (Chichester, West Sussex, UK ; Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, 2014). Definition according to Merriam-Webster dictionary Definition according to Mathematics Dictionary dictionary Edmund Thomas, Monumentality and the Roman Empire: Architecture in the Antonine Age (Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 18-21 Hans Poelzig, Jerzy Ilkosz, and Beate Störtkuhl, Hans Poelzig in Breslau: Architektur und Kunst 1900-1916 (Delmenhorst: Aschenbeck & Holstein, 2000), p. 97. Thomas, Monumentality and the Roman Empire, p. 237. Heinrich Klotz, Moderne und Postmoderne: Architektur der Gegenwart 1960 – 1980, 2., durchges. Aufl, Schriften des Deutschen Architekturmuseums zur Architekturgeschichte und Architekturtheorie (Braunschweig Wiesbaden: Vieweg, 1985). Klotz, p.54. Klotz, p.56. Joseph Polisi, Beacon to the World: A History of Lincoln Center (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2022), p. 15-16. Victoria Newhouse and Wallace K. Harrison, Wallace K. Harrison, Architect (New York, N.Y: Rizzoli, 1989), p. 187. Victoria Newhouse and Wallace K. Harrison, Wallace K. Harrison, Architect (New York, N.Y: Rizzoli, 1989), p. 210. Newhouse and Harrison. (New York, N.Y: Rizzoli, 1989), p. 210. Victoria Newhouse and Wallace K. Harrison, Wallace K. Harrison, Architect (New York, N.Y: Rizzoli, 1989), p.309. Josh Greenfeld, ‘Curtain Going Up For Wallace Harrison’, The New York Times Magazine, 21 August 1966.

17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Heinz Ronner and Sharad Jhaveri, Louis I. Kahn: Complete Work, 1935-1974, 2nd rev. and enl. ed (Basel ; Boston: Birkhäuser Verlag, 1987), p. 340. August E. Komendant, 18 Years with Architect Louis I. Kahn (Englewood, N.J: Aloray, 1975), p. 115. Robert McCarter and Louis I. Kahn, Louis I Kahn, Revised and expanded edition (London: Phaidon Press Limited, 2022), p.348. David C. Sledge, ‘THE ART OF AMBIGUITY (Experiencing the Kimbell Art Museum)’ (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001), p. 63. Robert McCarter and Louis I. Kahn, Louis I Kahn, Revised and expanded edition (London: Phaidon Press Limited, 2022), p. 358. Paulo J. Cruz, ed., ‘Application of the Operational Modal Analysis Method for the Control of the Intervention in the Roman Theatre (Cádiz, Spain)’, in Structures and Architecture, 0 ed. (CRC Press, 2013), 943–50, https://doi.org/10.1201/b15267128. Robert McCarter and Louis I. Kahn, Louis I Kahn, Revised and expanded edition (London: Phaidon Press Limited, 2022), p. 358. Jacob van Rijs, ‘E-Mail Message to Author’, 8 December 2023. Ilka Ruby and Andreas Ruby, eds., MVRDV Buildings, Updated edition (Rotterdam: nai010 publishers, 2015). Ruby and Ruby. van Rijs, ‘E-Mail Message to Author’, 8 December 2023. https://Entwicklungsstadt.de/in-BerlinsMitte-Entsteht-Das-Forum-an-Der-Museumsinsel/. Accessed 29 June 2023. Richard Sennett, The Craftsman (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008). Simon David Murray, Performing Ruins, Performing Landscapes (Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020). Heinrich Klotz, Moderne und Postmoderne: Architektur der Gegenwart 1960 – 1980, 2., durchges. Aufl, Schriften des Deutschen Architekturmuseums zur Architekturgeschichte und Architekturtheorie (Braunschweig Wiesbaden: Vieweg, 1985), p.53.

32 33 34 35 36 37

39 40

41 42 43

45 46 47

Michael Mönninger, Kanzleramt Berlin: Axel Schultes, Charlotte Frank (Stuttgart, London: Ed. Axel Menges, 2002). Mönninger. Jessica Mairs, ‘Colonnades Line the Terraces of Antonini Darmon’s Arches Boulogne Apartments’, Dezeen, 12 May 2016. Louis I. Kahn and Robert C. Twombly, Louis Kahn: Essential Texts, 1. ed (New York London: Norton, 2003). Hans Poelzig et al., eds., Hans Poelzig, 1869 bis 1936, Architekt, Lehrer, Künstler. (München: Dt. Verl.-Anst, 2007), p. 97. Hans Poelzig, Jerzy Ilkosz, and Beate Störtkuhl, Hans Poelzig in Breslau: Architektur und Kunst 1900-1916 (Delmenhorst: Aschenbeck & Holstein, 2000). Gernot Weckherlin, ‘Operation Gelungen Um- Und Neubau Der Ehemaligen Universitäts-Frauenklinik in Berlin-Mitte Zum „Forum Museumsinsel“ Durch David Chipperfield Architects’, Bauwelt, 37.2014 (n.d.). Myron Magnet, ‘A New Lincoln Center’, City Journal, Autumn 2000. Mario Piazza et al., eds., Palazzo Della Civiltà Italiana (New York, NY: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc, 2017), Valerio Magrelli – A challenge, a dream come true. Mario Piazza et al., eds., Palazzo Della Civiltà Italiana (New York, NY: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc, 2017). Piazza et al., Marco Biraghi – The Palazzo as image. Mario Piazza et al., eds., Palazzo Della Civiltà Italiana (New York, NY: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc, 2017), Marco Biraghi – The Palazzo as image. Sergio Poretti, Italian modernisms: architecture and constructions in the twentieth century, Architecture & construction 6 (Roma: Gangemi Editore, 2013), p. 168. Bob Bevan, ‘Markthal in Rotterdam by MVRDV’, The Architectural Review, 5 January 2015. Bevan. Jacob van Rijs, e-mail message to author, 8 December 2023.

48 49

51 52 53 54

55 56

57 58 59 60 61

62 63

François Chaslin and Virginie Picon-Lefèbvre, La Grande Arche de La Défense (Paris: Electa Moniteur, 1989). Sergio Poretti, Italian modernisms: architecture and constructions in the twentieth century, Architecture & construction 6 (Roma: Gangemi Editore, 2013), p.130-131 Sergio Poretti, Italian modernisms: architecture and constructions in the twentieth century, Architecture & construction 6 (Roma: Gangemi Editore, 2013), p.130 Dianne Bennett and William Graebner, ‘Rome’s Most Famous Building That Never Was: The Arch for E42’, 16 June 2015. van Rijs, ‘E-Mail Message to Author’, 8 December 2023. Bevan, ‘Markthal in Rotterdam by MVRDV’. Jean-Marie Pérouse de Montclos, Étienne Louis Boullée, and Jean-Marie Pérouse de Montclos, Étienne-Louis Boullée: (1728–1799) ; Theoretician of Revolutionary Architecture (London: Thames and Hudson, 1974), p.30-31. Pérouse de Montclos, Boullée, and Pérouse de Montclos. Louis I. Kahn and Nell E. Johnson, Light Is the Theme: Louis I. Kahn and the Kimbell Art Museum : Comments on Architecture, 1st ed (Fort Worth, Tex.: Kimbell Art Foundation, 1975). Komendant, 18 Years with Architect Louis I. Kahn, p.118. Pérouse de Montclos, Boullée, and Pérouse de Montclos, Étienne-Louis Boullée. Kahn and Johnson, Light Is the Theme. Komendant, 18 Years with Architect Louis I. Kahn. Pérouse de Montclos, Boullée, and Pérouse de Montclos, Étienne-Louis Boullée, p. 28-29. From the description of Boullée’s project for an Opera House . Kahn and Johnson, Light Is the Theme. Charles Jencks, ed., The New Paradigm in Architecture: The Language of Post-Modernism, 7. ed. (New Haven London: Yale University Press, 2002), p 34.

Image credits Figure 1: Forum Museumsinsel by David Chipperfield, September 2017, photograph by Danielle Siggerud, https://www.pinterest.com/ pin/313985405280648774/, Accessed: April 2023, edited by the author.

1. Kahn’s 1972 building for the Kimbell Art Museum. View from the southwest. Photograph by Richard Barnes. https://www.architectmagazine. com/design/buildings/the-kimbell-art-museumthe-original-louis-kahn-building_o

Figure 2: Arch as a base for a form, September 2023, sketch made by the author.

2. Wikipedia. 2023. “Metropolitan Opera House (Lincoln Center).” Wikimedia Foundation. Last modified October 16, 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Opera_House_(Lincoln_Center).

Figure 3: Wikipedia. 2023. “Arch of Hadrian (Athens).” Wikimedia Foundation. Last modified September 14, 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Arch_of_Hadrian_(Athens). Figure 4: Caroline Barron, Samuele Rocca, Arch of Titus, Roman Forum (81-82 CE), August 2018, Photograph, https://www.judaism-and-rome. org/arch-titus-roman-forum-81-82-cearchitecture. Accessed: January 2024.

3. Forum Museumsinsel by David Chipperfield. Photograph by Ute Zscharnt. In ‘Operation Gelungen Um- Und Neubau Der Ehemaligen Universitäts-Frauenklinik in Berlin-Mitte Zum „Forum Museumsinsel“ Durch David Chipperfield Architects’ by Gernot Weckherlin.

Figure 5: Philip Johnson, Rockefeller family guest house, first (left) and completed design(right), New York, 1960. In Moderne und Postmoderne: Architektur der Gegenwart 1960 - 1980, by Heinrich Klotz, Braunschweig Wiesbaden, 1985, p.53.

4. Markthal by MVRDV. Photograph by Ossip van Duivenbode. https://www.mvrdv.com/ projects/115/markthal 5. ORO 439 Am Tacheles, Berlin, Germany. Render by H&dM. https://www.herzogdemeuron. com/projects/439-am-tacheles/

Figure 6: Philip Johnson in the Brick House, 1966, reproduction from Johnson: A Visual Biography, Ian Volner. Photo By: McLane David, 2015/ Daily News L.P. (New York).

Figure 12: Lincoln Center, bird’s eye view. How Lincoln Center Was Built (It Wasn’t Pretty). From The New York Times article, 2017.https:// www.nytimes.com/2017/12/21/nyregion/how-lincoln-center-was-built-it-wasnt-pretty.html.

Figure 7: Visual overview of arches is architectural typologies, part 1, collection made by the author, April 2023. Figure 8: Visual overview of arches is architectural typologies, part 2, сollection made by the author, April 2023. Figure 9: Visual overview of arches is contemporary architecture, part 1, collection made by the author, May 2023.

In Wallace K. Harrison, Architect by Victoria Newhouse and Wallace K. Harrison. New York, N.Y: Rizzoli, 1989: Figure 13: Scheme for a grand approach to Lincoln Center from Central Park, shown in relationship to Lincoln Center, as it was built. Rendering by William F. R. Ballard, 1966. (Figure 168),

Figure 10: Visual overview of arches is contemporary architecture, part 2, collection made by the author, May 2023.

Figure. 14: Hopkins Center for the Arts at Dartmouth College, designed by Wallace Harrison, 1962. (Figure 194),

Figure 11: Chosen examples of contemporary architecture featuring arches for a detailed analysis, collection made by the author, May 2023. Images used:

Figure 16: Metropolitan Opera Hause, model, W. Harrison, autumn 1958. (Figure 197),

Figure 15: Metropolitan Opera Hause, model, W. Harrison, spring 1958. (Figure 195),

Figure 19: Metropolitan Opera House in Lincoln Center - Longitudinal Section. Drawing by E. M. Feher.(Figure 199), Figure 20: Harrison, scheme far Metropolitan Opera Hause at Lincoln Center (fall 1955). Rendering by Hugh Ferriss. (Figure 186). The Construction of Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts (1959-69), online Exhibition. https://artsandculture.google.com/story/fgUBTK2US70oKA, Accessed: January 2024: Figure 17: Metropolitan Opera House with louvered sides, photograph from building site, December 1961,

Figure 29: Huylebrouck, Dirk & Park, JinHo & Joo, Yongsun & Yang, Jae. (2007). Cycloids in Louis I. Kahn’s Kimbell Art Museum at Fort Worth, Texas. The Mathematical Intelligencer. 29, p. 44. (Figure 3). In Louis I. Kahn: Complete Work, 1935-1974. 2nd rev. and enl. By Ronner, Heinz, and Sharad Jhaveri. Ed. Basel ; Boston: Birkhäuser Verlag, 1987: Figure 25: p.346 Figure 101: p.345 In Louis I Kahn. Revised and Expanded edition. By McCarter, Robert, and Louis I. Kahn. London: Phaidon Press Limited, 2022:

Figure 18: Metropolitan Opera House under construction, May 1964.

Figure 28: p. 353, figure 10,

Figure 21: Bernini’s original plan for St. Peter’s Square, Rome. Drawing by Giovanni Battista Falda. https://www.meisterdrucke.us/fine-artprints/Giovanni-Battista-Falda/91502/Berninisoriginal-plan-for-St.-Peters-Square%2C-Rome-. html. Accessed: January 2024.

Figure 31: p. 356, figure 12,

Figure 22: Lincoln Center bird’s eye view, New York, 2010. Photograph. Wikipedia. 2023. “Lincoln Center.” Wikimedia Foundation. Last modified November 9, 2023. https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Lincoln_Center. Figure 23: Piazza del Campidoglio bird’s eye view, Rome, 2014. Photograph. https://en.wikiarquitectura.com/building/piazza-del-campidoglio/# Accessed: January 2024. KAHN: KIMBELL. (1974). In The Architectural review (London) (Vol. 155, Issue 928, p. 320). Emap Limited. Photographs courtesy of Kimbell Art Museum: Figure 24: p.44 Figure 26: p.45 Figure 27: p.48 Figure 33: p.46-47 Figure 34: p.49 Figure 36: p.53

Figure 30: p. 347, figure 1, Figure 35: p. 365, figure 25, Figure 37: p. 359,, figure 17. Figure 32: Hegazy, Muhammad & Yasufuku, Kensuke & Abe, Hirokazu. (2020). Evaluating and visualizing perceptual impressions of daylighting in immersive virtual environments. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering. 20. 1-17. 10.1080/13467581.2020.1800477, figure 3. Figure 38: Screenshot from aerial drone video. https://www.freepik.com/premium-video/cityskyline-with-market-hall-markthal-rotterdamnetherlands-aerial-drone-shot_453330.Accessed: January 2024. Figure 39: In ‘Markthal in Rotterdam by MVRDV’ by Bob Bevan.The Architectural Review website, 5 January 2015. Figure 40: Photograph from web article: https://www.cosiddetto.be/reizen-in-italie/ het-grootste-salon-van-padua-het-palazzo-della-ragione/.Accessed: January 2024. Figure 41: Calandra Di Roccolino, Giacomo. Die Grossmarkthalle Hamburg. 1. Auflage. Historische Wahrzeichen der Ingenieurbaukunst in Deutschland, Band 20. Berlin: BIngK, Bundesingenieurkammer, 2017.

Figure 43: Wikipedia. 2023. “Gare D’Orsay.” Wikimedia Foundation. Last modified December 28, 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Gare_d%27Orsay. Figure 45, Figure 47, Figure 48, Figure 49, Figure 71: From David Chipperfield Architects official website, Forum Museumsinsel, Berlin, Germany, 2010–16. Photographs and drawings explaining the projects. (https://davidchipperfield.com/projects/forum-museumsinsel). Accessed: January 2024. Figure 44: Wikipedia. 2023. “EbertsbrüCke.” Wikimedia Foundation. Last modified March 15, 2023. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebertsbr%C3%BCck Figure 46: Phto from the website. https:// epilog.de/geburtshilflich-gynaekologische-klinik. deutsche-bauzeitung.1880. Accessed: January 2024. Figure 50: In Stefan Schilling Fotografie, 2017. Photo to Peetz Windows + Doors. https:// stefan-schilling.de/portfolio/gropius-ensemble/ Figure 51: Photo from the website. Accessed: January 2024.https://archithese.ch/ansicht/gebaute-ausgrabungen-am-tacheles.html?page_ g2401=5. Figure 52: Photo from the website. Accessed: January 2024. https://vert-amtacheles.com/en-areal/. Figure 53: In article Monopol magazine article by Daniel Völzke https://www.monopol-magazin.de/10-jahre-raeumung-tacheles. Photo from Andreas Rost, Courtesy Collection Regard, Berlin Figure 54, Figure 55, Figure 56, Figure 57, Figure 58: From Herzog & de Meuron official website, ORO 439 Am Tacheles, Berlin, Germany. Render by H&dM. https://www.herzogdemeuron. com/projects/439-am-tacheles/. Figure 59: In Moderne und Postmoderne: Architektur der Gegenwart 1960 - 1980, by Heinrich Klotz, Braunschweig Wiesbaden, 1985, p.55. Figure 60, Figure 65: ORO facade, photograph by Backstein, Deutsches Architekturforum, May 2023. https://www.deutsches-architekturforum.de/ thread/5477-quartier-am-tacheles/?pageNo=30. Figure 61: Forum an der Museumsinsel facade, photograph by Backstein, Deutsches Architekturforum, May 2023

Figure 62: In Cultural Architecture. The Kimbell Art Museum by Louis Kahn in Texas. Photograph by Richard Anderson. Figure 63: Markthal by MVRDV. Photograph by Ossip van Duivenbode. Accessed: January 2024. https://www.mvrdv.com/projects/115/markthal. Figure 64: Sketch of analyzed arches and vaults made by the author. Figure 66: Illustration from Kanzleramt Berlin: Axel Schultes, Charlotte Frank. By Michael Mönninger. Stuttgart London: Ed. Axel Menges, 2002. Figure 67, Figure 70: In Colonnades line the terraces of Antonini Darmon’s Arches Boulogne apartments, curated by ArchDaily. Photo by Benoit Fougeirol. Accessed: January 2024. https://www. archdaily.com/789255/arches-boulogne-antonini-darmon. Figure 68/1: Image from building site by dubaibobby, May 2023. Accessed: January 2024. https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threads/ berlin-areal-am-tacheles-sanierung-und-neubauin-bau.1757476/page-11. Figure 68/2: In Palazzo della Civiltà italiana, Roma. Photograph by Flickr de chris.peplin. Accessed: January 2024. https://www.archdaily.mx/mx/02-22126/ palazzo-della-civilta-italiana-roma. Figure 69: In Tagesspiege, Berlin-Mitte: Bundeskanzleramt wird erweitert. Photo by Kitty Kleist-Heinrich. Accessed: January 2024. https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/bundeskanzleramt-wird-erweitert-6413620.html. Figure 72: In Louis Kahn’s Indian Institute of Management in Ahmedabad. Photo by Cemal Emden, 2017. Accessed: January 2024.https://archeyes. com/indian-institute-of-management-louis-kahn/. Figure 73: p.255 in Posener, Julius, Hans Poelzig, and Kristin Feireiss. Hans Poelzig : Reflections on His Life and Work. New York, N.Y: Architectural History Foundation, 1992. Figure 74: In AD Classics: National Museum of Roman Art / Rafael Moneo by David Langdon. Photograph by Flickr user James Gordon. Accessed: January 2024. https://www.archdaily.com/625552/ad-classics-national-museum-of-roman-art-rafael-moneo.

Figure 75: Photo from the website.Accessed: January 2024. https://www.romanbaths.co.uk/ news/discover-how-great-bath-drained-andcleaned-0. Figure 76: Berlin - Forum Museumsinsel. Photograph by tom_stromer, March 2014. https://www. flickr.com/photos/97627531@N07/13507610545. Accessed: January 2024. Figure 77, Figure 84: In Palazzo Della Civiltà Italiana. By Piazza, Mario, Franco La Cecla, Marco Biraghi, Gianni Canova, Stefano Chiodi, Valerio Magrelli, and Sylvia Adrian Notini. New York, NY: Rizzoli, 2017. Figure 78: Photo of the The Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana, Rome, 2015. Accessed: January 2024. https://grofjardanhazy.tumblr.com/ post/124481082247/archimaps-the-palazzo-della-civilta-italiana. Figure 79: Metropolitan Opera House: front facade. Photograph by Gary Catchen. Accessed: January 2024.https://www.flickr.com/photos/ psulibscollections/5832723056. Figure 80: Rendering by Hugh Ferriss (1956– 57).Credits to Courtesy Avery Architectural & Fine Arts Library, Columbia University. Accessed: January 2024.https://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/blog/ great-performances-opera-house-5-things-didntknow-opening-opera-house/. Figure 81, Figure 87: Metropolitan Opera House: Opening Night at the new Met, September 16, 1966. In The New Met. Accessed: January 2024.https://www.metopera.org/user-information/ nightly-met-opera-streams/articles/the-new-met/. Figure 82: Photograph by Craig Hanson.Accessed: January 2024. https://www.craighansonphotography.com/. Figure 83: Palazzo Della Civilta’ Italiana. Photo Essay By Fabio Bascetta. Accessed: January 2024https://divisare.com/projects/413107-fabio-bascetta-palazzo-della-civilta-italiana. Figure 85: In A Translation Movement. Special Collections Rare Oversize, Frances Loeb Library, Harvard Graduate School of Design. Accessed: January 2024 https://www.cca.qc.ca/en/ articles/83798/a-translation-movement. Figure 86: La Fábrica // Ricardo Bofill, 1975. In archaic-studio. Photographs: Courtsey of Ricardo Bofill. Accessed: September 2023. https://www.

archaic-studio.com/journal/la-fabrica-ricardobofill. Figure 88: Photo from the website. Accessed: January 2024. https://www.klepierre.com/en/ourmalls/markthal. Figure 89: La Grande Arche. Photograph by Philip Oldfield. Accessed: January 2024. https:// www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/la-grandearche/9455. Figure 90: Photograph by Andrew Krav. Accessed: October 2023.https://www.istockphoto.com/de/foto/der-innenstadt-von-st-louis-mo-mit-dem-alt-gerichtsgeb%C3%A4udegm509907114-86019959. Figure 91: In Markthal in Rotterdam by MVRDV by Rob Bevan, 2015. https://www.architectural-review.com/today/markthal-in-rotterdamby-mvrdv. Figure 92: Wikipedia. 2023. “Sistine Chapel.” Wikimedia Foundation. Last modified December 18, 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Sistine_Chapel. Figure 93, Figure 94: Dianne Bennett and William Graebner, ‘Rome’s Most Famous Building That Never Was: The Arch for E42’, 16 June 2015, https://romethesecondtime.blogspot.com/2015/06/ romes-most-famous-building-that-never.html. Figure 95: In Light Is the Theme: Louis I. Kahn and the Kimbell Art Museum by : Comments on Architecture, 1st ed by Louis I. Kahn and Nell E. Johnson,(Fort Worth, Tex.: Kimbell Art Foundation, 1975). Figure 96: In Boullée’s Forgotten Fountain : the redesign of the Bibliotheque du Roi, 1785 by Nicholas Pacula, 2017. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://www.academia.edu/86342071/ Boull%C3%A9es_Forgotten_Fountain_the_redesign_of_the_Bibliotheque_du_Roi_1785. Figure 97: Wikipedia. 2023. “The School of Athens.” Wikimedia Foundation. Last modified December 29, 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ The_School_of_Athens. Figure 98, Figure 99, Figure 100: Andrew Kroll. “AD Classics: First Unitarian Church of Rochester / Louis Kahn” 09 Nov 2010. ArchDaily. Accessed 9 Jan 2024. <https://www.archdaily. com/84267/ad-classics-first-unitarian-church-ofrochester-louis-kahn> ISSN 0719-8884.

Bibliography Benedikt, Michael. Deconstructing the Kimbell: An Essay on Meaning and Architecture. New York, NY: Sites Books, 1991. Bevan, Bob. ‘Markthal in Rotterdam by MVRDV’. The Architectural Review, 5 January 2015. ‘Brown, Richard F., “Statement: Louis I. Kahn,1” Unpublished Paper, Fort Worth, 1972.’, n.d. C. Sledge, David. ‘THE ART OF AMBIGUITY (Experiencing the Kimbell Art Museum)’. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001. Calandra Di Roccolino, Giacomo. Die Grossmarkthalle Hamburg. 1. Auflage. Historische Wahrzeichen der Ingenieurbaukunst in Deutschland, Band 20. Berlin: BIngK, Bundesingenieurkammer, 2017. Chaslin, François, and Virginie Picon-Lefèbvre. La Grande Arche de La Défense. Paris: Electa Moniteur, 1989. Cruz, Paulo J., ed. ‘Application of the Operational Modal Analysis Method for the Control of the Intervention in the Roman Theatre (Cádiz, Spain)’. In Structures and Architecture, 0 ed., 943–50. CRC Press, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1201/ b15267-128. Cruz, Polo J. S. Structures and Architecture: Concepts, Applications and Challenge. Boca Raton: CRC press, 2013. Dietrich, Gregory Gilbert. ‘Lincoln Center: A Case Study Resolving the Conflict Between Preservation, Maintenance and Redevelopment of the American Postwar Performing Arts Center’, 2003. https://doi.org/10.7916/D86W99J5. Gleiter, Jörg H., Jonas Marx, and Tom Steinert, eds. Symptom Design: Vom Zeigen Und Sich-Zeigen Der Dinge. ArchitekturDenken 7.

Bielefeld: Transcript, 2014. Greenfeld, Josh. ‘Curtain Going Up For Wallace Harrison’. The New York Times Magazine, 21 August 1966. Howell, Peter. The Triumphal Arch. London: Unicorn, 2021. ‘Https://Entwicklungsstadt.de/in-Berlins-Mitte-Entsteht-Das-Forum-an-Der-Museumsinsel/. Accessed 29 June 2023.’, n.d. Jencks, Charles, ed. The New Paradigm in Architecture: The Language of Post-Modernism. 7. ed. New Haven London: Yale University Press, 2002. Kahn, Louis I., and Nell E. Johnson. Light Is the Theme: Louis I. Kahn and the Kimbell Art Museum : Comments on Architecture. 1st ed. Fort Worth, Tex.: Kimbell Art Foundation, 1975. Kahn, Louis I., and Robert C. Twombly. Louis Kahn: Essential Texts. 1. ed. New York London: Norton, 2003. ‘Kahn’s Monastic Vision: Architecture at IIMA’ 19, no. 02 (May 1987). Klotz, Heinrich. Moderne und Postmoderne: Architektur der Gegenwart 1960 – 1980. 2., Durchges. Aufl. Schriften des Deutschen Architekturmuseums zur Architekturgeschichte und Architekturtheorie. Braunschweig Wiesbaden: Vieweg, 1985. Komendant, August E. 18 Years with Architect Louis I. Kahn. Englewood, N.J: Aloray, 1975. Mair, Alan Josef Alexander. ‘the “Square Colosseum”: Architecture As Metaphysical Sculpture – An Acknowledgement of Artistic Value of the Palazzo Della Civiltà Italiana’, n.d. McCarter, Robert, and Louis I. Kahn. Louis I Kahn. Revised and Expanded edition. London: Phaidon Press Limited, 2022.

Mönninger, Michael. Kanzleramt Berlin: Axel Schultes, Charlotte Frank. Stuttgart London: Ed. Axel Menges, 2002.

Polisi, Joseph. Beacon to the World: A History of Lincoln Center. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2022.

Müller, Wolfgang, and Anett Fischer, eds. ZI-Jahrbuch 2004: Jahrbuch für die Ziegel-, Baukeramik- und Steinzeugröhren-Industrie = ZI-Annual : annual for the brick and tile, structural ceramics and clay pipe industries. Gütersloh: Bauverlag, 2004.

Poretti, Sergio. Italian modernisms: architecture and constructions in the twentieth century. Architecture & construction 6. Roma: Gangemi Editore, 2013.

Newhouse, Victoria, and Wallace K. Harrison. Wallace K. Harrison, Architect. New York, N.Y: Rizzoli, 1989.

Ronner, Heinz, and Sharad Jhaveri. Louis I. Kahn: Complete Work, 1935-1974. 2nd rev. and enl. Ed. Basel ; Boston: Birkhäuser Verlag, 1987.

‘“Old” Metropolitan Opera House |’. Accessed 26 June 2023. https://www.nypap.org/preservation-history/old-metropolitan-opera-house/. Park, Jin-Ho, Yongsun Joo, and Jae-Guen Yang. ‘Cycloids in Louis I. Kahn’s Kimbell Art Museum at Fort Worth, Texas’. The Mathematical Intelligencer 29, no. 2 (March 2007): 42–48. https:// doi.org/10.1007/BF02986205.

Rijs, Jacob van. ‘E-Mail Message to Author’, 8 December 2023.

Rook, Tony. Roman Building Techniques. S.l.: Amberley Publishing, 2013. Ruby, Ilka, and Andreas Ruby, eds. MVRDV Buildings. Updated edition. Rotterdam: nai010 publishers, 2015. Sennett, Richard. The Craftsman. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008.

Pérouse de Montclos, Jean-Marie, Étienne Louis Boullée, and Jean-Marie Pérouse de Montclos. Étienne-Louis Boullée: (1728 – 1799) ; Theoretician of Revolutionary Architecture. London: Thames and Hudson, 1974.

Tabuchi, Eric. Atlas of Forms. Paris: Poursuite Éditions, 2017.

Piazza, Mario, S. Notini, Franco La Cecla, Franco La Cecla, and Fendi (Firm), eds. Palazzo Della Civiltà Italiana. New York, NY: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc, 2017.

Ulrich, Roger Bradley, and Caroline K. Quenemoen, eds. A Companion to Roman Architecture. Chichester, West Sussex, UK ; Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, 2014.

Poelzig, Hans, Jerzy Ilkosz, and Beate Störtkuhl. Hans Poelzig in Breslau: Architektur Und Kunst 1900-1916. Delmenhorst: Aschenbeck & Holstein, 2000.

Venturi, Robert. Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. 2. ed., Repr. The Museum of Modern Art Papers on Architecture. New York, N.Y: Museum of Modern Art, 1996.

Poelzig, Hans, Wolfgang Pehnt, Hans-Stefan Bolz, and Akademie der Künste, eds. Hans Poelzig, 1869 bis 1936, Architekt, Lehrer, Künstler. München: Dt. Verl.-Anst, 2007.

Weckherlin, Gernot. ‘Operation Gelungen Um- Und Neubau Der Ehemaligen Universitäts-Frauenklinik in Berlin-Mitte Zum „Forum Museumsinsel“ Durch David Chipperfield Architects’. Bauwelt Bauwelt 37.2014 (n.d.).

Thomas, Edmund. Monumentality and the Roman Empire: Architecture in the Antonine Age. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

NOTE: This thesis was written, designed, and printed as a booklet for a final presentation. The resulting document was intended to produce a very specific reading experience incorporating both textual and graphic forms of literacy. It is intended to be printed and viewed on Arctic Volume Ivory 150 g/m2. Text paper bound with a mixed binding. The digital version of this thesis lacks some of the empirical experience found in the physical version. The digital version of this thesis is best viewed in a facing-page format.

100

The new role of arches in contemporary architecture. Master Thesis by Aleksandra Shymanskaya, 2024.