An architect's ego, a critic's blind eye

B117095

3 December 2020

AN ARCHITECT’S EGO, A CRITIC’S BLIND EYE: How architectural media is responsible for lack of exposure of architectural technology related content, encourages unsustainable building design, and prevents its integration into today’s trending networks

Introduction Architecture has always been one of the highest forms of human creativity. Alongside other branches of visual art, it is considered as a proof of the limitlessness of human genius, combining aesthetic with the primal need for shelter. Throughout history, it has been shaped by humanity’s needs, religions, technology, cultural values, and multiple other factors and continues evolving. Major advancements in applied science have impacted the architectural industry by integrating various innovative concepts from other fields into classic building formation. This has prompted the emergence of a scientific discipline of architectural technology1 (also referred to as building technology), which is the application of scientific advancements into the field of building design.

Consequently, the concept of architecture broadened by introducing innovative technologies and light engineering concepts into a purely visual field, blurring the line between art and science.

Regardless of its undeniable artistic value, the scientific dimension of architecture remains underrepresented in today’s media. At first glance, this small issue has little to no impact on a global scale, however, upon closer inspection a larger problem is unraveled resulting from not only improper assessment of existing architecture within the public eye, but also through the neglect of major building design feasibility criteria, such as material use optimisation and aiming for maximum sustainability. Consequently, this enables architects to create environmentally unsustainable buildings with complex structures which primarily focus on visual gain and without receiving any criticism from the media. Furthermore, it promotes the acceptance of low professional standard among the commentators, who usually focus on visual, socio-economic, or urban aspects rather than sustainability and feasibility of the design, and fail to provide a complete, insightful analysis covering major aspects of the building design workability.

study.com. 2020. Architectural Technology definition. [ONLINE] Available at: https://study.com/directory/category/ Architecture/Architectural_Technology.html. [Accessed 14 December 2020].

1

Structure and Architecture

1

B117095

3 December 2020

What does architectural media look like?

When it comes to today’s representation of architecture in media, there are multiple outlets through which this happens: Firstly, various architecture-oriented magazines are available offering subscription packages, targeted at professional architects alongside architecture enthusiasts.

Secondly, pages on social media networks are an open-to-everyone way of introducing newer audiences to the topic and do not require any monetary commitment. Thirdly, critical appraisals, research and scientific papers are more in-depth and analytical pieces of work that are primarily created for academic purposes and are more specific than the representation in the previous two categories. Using visual means to draw a viewer’s attention to magnificent structures, social media is a perfect medium to capture the attention of newer audiences and integrate the idea of architecture into one’s daily feed. When it comes to the magazine reviews, they usually offer high quality works, though their primary focus being visuals, ideas, and meanings behind the architecture in discussion.

Unless the topic is directly referring to the structure or building technology used in the construction, the articles tend to shift towards more exterior or interior appraisal of buildings, fully or partially neglecting analysis of the skeleton that holds everything together. Academic papers, though less popular with general audiences, show more aspects to a building than just the aesthetics, and depending on the quality of the work in discussion, may demonstrate an excellent analysis of both structure and building technology. They are usually created by scholars with years of academic research experience, who are generally versed in both theological and technical aspects of architecture. This creates a considerable difference in the quality of work from that of an ordinary magazine writer, whose field of expertise can be as little as just journalism or general art studies.

Existing problems within the architectural media It is extremely difficult to set a certain standard upon which a criticism of a structure is to be conducted.2 Since architecture is fundamentally art, this it impossible to achieve absolute objectivity in a field of relativism. Looking at the image of what architectural media is today, there is definite room for improvement. Observing it as a whole, the overall treatment of architectural technology is of below satisfactory level, and usually is overshadowed by its counterpart visual element, towards which it serves as a structural basis. The role of a structure is directly correlated with an efficient design, nevertheless, writers tend to avoid looking into technical details of a structure in fear of deviating from the field of architecture towards engineering. However, there is a difference between structural analysis and the analysis of a structure, and this constraint results in negligence of major architectural discipline, which perhaps keeps evolving like no other. An architect’s perception concerning the role of a structure in a building is majorly impacted by the feedback received on his or her work. Due to the fact that commentators often either lack skills to conduct a thorough analysis of a structure, or neglect to do so in order to focus on visual elements of a building,

2

Macdonald, A, 2019. Structure & Architecture. 3rd ed. Oxon: Routldge

Structure and Architecture

2

B117095

3 December 2020

architects loose sight of the importance of an efficient design, and are tempted to create structures that are beautiful rather than useful.

Fig 1: A structural framework for Zaha Hadid’s Riverside museum, seen from the bird’s eye view (left) and the outside ground floor level (right). Image: Zaha Hadid Architects

Architectural website articles: The Architectural Review Vs The Guardian Vs Dezeen Magazine articles are perhaps the golden mean within the realm of architectural media, combining beautiful shots of buildings with often concise, yet perceptive critiques. With their quality primarily depending on the credibility of the publisher and the author, many famous architecture magazines have published excellent reviews on very famous buildings. However, the same building can receive contrasting reviews from different magazines, creating an ambiguity, as there is no universal protocol that exists following which an author can check whether the building fits into the criteria of a great design or not. It is up to an individual, in this case, the author of an article to use his or her judgement and provide an adequate verdict. A great example of such a case would be a comparison between the reviews from The Architectural Review, The Guardian, and Dezeen on Zaha Hadid’s Riverside museum in Glasgow, Scotland. Completed in 2011, the Riverside Museum quickly gained the critics’ attention due to its as Hadid described, “structurally ingenious” form. Three reviews from various magazines highlight different aspects of the building but leave a question whether either of the analyses is sufficient.

According to The Architectural Review, the building boasts a “looming facade and hints of the voluptuous roof ”3. The article continues with a more critical tone, pointing out the flaws in terms of the building’s outlandish shape being partially visible only from ground level (see Fig 1). It emphasises the artist’s “obsession with digital tools has [that] led to designs that appear to exist only

3

Architectural Review. 2020. Riverside Museum by Zaha Hadid Architects, Glasgow, UK - Architectural Review.

Structure and Architecture

3

B117095

3 December 2020

to justify ever-more outlandish shapes”, focusing directly on form, something that the other articles neglect either partially or fully. The article then shifts its focus to aspects of urban layout and contextual meaning of the building, and proceeds to draw parallels between the building’s curvature and “the metaphorical dynamism to the space”. The piece mentions the overall flaws of the facade but fails to mention important ecological implications of the form’s extraordinary shape, such as the amount of steelwork it took to support the 100 m span. Additionally, it neglects the discussion on the architect’s dilemma of installing either columns or transverse elements in order to reduce the material use. The article only briefly mentions the cost for the said steelwork and “Herculian efforts”4 of the engineers that had to design and assemble it. The role of structure is partially assessed in this review, with a more in-depth discussion of the span and its complexities missing.

Fig 2: The inner steelwork required to support the roof of the Riverside Museum Image by Inexibit

Architectural Review. 2020. Riverside Museum by Zaha Hadid Architects, Glasgow, UK - Architectural Review.

[ONLINE] Available at: https://www.architectural-review.com/today/riverside-museum-by-zaha-hadid-architectsglasgow-uk. [Accessed 14 December 2020].

4

Structure and Architecture

4

B117095

3 December 2020

In contrast, the review by Rowan Moore for The

“The design, combining geometric complexity with structural ingenuity form in Riverside museum, ironically noting that and material authenticity, “The museum is mostly about interior”5. He also continues Glasgow’s rich engineering states that “Outside, it is, ty pologically, a traditions and will be a part of the supermarket, being a big thing in a car park city’s future as a centre of innovation” 6 Guardian completely neglects the importance of

seeking to attract you in” , whilst there may be an

argument that this is the case, the building’s-ZAHA HADID ON THE RIVERSIDE MUSEUM, 2011 unusual curvature is what makes it stand out, and ultimately, is the source of the controversy behind it. This is not the only illogical statement made in the article, as the author describes the museum as “pleasingly old-fashioned”. Primary materials for the building’s construction are steel, corrugated metal, zinc cladding, glass panels, and glass-reinforced gypsum7, neither of which can be classified as “old-fashioned”. Furthermore, the reflective silver cladding and innovative engineering technology used for the building assembly demonstrate nothing but the futuristic vibe Hadid intended for Glasgow’s “future centre of innovation”. The article clearly demonstrates the case where a work published by a well-renowned name shows little to no insight into the building’s structural details and perhaps more worryingly, offers a rather misleading description of a creation that is famous for its post-modern silhouette.

“The museum positions itself symbolically and functionally as open and fluid, engaging its context and content to ensure it is profoundly interlinked with not only Glasgow’s

Dezeen’s summer 2011 article on Riverside Museum offers the most unbiased, but the least critical review out of the three works discussed. Amy Frearson, the author, begins by describing the urban layout, symbolism, and context of the

history, but also its future.”

building, and proceeds to individual details of the structure

-Amy

such as roof and rafter elements8. The discussion shifts to

Frearson, Riverside museum by Zaha Hadid, 2010

the engineering specifications, as the author describes in detail how the accuracy of fabrication was achieved. Still,

the article provides no discussion on the facade’s no girder connection strategy, which later on resulted in extremely high number of internal forces, ultimately responsible for the amount of steel used in the building. This kind of analysis is perhaps the most adequate out of the three articles discussed, since the author is obviously familiar with topics outside the field of architectural theology and focuses on the technical aspects of the building. Additionally, she uses the minimum number of opinion-based sentences and interpretation when structuring her point, supporting it with factual data if necessary. Even so, the review is not fully comprehensive, and lacks in discussion

5

the Guardian. 2020. Riverside Museum of Transport and Travel, Glasgow – review | Zaha Hadid | The Guardian.

6

the Guardian. 2020. Riverside Museum of Transport and Travel, Glasgow – review | Zaha Hadid | The Guardian.

7

Dezeen. 2020. Riverside Museum by Zaha Hadid Architects | Dezeen. [ONLINE] Available at: https:// www.dezeen.com/2011/06/10/riverside-museum-by-zaha-hadid-architects/. [Accessed 14 December 2020].

8

Structure and Architecture

5

B117095

3 December 2020

of the building’s enormous amount of steel usage and does not cover any aspect of the building’s environmental impact.

The role of structure was addressed in articles from The Architectural Review and Dezeen on a certain level, a minimum which is expected from architecture-oriented magazines of high caliber. Naturally, it important to note that an in-depth analysis is often impossible in magazine reviews due to the formatting and text limits, nevertheless it is arguable whether this is a sufficient excuse for not mentioning important aspects of the building design feasibility such as sustainability. The review published by The Guardian is an example of a journalistic approach to architectural criticism, overpowered by the author’s character and ideas, rather than focusing on factual evidence and a discussion of technology. However, Moore’s review raises eyebrows only if looked at from a perspective of a scholar, rather than a magazine writer. It can be argued that such bold, tabloid-style reviews are what architectural media lacks today, and the discussions on controversial critical reviews will make architectural media take its first steps towards reaching the mainstream audiences. It is always controversial to make judgment on the criteria based on which critics choose to convey the analysis upon, however neglecting of the structural form and diminishing of the technical genius used in many modern buildings is criminal in the world of architecture, with this crime being committed rather often in today’s media. With aesthetics remaining supreme over other factors, the question arises whether this is an appropriate time to worry about visuals. Additionally, construction industry being responsible for 39% of the world’s carbon emissions 9, excessive focus on architecture’s aesthetic side on critic’s behalf shadows other, perhaps more relevant to today's world aspect of building design. Due to this, the perception of both architects and critics is shifts from the creation of an interesting form with material optimisation being a priority to the other way around.

Needless to say, this verdict does not concern every building ever constructed, but rather remarks on a dangerous trend, one that cannot be afforded in current state of the world.

World Green Building Council. 2020. New report: the building and construction sector can reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 | World Green Building Council.

9

Structure and Architecture

6

B117095

3 December 2020

Architectural Journal articles: Bloomberg’s HQ: An expert’s opinion, A scholar’s insight Architectural journal articles are professional pieces of writing that can be published independently or under a publisher. They have the format of an academic research, critical appraisal, as well as that of a critical exposé. Since journal articles’ topics are very narrow, they show a thorough insight within the theme. When it comes to critical appraisals of buildings, journal articles are required to assess appropriateness of its form at least using visual inspection. This task requires mastery and a deep understanding of force distribution and transfer within a structure, something that one fully grasps after years of experience in technical architecture. So, a journal article cannot be written just by anyone- but rather an expert in a given field. Even though there is no official protocol a critic must follow to conduct a full building analysis, a simple methodology can be assumed for a short, but comprehensive critical appraisal of a building. This includes the classification of a building as a formactive, non form-active, or semi form-active, and assessing the building’s efficiency and the reasons behind it. Furthermore, the building’s individual elements must be taken into consideration, since they generally are what distinguish one structure from another. Span is an important component that is indirectly tied to the efficiency and the monetary cost of the building, so its discussion is a core component in any critical analysis10. With this being the minimum requirement for a critical appraisal, famous magazines choose to write articles with an additional scope that goes beyond a simple structural review. An example of this case is The Architectural Review’s article Money talks: Bloomberg London by Foster + Partners which discusses whether Bloomberg’s European Headquarters did deserve the 2018 Stirling prize while examining its architectural elements.

10

Macdonald, A, 2019. Structure & Architecture. 3rd ed. Oxon: Routldge

Structure and Architecture

7

B117095

3 December 2020

a) b)

c)

Fig 3:Bloomberg Headquarter’s signature elements : a) Timber Vortex b) Aluminium petal ceiling system c) Hypotrochoid steel ramp Images by bloomberg.com

Fig.4 : Bloomberg, London. A Natural ventilation system model Foster+Partners.

Image by Wirth Engineering

Structure and Architecture

8

B117095

3 December 2020

Published by one of the top architectural

“

magazines in today’s media, the article questions a In the decades to come when we controversial win by examining signature details think back tot he Stirling Prize

of building, starting with the 250 Japanese bronze winners, and the other architects and

clients who had the power to influence the direction and the form to vacuum-flush toilets to its ventilation system of the years to come, we will likely that eventually secured the win for Bloomberg remember that they failed us.” facade fins and custom-made aluminium “petals”

(Fig 4)11. However, the focus quickly shifts to a

-G. KAFKA , MONEY TALKS: BLOOMBERG, LONDON

comparison of the 2018 title holder to other buildings, clearly indicating shortcomings of a current winner. The article ends with a very strong, yet justified conclusion claiming that Bloomberg despite its alleged environmental supremacy, cheats the system, and when the time comes when BREEAM scores and Stirling Prizes do not matter, Bloomberg European Headquarters will reveal its true colours of being an architectural failure.

Undoubtably, The Architectural Review does not disappoint with its quality of work, however, whether the importance of structure and architecture is appropriately noted is still up for a discussion. A completely different picture unravels when discussing Adam Glew’s “From Willis to Bloomberg: a critical insight into the development of Norman Foster’s High-Tech design philosophy”. This review drastically differs from that of Kafka, mainly because of it being an academic work rather than a journalistic article. It delivers a full critical insight of the buildings’ skeleton as promised in the title and provides an excellent discussion on structural elements of Bloomberg European Headquarters, starting from purpose and layout of to individual signature components of the building, such as the timber vortex, aluminium petal ceiling system, and hypotrochoid steel ramp (Fig. 3). A separate section of the essay is dedicated to analysis of a structure, which is something that is usually absent or overshadowed by other points in many magazine reviews. The work clearly prioritises the focus on design feasibility aspects of the building, without diminishing any of its visual properties. Glew describes the building’s design feasibility in a concise, yet accurate points, which are directly supported by previous discussion of structural elements. He challenges the idea of aesthetic superiority being justified at an expense of

“Ultimately, this is an example of architectural desire taking priority over structural engineering logic: it shows a working relationship where the engineer is battling intuition to realise the architectural vision, resulting in a wasteful solution.”

-A.GWEN , ON BLOOMBERG’S EUROPEAN HEADQUARTERS, LONDON 2017

unsustainable design, and supports the argument originally made by Kafka, that even the most enormous budget does not cover for the disrespectful attitude towards the material use. Glew acknowledges the existing perks of Bloomberg’s European Headquarters, such as its ultra-modern building services and technical design but does not let them

Kafka, G., 2019., Money talks: Bloomberg London, UK, by Foster + Partners. The Architectural review, 245 (1458) pp. 88-95

11

Structure and Architecture

9

B117095

3 December 2020

outshine its greater problems. He correctly directs the attention towards the analysis of the building’s individual components and their contribution to the overall design, which allows the reader to draw his or her conclusion without being forced into the author’s verdict. Additionally, Glew critiques a larger scale problem of the BREEAM scoring system, by showing the sheer volume of material steel used for the construction of this edifice, which eventually did not result in a deduction of points during the scoring process. He points out that “a building should not be classified as sustainable for simply installing the most expensive and complex technology possible”12, a critique often associated with Foster’s designs. This issue of sustainability extends even further, as many websites and even journal articles paint Bloomberg’s headquarters’ design as an impeccable innovation and the future of architecture. This is a dangerous opinion to have in 21st century, with climate change speeding towards an irreversible point. In architectural media, any type of publicity is highly regarded by both- commentators and architects, since architectural news is not a topic that one encounters daily, making every existing review and critique matter. With the many out of limited number of opinions prioritising visuals over the effectiveness of the design, enabling of architects to create unique-looking, yet unsustainable buildings is almost expected and encouraged. A question arises whether this lifestyle is affordable in the current situation. Thankfully, not everyone is Michael Bloomberg, “a billionaire who wanted to be an architect”, and not everyone is Norman Foster, “an architect who wanted to be a billionaire”.13 Perhaps it would be more logical for both architects and their clients to remain true to their profession and for a “Once-in-a-generation project”14 to happen literally once a generation.

How “up-to-date” is architectural social media?

Formerly, many scholarly fields and disciplines such as general medicine, surgery, psychology, and more, have been completely unrelated to anyone besides professionals of such fields. In today’s digital world, they have found a new home on social media like YouTube and Snapchat, where professionals create platforms to introduce applications of their field of study to watchers with no prior education in a given subject. This has completely transformed people’s perception of previously “distant” topics, raised the overall awareness and knowledge regarding those subjects, and integrated their existence into many people’s everyday life. Despite architecture being a concept interacting with everyone at some point in his or her life, architectural media leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to relevancy and engagement with mainstream audiences.

Glew, A. 2019. From Willis to Bloomberg: a critical insight into the development of Norman Foster’s High-Tech design philosophy.

12

Memoori. 2020. Billionaire Who Wants to be an Architect Works with an Architect Who Wants to be a Billionaire!.

[ONLINE] 13

14

Bloomberg - Headquarters Named UK’s best new building. 2020. Bloomberg. [ONLINE]

Structure and Architecture

10

B117095

3 December 2020

Fig 5: The Former Building of the Parliament of Georgia, Kutaisi by CMD Inginieros Image by georgiatoday.com

Compared to other visual art industries, architectural social media shows an astonishing lack of popular pages. This phenomenon can be explained by examining the content of those pages, which has minor differences from one page to another. At first glance, the feed of every page is filled with glorious shots of architecture from all over the world, but a closer look reveals that there is virtually nothing beyond aesthetics, in terms of information on architectural technology or any analysis or critique on the importance of structure. Former Parliament of Georgia in Kutaisi is a prime example of a building, where the structural form became a reason for its downfall. Constructed in 2011-2012, it became a social media favourite due to its unusual shape and a modern design. However, none of the posts provided any insight on how its structure served towards the building’s efficiency. In reality, the building is nothing more than a facade: its form-active structure is constructed primarily for visual purposes and does not carry any value in creating a feasible design. Its glass covered shell absorbs and traps sun rays, which does not allow proper ventilation. Material usage in the building's structure does not improve the situation either, with extensive steel framework being used in construction of both, supporting railing for the glass dome, as well as the reinforced concrete belt that serves as an entrance. With a hefty price of 83 million dollars15 not being justified by any components of the building, as well as high maintenance costs due to its shape and material use, the it is now abandoned.

15

ArchDaily. 2020. In Progress: New Parliament of Georgia / CMD Ingenieros | ArchDaily. [ONLINE]

Structure and Architecture

11

B117095

3 December 2020

The core problem identified within the architectural social media is the reasoning behind such actions, with social media reducing the meaning of architecture to being a mere gallery of “pretty pictures” with short and descriptive rather than critical captions. As a result, architectural media on commonly used platforms such as Instagram, Tiktok, and Facebook is unable to reach the mainstream audiences due to lack of engaging and thought-provoking content and fails to represent the building technology innovations that the 21st century has to offer. A parallel can be drawn between this issue of architectural social media to that of critical reviews- both mediums favouring appearance over sense. In terms of social media, this results in a lack of engagement and the deterioration of an industry on a public level, in terms of architectural criticism, it portrays an incomplete and sometimes misleading picture of certain buildings and the theories behind them, which in its way promotes the creation of structures with the prime purpose of being visually appealing, rather than sustainable. To conclude, architectural social media is behind on modern trends, which creates a disconnect between the subject and the audience, portrays a partial, onedimensional picture of the topic, and thereby prevents its integration into the mainstream.

Conclusion As previously noted, determining the judging criteria for a building’s critical appraisal is easier said than done. In the case of website articles, this field of architectural media suffers the most due to the absence of a building appraisal assessment protocol. Journalism being a field of opinions, allows writers to focus on any aspect of a structure as they see fit, leaving a large margin for error. It is quite challenging to get an entire picture of a building’s elements primarily relying on a magazine article, as proven in a case study contrasting three reviews from different publishers on the Riverside museum. The Architectural Review’s article on Hadid’s famous work showed a sufficient analysis of a structure itself, however it lacked the discussion on implications of its complex shell in terms of environmental impact. The Guardian’s article on the same building showed no insight towards neither architectural technology nor importance of the structure in the building. Dazeen’s verdict on Riverside museum is the most appropriate since it shows the least bias and most attention towards the architectural technology used in the building’s construction. It is unclear, as for what qualifies as an “ideal” website review, nevertheless all three works in discussion were lacking in exploration of certain major themes that are especially relevant to today’s world.

As seen in examples above, journal articles and academic papers show a further insight into a building’s structure, skeleton, and the architectural technology used for its completion. In case of G. Kafka’s review of Bloomberg Headquarters, the author questions whether it is the building’s ingenuous design that is responsible for its success, or it is the enormous amount of monetary Structure and Architecture

12

B117095

3 December 2020

investment that does the trick. Kafka’s work explores the building’s iconic technologic features, and draws the conclusion that their feasibility, alongside that of an entire building, is highly influenced by the monetary involvement to a point that it becomes unsustainable, despite its reputation for being one of the most environmentally friendly projects made in recent years. In contrast, Adam Glew’s insight on the same building unravels a more comprehensive picture of the project overall, through the perspective of a scholar, rather than that of a critic.

Similarly, to the problem discovered in other parts of architectural media, social media lacks depth.

Current content available on famous social networks portrays primarily an aesthetic image of architecture, ignoring the technical details that serve as a basis for the beauty. This cheapens the overall meaning of the field, which is an ultimate hybrid of art and science, and deters potential new audiences from engaging with it.

Essentially, structure is an equation for an architect, with span being one of the variables. Solutions to an equation must satisfy all boundary conditions, otherwise, they are not deemed as valid.

Similarity, it is an architect’s job to optimise all factors in a building, including its workability, price, environmental impact, and visual appeal. Observing architectural media’s treatment of building technology and role of a structure, this equation is not satisfied, and requires an urgent, revolutionary approach from both the architects’ and the commentators’ behalf.

Structure and Architecture

13

B117095

3 December 2020

BIBLIOGRAPHY Macdonald, A, 2019. Structure & Architecture. 3rd ed. Oxon: Routldge

Kafka, G., 2019., Money talks: Bloomberg London, UK, by Foster + Partners. The Architectural review, 245 (1458) pp. 88-95

study.com. 2020. No page title. [ONLINE] Available at: https://study.com/directory/category/ Architecture/Architectural_Technology.html. [Accessed 14 December 2020].

Glew, A. 2019. From Willis to Bloomberg: a critical insight into the development of Norman Foster’s High-Tech design philosophy. University of Edinburgh Press

\

Architectural Review. 2020. Riverside Museum by Zaha Hadid Architects, Glasgow, UK Architectural Review. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.architectural-review.com/today/ riverside-museum-by-zaha-hadid-architects-glasgow-uk. [Accessed 14 December 2020].

Archello. 2020. Glasgow Riverside Museum | Zaha Hadid Architects | Archello. [ONLINE] Available at: https://archello.com/project/glasgow-riverside-museum. [Accessed 14 December 2020].

World Green Building Council. 2020. New report: the building and construction sector can reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 | World Green Building Council. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.worldgbc.org/news-media/WorldGBC-embodied-carbon-reportpublished#:~:text=Together%2C%20building%20and%20construction%20are,buildings) %20accounting%20for%2028%25.. [Accessed 14 December 2020]

the Guardian. 2020. Riverside Museum of Transport and Travel, Glasgow – review | Zaha Hadid | The Guardian. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/jun/12/ zaha-hadid-glasgow-architecture-review. [Accessed 14 December 2020].

BREEAM. 2020. Bloomberg London - BREEAM. [ONLINE] Available at: https:// www.breeam.com/case-studies/offices/bloomberg-london/. [Accessed 14 December 2020].

Memoori. 2020. Billionaire Who Wants to be an Architect Works with an Architect Who Wants to be a Billionaire!. [ONLINE] Available at: https://memoori.com/happens-billionaire-wantsarchitect-works-architect-wants-billionaire/. [Accessed 14 December 2020].

Bloomberg - Headquarters Named UK’s best new building. 2020. Bloomberg. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/company/press/bloomberg-european-hq-named-uksbest-new-building/. [Accessed 14 December 2020].

ArchDaily. 2020. In Progress: New Parliament of Georgia / CMD Ingenieros | ArchDaily. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/247325/in-progress-new-parliament-of-georgia-cmdingenieros. [Accessed 14 December 2020].

Dezeen. 2020. Riverside Museum by Zaha Hadid Architects | Dezeen. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2011/06/10/riverside-museum-by-zaha-hadid-architects/.

[Accessed 14 December 2020].

Structure and Architecture

14

B117095

Structure and Architecture

3 December 2020

15