Structure and architecture
the form adopted is fundamentally inefficient, because it has been designed without reference to structural requirements, the maximum possible span may be quite small. The neglect of structural issues in the determination of the form of a building can therefore be problematic if a large span is involved. The small scale of the buildings already mentioned meant that the internal forces were not so large that they could not be resisted without the use of excessively large cross-sections. Eero Saarinen’s terminal for TWA at Idlewild (now Kennedy) Airport, New York (Fig. 7.45) paid similar disregard to structural logic. Although the roof of this building was a reinforced concrete shell it did not have a form-active shape. The form was determined from visual rather than from structural considerations and, because it was larger than Ronchamp, difficulties occurred with the structure. These were overcome by modifying the original design to strengthen the shell in the locations of highest internal force. Jorn Utzon’s Sydney Opera House is another example of this type of building (Fig. 7.46). In this case, the scale was such that it was impossible to overcome the consequences of the complete disregard of structural and constructional concerns in the determination of the form. In the resulting saga, in which the form of the building had to be radically altered for constructional reasons, the architect resigned and the client was faced with a protracted construction period and with costs which were an order of magnitude greater than had originally been envisaged. Amid great political controversy, the building was nevertheless completed and has become a distinctive image which is synonymous with Sydney, if not with Australia, rather as the Eiffel Tower, Big Ben or the Statue of Liberty have come to represent other famous cities and their respective countries. Although the expertise of Ove Arup and Partners in solving the structural and constructional problems brought about by Utzon’s inspired, if technically flawed, original design are undisputed, the question of whether the final form of the Sydney Opera House is good
Fig. 7.45 TWA Terminal, Idlewild (now Kennedy) Airport, New York, USA, 1962; Eero Saarinen, architect; Amman and Whitney, structural engineers. The form here was far from ideal structurally and strengthening ribs of great thickness were required at locations of high internal force. The structure was therefore inefficient but construction was possible due to the relatively modest spans involved. (Photo: R. J. Mainstone)
Fig. 7.46 Opera House, Sydney, Australia, 1957–65; Jorn Utzon, architect; Ove Arup & Partners, structural engineers. The upper drawing here shows the original competitionwinning proposal for the building which proved impossible to build. The final scheme, though technically ingenious, is considered by many to be much less satisfactory visually. The significant difference between this and the buildings in Figs 7.41 to 7.45 is one of scale.
architecture remains open. This building may serve as a warning to architects who choose to disregard the inconveniences of structural requirements when determining form. The
113