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

The role of arches in contemporary architecture. Master Thesis by Aleksandra Shymanskaya. Part 1