A hotel and cultural center that is wrapped in a latticed framework of white cubes.
The way a metal structure “should” look is based on the goal of the building, but personally, I think that when the steel of a building is made visible, it should show the structural expression the architecture is trying to convey. Many times, this is done to show the modernity of the building often for industrial-type programs. Metal also as a material has a lot of wide range of capabilities in design due to its inherent properties and versatility, so we see projects maximizing the material’s strengths. Whether the type of building is an office complex or a modern art museum, I believe that there is no certain way that metal structures should ‘look’ in terms of aesthetics, as there isn’t a set rule for how any type of material should be used visually as well.
I think this building is a beautiful example of how metal structure is amazing for the way it can express how a building is made. So many times, we use materials that ‘cover up’ structure. However, being able to see how something is made, is an amazing thing that metal allows architects to do.
In class we talked about how metal structures, during the Industrial Revolution, were an expression of new technology, specifically the Eiffel Tower. The Eiffel Tower was made in under 2 years, showing how each part can be made off site and put together in an efficient way. The Eiffel Tower, to this day, is an extraordinary and well known landmark that is still appreciated, but it was built to show the innovation of new materials and how they can be used.
This example of the Eiffel Tower reminds me of this hotel and cultural center described above, for its ultimate expression of the structure. Like the Eiffel Tower, this Cultural Center is honest in how it depicts the way it was made. Buildings like these are allowed to be genuine and true because of metal, and this has continued to change the way we see architecture.
I have never seen this building before but I think it’s a really strong example of the aesthetic use of metal to create an interesting facade and structure simultaneously. I agree that it’s particularly intriguing when the very structure of a building is expressed, taking on a stylistic quality. In this case, it feels light, modular, and somehow transparent even though it’s metal.
In class this week, we learned that this application of metal was not always so common. As a result of the Industrial Revolution, cast iron because the predominant building material because of it’s efficiency, low cost, and *believed* fire resistance (Kive, Lecture 5W). However, just because it gained popularity as a new material does not mean it gained such appreciation as a style. Unlike the example you showed above, most initial applications of cast iron were not celebrated, and the material was not leveraged as a new style. Instead, the material was covered up in ways that directly mimicked or even replicated existing buildings (Kive, Lecture 5W). I find it fascinating that such a revolutionary material was only used in this capacity for a long time, rather than being fully realized as an aesthetic component.
I would agree with you that metal is strongest (not physically) when used intentionally as a structural and visual design component. The Industrial Revolution brought us incredible material advancements but limited stylistic changes initially. There is a parallel, however, between the cultural center you showed and other exhibition spaces of the 19th century. In these cases, the material was showcased because the use of these buildings was to show technological and scientific advancements, altering the way that people experienced space (Kive, Lecture 5W). I believe that these applications were the most impressive during the Industrial Revolution, and they give way to the metal buildings we see today such as the cultural center.