nomination by the Government of Australia - Sydney Opera House

More documents

Recommendations

Info

36 Part 3. Justifi cation for inscription 3.19 3.20 A vital element of Utzon’s approach was the fusion of, and interplay between, the aesthetic, scientifi c and abstract, and between the traditional crafts of the building industry and new materials and technologies. ‘I like to be on the edge of the possible,’ is something Jørn Utzon has said. His work shows the world that he has been there and beyond—he proves that the marvellous and seemingly impossible in architecture can be achieved. He has always been ahead of his time. He rightly joins the handful of Modernists who have shaped the past century with buildings of timeless and enduring quality (Pritzker Prize citation 2003). Utzon’s collaborative model, that was closely aligned with Ove Arup’s own multi-disciplinary approach, was also maintained by Hall Todd & Littlemore after Utzon’s departure. Arup’s approach, known as Total Architecture, involved the holistic consideration and integration of decisions on architecture, engineering and construction. This approach had its origins in his work with Berthold Lubetkin and Tecton in England in the 1930s. Figure 3.19 The Sydney Opera house from the air during construction. The Sydney Opera House is a signifi cant feat of engineering and technology involving ingenuity and creativity in many aspects of its design and construction. Initially there was some scepticism about whether Utzon’s radical design could ever be built. Utzon’s competition entry was little more than a lyrical image: there were no perspective drawings and engineering advice had not been sought (Murray 2004: 13). His design, which included unprecedented architectural forms such as the shells, required new solutions including new technologies and materials. In addition, Utzon’s tendency not to document his ideas and the constant evolution of designs during the construction process also posed problems. These challenges were resolved through the collaborative efforts of Utzon and the engineering and construction teams. The outstanding contribution of engineers Ove Arup & Partners (led by Danish engineer Ove Arup) who worked on the building for 16 years was pivotal to the realisation of Utzon’s design. In some cases groundbreaking research and development were needed in several engineering fi elds involving close collaboration between the engineering design team and university teams in Britain and Australia. While this approach was common in the aerospace industry, it was (and still is) rare in the building industry where tried and tested technologies were usually favoured (Addis 2005). Examples of engineering and technological feats that helped to transform Utzon’s design into a built reality are detailed below. Figure 3.20 The prestressed beams to the underside of the podium
The podium The construction of the podium was a signifi cant design and engineering achievement. The challenge was to construct a podium that simultaneously created a sense of the continuation of the natural landscape and a bold modern structure of continuous reinforced concrete that rose out of the ground and overlooked the harbour (Weston 2002: 129). Utzon’s initial design concept was for the concourse to be supported by a number of columns. Ove Arup investigated ways to better refl ect Utzon’s precepts: ‘Express honestly the characteristics of the materials used’ and ‘Let the structure speak for itself’ (Murray 2004: 25). The bold solution was a beam that integrated the techniques of folded plate structures and prestressing. The single span design created both a sculptural and effi cient form (Murray 2004: 26–27). This design provided the ability long sought by architects to provide huge spaces unencumbered by structural supports. Utzon credited the design as ‘Ove’s invention’ (Murray 2004: 27). 3.21 Figure 3.21 The formwork for the folded beams that form the lower concourse The shells After many attempts at fulfi lling the promise that the competition proposals promised, an intensive collaboration between architects and engineers ended with an absolutely clear solution with ball geometry that gave the right answer to all the many problems that such a huge and complicated task could throw up. We had no precedent to go on … only through [a] series of experiments did we come to understand all aspects and fi nd ourselves able to reach the result. It was like climbing Mount Everest for the fi rst time (Utzon quoted in Weston 2004a: 131). The design solution for the shells was a major feat by Utzon and Ove Arup & Partners. Experimentation with new concrete forms such as shell and largescale concrete structures had been going on since the early 20th century. However, the construction of a shell structure comparable to Utzon’s design had not previously been undertaken. Hence, there was no precedent for Utzon, his architects or the engineers to follow in developing a design solution for the shells. 37
Page 1 and 2: SYDNEY OPERA HOUSE NOMINATION BY TH
Page 3: SYDNEY OPERA HOUSE NOMINATION BY TH
Page 6 and 7: 4 PREFACE Australia is pleased to p
Page 9 and 10: 1.A COUNTRY Country - Australia 1.B
Page 11 and 12: The topographic map shows the locat
Page 13: PART 2. DESCRIPTION 11
Page 16 and 17: 14 Part 2. Description 2.2 The comp
Page 18 and 19: 16 Part 2. Description 2.6 2.7 2.8
Page 20 and 21: 18 Part 2. Description The glass wa
Page 22 and 23: 20 Part 2. Description 2.19 Further
Page 24 and 25: 22 Part 2. Description 2.23 Interna
Page 26 and 27: 24 Part 2. Description The Sydney O
Page 29 and 30: … we’re here to nudge forward t
Page 31 and 32: Utzon’s design modifi ed the esta
Page 33 and 34: In the Sydney Opera House Jørn Utz
Page 35 and 36: Utzon’s reading and use of histor
Page 37: 3.17 3.18 Utzon’s genius is manif
Page 41 and 42: 3.24 Figure 3.24 Arups’ summary o
Page 43 and 44: 3.28 engineers Jorg Schlaich and We
Page 45 and 46: 3.32 The Sydney Opera House holds a
Page 47 and 48: 3.34 3.35 The setting of Bennelong
Page 49 and 50: 3.36 qualities and precise, geometr
Page 51 and 52: 3.39 3.40 3.41 Masterpieces of the
Page 53 and 54: 3.43 also inspired by the laws of n
Page 55 and 56: 3.45 3.D INTEGRITY AND AUTHENTICITY
Page 57 and 58: Materials and substance The use and
Page 59: PART 4. STATE OF CONSERVATION AND F
Page 62 and 63: 60 Part 4. State of conservation an
Page 64 and 65: 62 Part 4. State of conservation an
Page 67 and 68: 5.A OWNERSHIP The Sydney Opera Hous
Page 69 and 70: 5.C MEANS OF IMPLEMENTING PROTECTIV
Page 71 and 72: 5.2 Sydney Regional Environmental P
Page 73 and 74: 5.3 Sydney Opera House: a plan for
Page 75 and 76: 5.5 5.6 • • • • • An on-s
Page 77: 6PART 6. MONITORING 75
Page 80 and 81: 78 Part 6. Monitoring 6.2 Figure 6.
Page 82 and 83: 80 Part 6. Monitoring 6.C RESULTS O
Page 85 and 86: 7.A PHOTOGRAPHS, SLIDES, IMAGE INVE
Page 87 and 88: 7.B TEXTS RELATING TO PROTECTIVE DE
Page 89 and 90:
Baume, M 1967, The Sydney Opera Hou
Page 91 and 92:
Hall, P 1981, Great planning disast
Page 93 and 94:
Sommer, D, Stöcher, H & Weisser, L
Page 95:
893 PART 8. CONTACT INFORMATION
Page 98 and 99:
96 Part 8: Contact information 8.C
Page 100 and 101:
98 PART 9. SIGNATURE ON BEHALF OF T
Page 103 and 104:
10.A BIOGRAPHIES OF JØRN UTZON AND
Page 105 and 106:
Awards In addition to the awards de
Page 107 and 108:
10.3 Ove Arup (1895-1988) Ove Nyqui
Page 109 and 110:
10.B LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Front co
Page 111 and 112:
Figure 3.30 Photograph by Max Dupai
Page 113 and 114:
Other contributors Sydney Opera Hou
Page 115 and 116:
Figure 10.6 1902 Fort Macquarie is
Page 117 and 118:
B 10.E PLANS, SECTIONS AND ELEVATIO
Page 119 and 120:
EASTERN ELEVATION WESTERN ELEVATION
show all

nomination by the Government of Australia - Sydney Opera House

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?