nomination by the Government of Australia - Sydney Opera House

3.43
also inspired by the laws of nature—‘my laboratory
is the beach, the forest, the sea and the seashore’
(Weston 2002: 278). But in abiding by these laws, Utzon
found room for a poetry and lyricism that is missing in
some of Nervi’s Exhibition Buildings. Utzon and engineer
Ove Arup matched Nervi’s innovations with quantum
leaps in engineering science, the design and erection
of prestressed concrete and the precision of precasting
and formworking made possible through an innovative
use of new computer technologies.
In comparing the Sydney Opera House with Saarinen’s
TWA Terminal it is clear that the buildings share
some common origins in terms of the combinations
of architectonics and structural engineering and
similarity of roof shapes. Both represented outstanding
architectural design and engineering achievements.
Saarinen took in situ concrete construction to its
practical limit in the TWA Terminal, using the curvature
of the thin roof covering to provide both span and
rigidity. The theme of futuristic motion extends to all
parts of the building including metaphorical ‘feet’ where
the wings come down to earth. Necessary movement
joints between the shells become shafts where natural
light is brought deep into the building. Saarinen stated
that it was a ‘fully designed environment in which each
part arises from another’ (The Great Buildings Collection
web site 2005). Sharp has noted that Saarinen’s
evocative building at the gateway to the United States
‘alarmed the remaining purists of modern architecture’
(The Great Buildings Collection web site 2005).
Figure 3.43 Eero Saarinen’s TWA Terminal, Kennedy
Airport, New York, 1956–1962
The TWA Terminal is without doubt a dramatic building,
particularly for people moving within its sinuous
concrete shells. Its free-form plasticity is exceptional
and not unlike Saarinen’s well-known ‘tulip’ chairs
and fi breglass tables. Saarinen’s amazing building
achievement is evoked by the many references to its
‘soaring spaces’ and ‘birds in fl ight’.
The Sydney Opera House bears important similarities to
the buildings of Nervi and Saarinen. It is a dramatically
strong work in terms of its siting within the landscape,
its structural design and construction and its complex
architectural meaning even in comparison to the
buildings of Nervi and Saarinen discussed above. All the
buildings share amazing technological feats in the use
of large clear spans and the extensive use of concrete.
But the functional simplicity of the Nervi and Saarinen
roofs serves to highlight the complex structural and
architectural expression of the roofs of the Sydney
Opera House. For Utzon, designing and building the
shell roofs was only the start of the adventure.
As Carter has noted, the use of differing glazes for the
roof tiles gave Utzon the ‘combination of matt snow
and shining ice’ he was looking for and resulted in one
of the ‘most radiant and alive surfaces in architecture,
thoroughly modern in its abstraction and technically
impossible before its day’ (Sharp 2005; Whittick 1980:
589; Carter 2005).
51