<div class="page photo" style="">
<article>
<header style="
background-image:url(/uploads/548ca6741a006.jpg);
">
<div class="box">
<div class="intro" style="color: #000;">
<h1 style="color: #000 !important;">Casa Da Musica: The Everyday Icon</h1>
<p class="summary">An Essay. </p>
</div>
</div>
</header>
<div class="main">
<div class="container">
<p class="byline">Stephanie Koltun </p>
<p>In the pursuit of global status,
cities have called on “starchitects” to design large-scale cultural projects
imbued with iconic power. Often, these cities desire urban rehabilitation and a
designer with notable cache attached to their name. In her essay in
Architecture and Capitalism, Ellen Dunham-Jones explainsthe proliferation of image-boosting
architectural icons as a result of globalized capitalism: </p><p><em>“The trophies of globalization
have evolved from high-design corporate banks by high-profile corporate design
firms — notably Sir Norman Foster’s HSBC Bank Headquarters in Hong Kong from
1979-1985 — to edgy, cultural facilities such as Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim
Museum at Bilbao from 1991-1997, to a daring state-owned media company like
Koolhaas’s CCTV Headquarters in Beijing from 2002-2012. In the competitive
global game of calling attention to one’s progressive cachet, each new entrant
tries to raise the bar, and the budget.”1</em> </p><p>Dunham-Jones highlights that the
objective of these projects are international recognition. Often the desire for
these major investments to serve the local population falls secondary to the
ambition of global spectacle. This is a now-familiar and accepted notion, often
discussed in terms of “The Bilbao Effect.”2</p><p> In projects such as these, the
relationship between icon-making and city-making is debated. Can they cater to
both the transient tourist population as well as the local city dweller? What
is the local impact of these iconic buildings on the urban fabric - is it
integral or incidental? This essay uses OMA’s Casa da Musica in an attempt to
answer these questions. It will be evaluated as both an iconic product of this
system and an object embedded in the local city, fostering everyday
interaction. Koolhaas recognizes the position of the building as an icon but
through differing contextual, material and programmatic relationships, he is
able to engage both the global and local stage. The city and the building
negotiate their relationship through formal gestures, subtle and exuberant
materials and autonomous siting, creating an integral piece of the local urban
fabric that also once captures the desired international audience. </p><p><strong>Porto: European Capital of Culture</strong> </p><p>Porto’s economic history is
dominated by commerce and industrial activity. Previously, the city center was
also the civic center containing the main social, cultural and economic
activity. However in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, the population moved to
the city’s periphery and activity declined.3 In Carlos J. L. Balsas’
examination of Porto’s regeneration efforts, he explains how Porto created
multiple public agencies to direct the physical and cultural rehabilitation:
the Comissariado para a Reabilitacao Urbana da Area Ribeira e Barredo, the
Fundacao para o Desenvolvimento da Zona Historico do Porto, and Pelouro de
Animacao da Cidade.4 In 1996, these organizations successfully applied for
Porto’s historic district to be recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.5
This built heritage has gained significant market potential and has recently
contributed to the resurgence of art and culture destinations in the center.
Following these developments, the municipality was awarded the designation of
2001 European Capital of Culture in May 1998.6 </p><p>As the host of the European
Capital of Culture in 2001, the city of Porto undertook a number of cultural
events and urban regeneration programs including: a new mobility plan,
renovations of existing and construction of new cultural buildings, and public
space improvements.7 These plans focused on local interventions which would
develop the city as a cultural destination. Claudia Lima explains, “[Porto]
aimed to launch the city in the major European cultural routes and at the same
time move forward with urban rehabilitation, expecting to raise a new cultural
public and create new professionals connected to cultural production and new
conceptual methods.”8 Completed in 2005, OMA’s Casa da Musica became one of the
most highlighted components of the program. As such, the building’s status as
an icon is undeniable. </p><p>For decades, Koolhaas has
commented on the increasing commodification of architecture. He contends that
it has become a function of the media, resulting in icons: buildings with no
meaning or functionality beyond advertising.9 However, it is through Koolhaas’
recognition—rather than outright dismissal—of these contemporary conditions
that he mitigates between the media and the everyday. The two are always in
tension. As Charles Jenks points out in The Story of Post-Modernism, “He wants
both to communicate strongly with the public and to disappear; to capture the
plum commissions and yet be modest. His extreme irony suggests he is the
Reluctant Iconist.”10 </p><p>CdM typifies this challenge: the
ambition to create an international icon yet serve the local population. The
building is used to debate for whom is the city for - the global world or the
local context? CdM eems to answer, both. In doing so, Koolhaas is able to
communicate strongly with the public, please his clients and push forward his
own design theories. CdM can be read as series of contrasts and contradictions
that respond to each of these ambitions. It embraces and ignores the city.
Rooms are delicately clad in local tiles yet separated by oversized wavy
glazing. Programs push into each other and fight over territory yet are wrapped
snuggly within a single identity. </p><p>At once, the building wants to disappear
behind the collisions of everyday and simultaneously make itself known. Writing
about how heterogeneous elements form a collective, Van Toorn argues that these
contrasts can foster new experiences. “The coexistence of juxtapositions –
fascination and aversion, emptiness and love, freedom and consumption – can
also be a starting point for the establishment of new connections. It is not a
question of the things themselves (the form) but of what happens between and
through these things.”11 While CdM’s form and autonomy create the desired
international icon, the relationships provoked within, around and through it
make it integral to the urban tissue. </p><p><strong>Casa da Musica in the City </strong></p><p>Located at the intersection of
varied urban fabric, the building is seen layered among contrasts: the dense
trees of Rotunda da Boavista, modest working-class houses, generic office and
commercial buildings. However CdM introduces another texture - chiseled, smooth
concrete. The carved form is juxtaposed against everyday life: delivery trucks
parked on the side of the road, a dirt path cutting through grass with Casa da
Musica behind ramshackle buildings. To a degree, its Bigness
is camouflaged among this surrounding texture. van Toorn points out in
Aesthetics as a Form of Politics, “This building is characterized by a spatial
typology full of ‘neighbourliness’...what this architecture revolves around is
not the object itself but the entirety of relations.”12 However, the siting of
CdM suggests that these multiple relations can only be achieved by the building
standing as an individual object. </p><p>In Koolhaas’ writings from S, M, L, XL, he argues that
context is inherently ignored in the design of large buildings. “Bigness is no
longer part of any urban tissue. It exist; at most, it coexists. Its subtext is
fuck context.”13 CdM initially appears to follow this logic. However, Koolhaas
further advocates that Bigness creates a complex collection of programs within
a building that render the context, and other buildings, obsolete.14 </p><p>In this respect, CdM does not follow Koolhaas’ Bigness
manifesto. The space and buildings around CdM are critical to its design
ambitions. Perched on its own distinct plaza, the building sits as a solitary
object. At this instant, the imposed curved of Rotunda da Boavista is broken. This move physically distances the building from the formal context
and creates a new world around it. Dunham-Jones points out that “Koolhaas likes
the tabula rasa, the identity-less vacant lot, ‘those nothingnesses of infinite
potential.’”15 The travertine plaza is his blank, empty lot. By isolating the
building, the space around it becomes productive. Acting as a counterpoint to
the curve, the open space forces interaction and direct involvement. People
become part of this other world, passing in and out of it. By breaking the
curve, anything is possible. </p><p>The open space provokes activity by including elements of
generic urban life - the cafe, access to underground parking, a bus stop,
gentle slopes and stairs perfect for skateboarding. In his review
for The New York Times, Nicolai Ouroussoff refers to the bus stop, cafe, and
the underground garage entrances are “literally being swept under a rug” of
travertine.16 </p><p>However, I would counter that the plaza is a stage for displaying—not concealing—these everyday
elements. Koolhaas deliberately dilutes the building as a purely cultural
object in favour of unplanned events. In Delirious New York, he promotes the
culture of congestion - the interlocking of public street life with private
lives of skyscraper interiors.17 Although CdM is not a skyscraper, the tactics
are similar. These everyday elements draw the iconic object into direct
relation with the local urban fabric, providing a stage for the everyday.
People exit from underground parking through a punctures in corner of the
plaza. They see the building in its entirety while being consumed
into street life. The ‘Loja Optimus’ store abuts the street. It continues the
formal building edge along Avenida da Boavista and attracts the local community
to the site. Openings cut through the curved travertine connecting
to the surrounding streets. Low stairs encircle the musicians’
restaurant, placing them on display behind a canted wall of glass. Space is provided for individual activity yet the continuous plaza unites them
collectively. </p><p>While iconic cultural projects may traditionally aim to
serve a select patron-class or international tourist, the plaza is porous and
attracts both concert-goers and passers-byes. Once drawn into this
otherly-world, the unfamiliar form forces a reaction and cannot be ignored. Critics
have described it as “a meteor dropped from the sky,”18 “an eccentric
diamond,”19 “a carved rock.”20 Koolhaas describes it as
“swaggeringly egotistical. Its very shape wants to topple over, requiring below-ground
structural heroics to keep it upright. It is daft. It is also wonderful. To
understand it, you must experience it...What you will experience is the pure
rush of raw, cask-strength architecture, undiluted, at its best.”21 The
building is easily described in terms of other objects. Although openings are
of different proportion and location on each face, there is a similarity to all
sides. Additionally, the pale-grey concrete cladding is non-prescriptive. The
singular exterior identity allows and encourages the formal iconic metaphor. </p><p><strong>Casa da Musica on the inside </strong> </p><p>Contrasting the iconicity of the building, the unified
exterior is broken apart within the building. The singular chiseled form is
only achieved by forcing programmatic elements into tension with one another. The
Cyber Music Room, VIP space and childcare area all visually or formally push
into the main concert all. Similar to the overlap of everyday
programs outside, the overlap of interior programs creates a ‘culture of
congestion’ and encounter. Traditionally, an iconic building is large, as is
true with CdM. Koolhaas proposes that it is this Bigness that forces programs
into tension with each other and creates new relationships. </p><p>“Bigness depends on regimes of freedoms, the assembly of
maximum difference. Only Bigness can sustain a promiscuous proliferation of
events to organize both their independence and interdependence within a larger
entity in a symbiosis that exacerbates rather than compromises specificity,
through contamination rather than purity and quantity rather than quality...The
artificiality and complexity of Bigness release function from its defensive
armor to allow a kind of liquefaction...Bigness returns to a model of
programmatic alchemy.”22 </p><p>An internal instability and provocation from the colliding
elements undermines the external prized object. The formal boundaries which
create individual spaces are secondary to the resulting relationships.
Furthermore, circulation space inherently occupies in-between space. Koolhaas
exploits this and uses circulation to place the interior and exterior in
tension with each other. At the end of the main auditorium, two layers of wavy
glazing form a corridor. At once, circulation imposes on the
performance space while being grounded in the city surroundings. </p><p>Bigness is countered with framed snapshots of the outside. Through
strategic openings the city provides a backdrop to the interior while subjects
are displayed to the outside. This breaks the enclosed nature of Bigness,
undermining the insularity of Bigness that occurs in the everyday built
environment, such as in the convention center megastructure or the disorienting
interiors of megamalls. In conversation with ans Ulrich Obrist, Koolhaas
describes the building as “not containing the event inside but projecting it
outside, onto the city.”23 This most prominently occurs in the main concert
hall. The interior volume frames a view of the city as glazing stretches from
edge to edge. However, layers of wavy glass distort the image, breaking
the rigidity of the rectangular volume. </p><p>At the top of the building, Koolhaas
explicitly connects to the surrounding city. As the walls surrounding the roof
terrace angle down, the axis is directed at a column in the center of Rotunda
da Boavista. The monument celebrates the Portuguese and
British victory in the Peninsular War.24 Here the city is not merely a
background element but becomes an active participant in the space.
Contrastingly, in other spaces the city is framed at a distance. From one of
the many foyer spaces, occupants are at eye level with orderly row housing
directly across the plaza. From inside, the moment is visually
clear and intimate - one is observing the city. However, seen from outside,
building occupants are on display and animate the monolithic facade. They are
observed. Through CdM’s varying visual relationships with the city, spectacle
is as celebrated for those on the outside as those inside. </p><p>For those occupying the building, the spectacle is often in
terms of material which changes in each individual space, encouraging new
responses to each interior. Oversized gold foil wood grain wraps the walls and
ceiling of the main performance space. The scale of this material
matches the grandiose interior and shrinks the size of occupants. They become
secondary to this decoration. Upon closer inspection, one sees that the
celebrated “iconic” space is actually clad in an everyday, generic material:
plywood panels. The panel seams and natural grain are still evident behind the
gold foil. However, the size and pixelated edges of the new pattern emphasize
the artificial, almost poking fun at the building’s iconic ambition and architecture’s
inability to conceal itself at this scale. </p><p>Alternatively, the use of vernacular finishes present a
building informed by the city it inhabits. Delicately painted tiles clad the
VIP room. Shumon Basar describes this use of material as bordering
on “quasi-contextual hysteria with a touch of sentimentality thrown in for good
measure.”25 Although the exterior embodies a foreign meteor dropped the sky,
parts of the interior represent a nuanced adoration of Portuguese architectural
heritage and tradition. The varying materiality creates contradictions. The
outside is all the same yet the inside is hyper-differentiated, iconicity is
embraced but also undermined, the traditional is juxtaposed with the alien. </p><p>Dunham-Jones aptly points out that Koolhaas navigates
between art and business - or perhaps the icon and the everyday - using each to
contaminate the other.26 In the case of CdM, Koolhaas recognizes the importance
of the building as an icon but through the building’s multiplicity of
contextual, material and programmatic relationships, he ensures that the
building does not become obsolete once international attention wears off. CdM
simultaneously blends the sublime and the pragmatic. It functions as both an
icon and a stage the collisions of everyday life. The building is not something
to just be quickly consumed by the international audience but continually
interacts and resonates with the local context. Varying relationships with the
city are negotiated through formal gestures, subtle and exuberant materials and
autonomous siting. The inclusion of everyday element optimistically subverts
the icon as a static object - creating an element of the local urban fabric
that is dynamic and responsive.</p><p><strong>Endnotes:</strong></p><p>1 Ellen Dunham-Jones, “Irrational
Exuberance: Rem Koolhaas and the 1990s,” in Architecture and Capitalism: 1845
to the Present, ed. Peggy Deamer, (New York: Routledge, 2014), 163. </p><p>2 Beatriz Plaza, “The Bilbao Effect,” in Culture: City, ed.
Wilfried Wang, (Zürich : Lars Müller, 2013), 62-65</p><p>3 Carlos J. L. Balsas, “City
Centre Regeneration in the Context of the 2001 European Capital of Culture in
Porto, Portugal,” Local Economy </p><p>19 (2004): 398, accessed June 22,
2014, doi: 10.1080/0269094042000286873. </p><p>4 Ibid, 399. </p><p>5 Ibid, 399. </p><p>6 Ibid, 400. </p><p>7 Ibid, 400. </p><p>8 Cláudia Sofia Gonçalves
Ferreira Lima, “Porto After 2001, Perceptions and Change,” in The Urban
Project: Architectural Intervention in </p><p>Urban Areas, ed. Leen van Duin et
al, (Amsterdam: IOS Press, Delft University Press, 2009), 188. </p><p>9 Hanno Rauterberg, “Rem
Koolhaas,” in Talking Architecture, Interviews with Architects, (Munich:
Prestel, 2008), 97. </p><p>10 Charles Jencks, The Story of
Post-Modernism: Five Decades of the Ironic, Iconic and Critical in
Architecture, (West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley, 2011), 227. </p><p>11 Roemer van Toorn, “Aesthetics as a Form of Politics”, 5,
accessed July 1, 2014,
<a href="http://www.roemervantoorn.nl/Resources/Toorn,">http://www.roemervantoorn.nl/Resources/Toorn,</a> Van_Aesthetics as a Form of Politics.pdf.</p><p>12 Van Toorn, “Aesthetics as a Form of Politics,”, 6. </p><p>13 Rem Koolhaas and Bruce Mau, Small, Medium, Large,
Extra-Large, (New York: Monacelli Press, 1998), 502.</p><p>14 Ibid, 499-500. </p><p>15 Dunham-Jones, “Irrational Exuberance,” 158. </p><p>16 Nicolai Ouroussoff, “Rem Koolhaas Learns Not to Overthink
It,” New York Times, April 10, 2005, accessed June 2, 2014, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/10/arts/design/10ouro.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/10/arts/design/10o...</a></p><p>17 Dunham-Jones, “Irrational Exuberance,” 165. </p><p>18 Shumon Basar, “The Building That Fell to Earth,” Domus 881
(May 2005): 61. </p><p>19 Anne Wermeille Mendonça, “An Eccentric Diamond,” Werk,
Bauen Wohnen 7-8 (2005): 31. </p><p>20 Stan Allen, Marc McQuade, and Mirko Zardini, Landform
Building: Architecture’s New Terrain, (Baden, Switzerland: Lars Müller
Publishers, 2001), index. </p><p>21 Gonçalves Ferreira Lima, “Porto After 2001,” 190. </p><p>22 Koolhaas and Mau, Small, Medium, Large, Extra-Large,
511-512. </p><p>23 Rem Koolhaas and Hans Ulrich Obrist, The Conversation
Series: Rem Koolhaas, (Koln: Verlad der Buchhandlung Walther Konig, 2006), 99. </p><p>24 Jules Brown, Mark Ellingham, John Fisher, and Matthew
Hancock, The Rough Guide to Portugal, (London: Rough Guides, 2010), 299. </p><p>25 Basar, “The Building That Fell to Earth,” 63. </p><p>26 Dunham-Jones, “Irrational Exuberance,” 162. </p>
</div>
</div>
</article>
</div><!-- /page-->