Sergey Estrin:
- I will name only those objects that I saw with my own eyes, not in photographs. Since there are many great photographers nowadays, the picture in the magazine does not always coincide with the living impression of the building - this is especially true for modern buildings, but it is also true for historical buildings. In addition, photographs do not always convey the sensations created by the environment, and context is very important for understanding architecture. One of the criteria that guided me when choosing my “favorite” places is whether there is a desire to look at them for a long time, peer, walk around, photograph them from different angles. I believe that good architecture should not be understood at first glance, when after five minutes there is nothing to talk about. The five projects that I have chosen are complex, up to the fact that the fifth will be the whole city. Even two at once.
1.
Monastery of the Order of Christ (Convent de Cristo)
Tomar, Portugal, XII century
This is a whole complex of buildings, it is located on a hill. Entering, behind the fortress wall you see the Church of the Templars, where the knights stood services without dismounting from their horses. Architecture and history are densely mixed here, united by a common texture, which has a very tangible effect, you literally immerse yourself in it as soon as you get inside. Many stylistic and chronological layers are mixed here: Romanesque fortress architecture of the Templars, Gothic, Baroque, Manueline style. There is a lot of sculpture, a lot of decor, but it is perceived as a whole, primarily due to the fact that everything is made of stone of the same breed. The abundance of plastic creates a magnificent chiaroscuro - we spent quite a lot of time there, from mid-day to sunset, and had the opportunity to observe how everything changes under different lighting conditions. You can walk and look at it endlessly. There is a sea of cool vantage points where you want to stop, take a picture, sketch, in order to somehow leave it in your memory. And these are hardly random points - it seems to me that, although the ensemble has been taking shape for centuries, it is thought out to the smallest detail, the sensations are calculated - they work spatially and thematically, forming a holistic and strong image.
For me, this is real architecture - diverse, with complex spatial compositions, but at the same time very functional and subordinate to a specific ideological content. Similar elements can be found in other objects, but the important thing here is that this is a holistic complex: when you walk on it, it seems that you are listening to a finished piece of music - something new is always revealed in the same "melody".
There are many stunning windows with different reliefs, different in time - they can be spaced two hundred years apart in time, they can be layered, hide one after another - for example, the Palladian arch closes an equally magnificent, but early window. For one window from this complex, the British were ready to forgive Portugal all the debts - it is so beautiful. But the Portuguese did not give up the window, because for them it was also used about more valuable than public debt.
2.
John Hancock Center in Chicago
Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, 1965-1969
How to build skyscrapers? It can be like Mies van der Rohe's - completely flat: they looked great at first, but then they began to repeat themselves. And you can invent some new language. Here, it seems to me, the plastic language is related to some kind of medieval monastery, but adjusted for a height of one hundred floors. The texture, color, details are great, the metal still looks great and shines in different places in different ways. The materials are very strong.
In addition, of course, as in almost any skyscraper, the size and scale of the building is impressive in itself - but it is important that although in such an architecture a person inevitably “speaks the language of giants”, in this case the “speech” is understandable, it can be perceived. embrace consciousness. The scale does not lead to a stately, silent isolation, on the contrary, the building is "telling" something all the time. Therefore, you can also look at him endlessly, viewing turns into rich, informative communication.
There is a restaurant upstairs - from one side you can see Lake Michigan, it is grandiose and comparable in scale to this skyscraper, on the other side - the city. And you reign over it all. On the ninety-fifth floor, a person feels comfortable, and this is a huge advantage of the building. A skyscraper is almost always just a shell, it is difficult to feel it from the inside, but in this case it works.
3.
Museum on Quai Branly in Paris
Jean Nouvel, 2001-2006
The building of the Museum of Primitive Art on Quai Branly is one of the most recent Parisian buildings I like the most. It stands in the very center, opposite the Trocadero, next to the Eiffel Tower. Nearby are the most famous buildings of the 19th century. Of course, the contrast is very harsh, I don't know how I would perceive it if I were a Parisian. But in this case we are talking about how the architecture is made. You enter from the embankment - and walk through the grass, over the hills, that is, you literally find yourself in another world. Thus, you are pulled out of the urban environment and tuned into something completely different.
The architecture of the museum is absolutely modern. I would not say that I like this kind of architecture, although you can find a lot of interesting angles there, rather an interesting approach - an attempt to express in modern language such a difficult topic as the art of the colonies, keeping the interest of the audience. The museum's exposition includes a small part of what is stored in its storerooms, but what is exhibited is madly captivating and makes you marvel at the talent of the so-called "primitive" peoples. The routes are interestingly built, it is easy to walk there, the ramps provoke movement, during which you suddenly discover something in a completely unfamiliar style that you start to like. You are immersed in an environment that allows you to develop new criteria, and you begin to almost love what is shown there. Much of the exhibit is hand-made: leather-covered information sheets, wood-burned plans. On the outside, the glass reflects the vibrant Parisian life. The building is "verbose", which is very good for a museum. ***
4.
Lloyd Building in London
Richard Rogers, 1978-1986
I have many photographs of this building, including together with neighboring buildings, and in reflections. Every time I come to London, I try to approach him. Judging by the sensations, by the way you want to view it, this is a modern baroque. Cool, interesting language that enriches the urban environment. There is brushed metal, and worn, and bent, and repetitive elements that enhance the impression, glass with a printed pattern, concrete … The back is absolutely fantastic, half of the pipes are probably empty, because engineering probably does not require so many of them, but within the framework of this aesthetics such "redundancy" is necessary. Meanwhile, it is very close to classical architecture, even Palladio: rhythms, proportions, basic principles - albeit not literally, but recognizable, palpable.
The building stands next to the "Cucumber", which, of course, is much better known. But for some reason I didn't want to photograph him at all. Yes, masterfully invented, wonderful, interesting, large, noticeable, recognizable. But you can endlessly walk around Lloyd, take pictures at different scales, amazing angles from any angle, and with "Cucumber" everything is clear - thank you, look!
5.
Bath in England and Noto in Sicily
All the objects that I talked about here actively interact with the environment. This is what I like about architecture. I will show two more objects, but the conversation will be about the same thing.
The city of Bath was built at the time of the passion for Palladianism. It is one-piece, from one material, in a single style. Buildings of different functions work harmoniously in space. But the architecture of each of them is individual, I don't think there are any typical solutions. All together it looks lively and at the same time harmonious. The city was built on the site of the old Roman baths, which determined the choice of style: incredibly beautiful, powerful, comfortable. This city is practically one object. You walk, catch the camera angles, and you want to live in this architecture, walk the streets. It is not at all tempting to leave and see something done, for example, in a sharply modern manner.
A very similar object is the city of Noto in Sicily, which was made by three architects within thirty years, after the ancient Noto was completely destroyed by the earthquake of 1693. I don't know where their money came from at the time, but they built a city entirely of stone, using the same rock, which works well for the integrity of the image. The three main streets are parallel to each other and intersect with squares. Some buildings were not completed, as the plan was more ambitious than what the funds were enough for. It is also important that the buildings are united by the baroque style - this makes the ensemble of the city almost unique. In Sicily, for example, there are many baroque buildings, but when they mix with the architecture of the 19th century or with modern architecture, the impression becomes different. Here you seem to be in one large building - this is an almost ideal city with a coherent concept that is understandable and attractive, in my opinion, not only for specialists.
