Ren, The People’s Building

12Nov06

One of the more interesting designs I’ve come across, Ren is the People’s Building. Designed by PLOT (who has since split up into BIG and JDS), Ren, as the website says,

The Ren building is a proposal for a hotel, sports and conference center for the World Expo 2010 in Shanghai. The building is conceived as two buildings merging into one. The first building, emerging from the water, is devoted to the activities of the body, and houses the sports and water culture center. The second building emerging from land, is devoted to the spirit and enlightenment, and houses the conference center and meeting facilities. The two buildings meet in a 1000 room hotel, a building for living. The building becomes the chinese sign for “The People”, and a recognizable landmark for the World Expo in China.

heh.

What I find interesting about this building is how essentially, it is a derivative of a derivative of a derivative. The building itself is supposed to be a translation of the Chinese character for “person” (not the People as the website suggests), “人”.As most of you probably know, Chinese characters evolved from pictures, this one in particular from a picture of a man walking. The building then is translated from the original version (that is, a man walking) three times. First, from reality to picture, then from picture to character, and finally, from character to building.

I imagine that the process that the architects had in coming up with the design started off with them thinking, “how can I translate the phrase ‘the People’s Building’ into form” and deciding that designing the building too much like an actual person (ala the Statue of Liberty if it had office space) would just be too much. Then they start thinking “how do I make the translation more abstract” coupled by a “since this is going to be in China, how do I link it to its context”, and coming up with their eureka moment, “Aha! Since Chinese characters are already a form of abstract, evolved hieroglyphics, why not translate that into an architectural form!” Thus coming up with a literal translation of an abstract expression.

Which leaves me a bit conflicted with how I feel about the design.

That’s always the problem when it comes to designs that are too literal. As a recent discussion on iconography established, iconography in architecture (that is, the use of cultural images as a template for design) isn’t always a good thing. True enough, it helps you to better communicate your design to the general public, but there is also the danger that the cultural image limits the appreciation of your design. Nobody wants a design that is only appreciated only in a superficial level.

 

It seems again that it simply gives one access point which, like a narrowing funnel, focuses the populace towards the most superficial of considerations, instead of welcoming the populace to the richness and depth of high design. - Gabe Bergeron

My opinion is, the danger is only there if the cultural image used is translated too literally, so much so that the design doesn’t establish its own identity apart from the reference. The purpose of the cultural image in design is only as a “gateway drug” (so to speak) for the general public, so that they can relate to the design from their own perspective. It shouldn’t go beyond that. The problem with it being literal is the more literal it gets, the more concrete the comparisons are, and before you know it, that’s the only kind of discourse happening with your design. Ideally it should only make you interested, so that upon closer inspection, you can notice other details you wouldn’t normally take notice of had it been a design you couldn’t relate to.

For me, that’s what is wrong with the People’s Building. The architectural translation is too literal. It’s not that it’s bad in any sense of the word. It’s definitely iconic. No doubt that it’s going to be a landmark in Shanghai when it’s completed. And the way they explain it in the video,which all of you should definitely take a look at, is pretty impressive (their explanation actually reminds me of how a student would go about it).

I’m just not sure if I really like it.

But it is growing on me.

What I DO like about the building, is how I think they did the structural design. If I understand it correctly, the “bubbles” actually serve as some sort of truss system supporting the entire structure, which is ingenious on its own. I can only imagine how they could have configured it like that.

Filed under: Architecture, Commentary   |