A glass box extension allows light to the interior of the property and provides views over the adjacent park from the ground floor living spaces. Shaded from the sun by the orientation of the existing house, this new frameless glazed element takes advantage of the unique view from this end of terrace property.
The project includes a basement excavation to the existing cellar and an acoustically isolated music room. At ground floor level the bespoke joinery features window seats and opaque windows to effectively bring the light provided into the centre of the property.
The joinery featured in the kitchen / dining area was designed to benefit from the volume of light allowed into the living spaces. A restrained palette of ceramic tiles, spray lacquered mdf and dark stained oak were used to create a practical space with clean lines, but also a space with depth and warmth. A darker ceramic tile from the same family as the light grey floor tile was used to finish the kitchen splashback and storage recesses, while all of the recesses were clad with dark oak to accentuate the depth. Both the enlarged window seat and opaque window to the basement are also lined with dark oak, their frames hidden within the joinery in a similar vein to the structural steel supporting the larger glass box.
Surry Hills Apartment is a private home located in Surry Hills, Australia. Completed in 2015, it was designed by Josephine Hurley Architecture. Surry Hills Apartment by Josephine Hurley Architecture: “Warehouse re-use in one of Sydney’s most recognised heritage buildings, the distinctive Edwards & Co. building. Behind the arched windows is a new residence, on the roof a large deck and private retreat. With utmost care, the new works uncover, retain..
Even in Manhattan—a sea of skyscrapers—the Empire State Building towers over its neighbours. Since its completion in 1931 it has been one of the most iconic architectural landmarks in the United States, standing as the tallest structure in the world until the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were constructed in Downtown Manhattan four decades later. Its construction in the early years of the Great Depression, employing thousands of workers and requiring vast material resources, was driven by more than commercial interest: the Empire State Building was to be a monument to the audacity of the United States of America, “a land which reached for the sky with its feet on the ground.”[1]
The rapid and unchecked development of Manhattan was a matter of serious concern in the early years of the 20th Century. The construction of the Equitable Life Building in 1915, while by no means the starting point of the debate, provided a clear example of what could happen to New York City should building height and form continue unregulated: the Equitable Life Building, which occupied an entire city block in Lower Manhattan, rose forty stories high without any setback from the sidewalk. Fears of New York streets forever cut off from sunlight by man-made canyons of skyscrapers spurred the passing of the 1916 Zoning Regulation, a landmark document which required setbacks for buildings passing heights specified by their location in the city.[2] These regulations would lead to the characteristic stepped forms for which New York skyscrapers—and Art Deco skyscrapers around the world—would come to be known.[3]
Skyscrapers typically rose for one of two purposes: to serve as showcase headquarters for companies, or else as speculative projects by real estate developers.[4] The Empire State Building was the latter, a scheme concocted by former New York City governor Alfred E. Smith in collaboration with his finance partner John Jakob Raskob. Less than a month before the Stock Market Crash of 1929, Smith and Raskob called together a meeting of the city’s wealthy financiers to discuss their solution to the impending financial disaster: an office tower of unprecedented height. According to Raskob, the massive undertaking would both inspire the American people and help stabilize an economy that was about to fall to pieces. By the meeting’s end, Smith and Raskob managed to raise the funds to purchase the old Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, which would be cleared away to make room for their visionary tower.[5]
Image via Wikimedia (Public Domain). ImageLaying of the tower's foundations
Only twenty months passed from the start of concept design in September of 1929 and the building’s opening in May of 1931. Those twenty months were a flurry of constant activity: once the designs were drafted, an army of 3,500 workers tore down the Waldorf-Astoria and assembled the Empire State Building at an astonishing rate. At the peak of activity, the tower rose just over one story in a day – a rate of construction which, while still impressive by today’s standards, was unheard of in the 1930s.[6]
The material costs of the Empire State Building were every bit as high as those of labor. 210 foundation columns were sunk into the sturdy granite bedrock of Manhattan – a measure necessary to support the 365,000 tons of skyscraper above. 50,000 steel beams were then assembled and clad with glass, brick, and limestone to form a tower 1,250 feet (380 meters) tall. In spite of this, the building was not only completed on time, but a full 45 days ahead of schedule and $5 million (€4,556,016) under budget.[7]
Image via Wikimedia (Public Domain). ImageUnder construction
Its speculative purpose required that the Empire State Building provide as much rentable office space as could be built. The setbacks mandated by the 1916 Zoning Regulation, while still expressed in the new tower’s form, were countered by the fact that the lot on which the building was situated was roughly twice that of most of the surrounding structures; therefore, architect William Lamb was able to design a primary tower shaft with ample space for both offices and elevators, a dilemma less satisfiably resolved in the previous tallest building in the world, the Chrysler Building of 1929.[8]
Given that the Chrysler Building had only held the title of “world’s tallest building” for approximately a year before conceding to the Empire State Building, it is perhaps inevitable that the two skyscrapers would be subjected to endless comparison. In pure metrics, the latter is the greater building: it is 204 feet (62 meters) taller, and its 2 million square feet (186,000 square meters) of office space was more than double that of the former.[9,10] However, debate over which tower is the more aesthetically accomplished is not so easily settled.
Image via Wikimedia (Public Domain). ImageUnder construction
The Empire State Building, despite its Art Deco styling, is significantly more austere in appearance than the more ostentatious Chrysler Building. Devoid of the sunburst windows and Moderne gargoyles that adorn the older tower, the Empire State Building is strikingly subdued. It is not entirely without ornament, however: a pair of sculpted concrete eagles flank the entrance, and shining aluminum extensions reminiscent of wings taper up toward the pinnacle of the tower.[11] The exuberance of the Chrysler Building’s metal crown, when contrasted with the quiet dignity of the Empire State Building, can be seen as the changing attitudes of a country before and after the onset of the Great Depression – and it falls to the observer to decide which, if either, is the more appealing.
Despite the optimism with which Smith and Raskob had originally proposed the project, and despite the rapture with which New York had watched its newest landmark grow toward the sky, the Empire State Building could not escape the realities of the deepening Depression. Initially, the building’s owners could not find more than a few tenants to occupy their tower, which soon received an unflattering nickname: the “Empty State Building.”[12]
History would come to vindicate the new skyscraper. Those who did not deride the building upon its completion showered it with acclaim, most notably declaring the Empire State Building the ‘Eighth Wonder of the World.’[13] Its introduction into the Manhattan skyline would represent the end of the city’s competition for the tallest building until the World Trade Center finally dethroned it in 1972. The building itself also became a profitable venture in its own right, hosting over 15,000 workers and countless more visitors hoping to see the city from the observation deck on the 86th floor.[14]
Although the Empire State Building has long since lost its status as the world’s tallest building, it has never quite lost the adoration which it engendered in 1931. Just as Smith and Raskob envisioned, it has become an enduring monument to democratic—and more specifically American—perseverance and achievement. Even as skyscrapers continue to grow taller, eclipsing the record once set by the Empire State Building, its particular impact on New York and the idea of the skyscraper as a whole will likely remain. Joe Carbonelli, who worked as a water boy at the construction site during his youth, put it best: “Although there are now numerous buildings that are even taller, this one has remained a symbol for New York and America, and for courage and adventure.”[15]
References [1] Kingwell, Mark. Nearest Thing to Heaven: The Empire State Building and American Dreams. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006. p5. [2] Dunlap, David W. “Zoning Arrived 100 Years Ago. It Changed New York City Forever.” The New York Times, July 25, 2016. [access]. [3] Curtis, William J. R. Modern Architecture since 1900. London: Phaidon, 1996. p219-225. [4] Tauranac, John. The Empire State Building: The Making of a Landmark. New York: Scribner, 1995. p38. [5] Kingwell, p1-5. [6] Willis, Carol, and Donald Friedman. Building the Empire State. New York: W.W. Norton in Association with the Skyscraper Museum, 1998. p11-12. [7] Cowan, Henry J., and Trevor Howells. A Guide to the World’s Greatest Buildings: Masterpieces of Architecture & Engineering. San Francisco, 2000: Fog City Press. p112-113. [8] Willis, p17-18. [9] Cowan and Howells, p111-112. [10] Willis, p14. [11] Bayer, Patricia. Art Deco Architecture: Design, Decoration, and Detail from the Twenties and Thirties. New York: H.N. Abrams, 1992. p92. [12] Cowan and Howells, p113. [13] Tauranac, p19. [14] Cowan and Howells, p113. [15] Kingwell, p12.
Location: 350 5th Ave, New York, NY 10118, United States
Architect In Charge: William F. Lamb
Area: 2248355.0 ft2
Project Year: 1931
Photographs: Wikimedia user robertpaulyoung (licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0), Wikimedia user David Corby (licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0), Wikimedia user Smithfl (licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)
Clients: Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety, represented by the Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning (Project Manager Gunter Machens) and Association German School Madrid
Project Management: Bureau Veritas Construction Services (Project Director Christian Gerlach)
Architects / General Planning: Armand Grüntuch, Prof. Almut Grüntuch-Ernst
Project Directors: Erik Behrends, Florian Fels, Olaf Menk, Arno Löbbecke, Jens Schoppe
Project Team: Benjamin Bühs, Ana Acosta Lebsanft, Irene Arranz Astasio, Rafael Ayuso Siart, Cristina Baixauli Garcia, Mar Ballesteros, Tina Balzereit, Anna Berger, Johannes Blechschmidt, Matthias Cremer, Benjamin Figueroa Henseler, Jost von Fritschen, María García Méndez, Joana García Puyuelo, Isabell Gruchot, Julia Naomi Henning, Kristina Herresthal, Götz Hinrichsen, Mónica Hinrichsen, Laura Jeschke, Rebeca Juárez, Johannes Klose, Markus Lassan, Itziar León Soriano, Danko Linder, Sarah Manz, Elena Martínez del Pozo, Vera Martinez, Annika Müller, Andreas Nemetz, María Isabel Ortega Acero, Ana Pascual Posada, Jaime Promewongse, Dominik Queck, Lisa Schäfer, Karsten Schuch, Borja Solórzano, Kerstin Thomsen, Pablo Claudio Wegmann, Henning Wiethaus, Víctor Wolff Casado, Anna Wolska
Structural Engineering: GTB-Berlin Gesellschaft für Technik am Bau mbH, Berlin
Checking Engineer For Structural Analysis: Prof. Dr. sc. Mike Schlaich, Berlin
Building Services : Müller-BBM GmbH, Berlin
Energy Technology: Transsolar Energietechnik GmbH, Stuttgart
Energy Concept Competition: Prof. Dr. Klaus Daniels / HL-Technik, Munich
Fire Protection: hhpberlin, Berlin
Fire Protection / Building Services: Úrculo Ingenieros, Madrid
Open Space Planning: Lützow 7 Garten- und Landschaftsarchitekten, Berlin
Lightning Design: Lichtvision, Berlin
Geotechnical Engineering: GuD Consult GmbH, Berlin
The new building in northern Madrid replaces its predecessor building in the city centre. With its special educational program and evening theatre performances and concerts, the German School Madrid is an important site for cultural exchange.
In this large complex, the school’s diverse areas of use are legible as clearly defined units. The individual buildings – the kindergarten, the primary school and the secondary school – each frame an inner courtyard. All patios open up to the surrounding landscape and a vista of the snow-covered mountains.
Reflecting both the requirements of the architectural brief and the topography of the site, the buildings develop differentiated spatial situations, yet all components unite into an organic ensemble with strong sculptural presence. The common areas – the “foyer courtyards”, the cafeteria, a concert hall/ auditorium with 750 seats and the sports hall – connect the individual school buildings.
All children meet in the foyer courtyards before dispersing in their individual school buildings. Here the sculptural strength of the polygonal skylights creates a captivating play of light, providing the pupils with valuable shade.
School buildings play a key role in conveying both building culture and sustainability. A return to traditional simplicity, while demonstrating innovative technological sophistication influences the design approach, it’s construction and building services. The implementation of ancient wisdom, such as natural cooling through a subterranean thermal maze, will ensure the building’s sustainable operation.
A school is more than a matrix of classrooms; it is the centre of the students’ living environment and shape their understanding of both the built and natural worlds as well as their sociocultural experience. The spatial compositions and visual connections within the school promote a sense of group identification and intercultural exchange in order to carry on the tradition and success of the German School.
Jura is a private residence located in the Wentworth Estate, Surrey, England. It was designed by Lewandowski Architects in 2016. Jura by Lewandowski Architects: “Jura is a truly unique and inspiring example of contemporary architecture that maximizes the opportunities of its site in both design approach and planning terms. The site offers five acres of prime land within one of the country’s most exclusive addresses; The Wentworth Estate. The result..
Wiggly house is a single-family residential building located in a difficult context 50km away from Milan in Italy, characterized by multi-storey buildings that surround it.
Because of this promiscuity, the house tries to protect itself reducing the openings toward the outside as much as possible, compensating with big or smaller patios, both closed and open, that give light to the inner spaces in a more suitable way.
The covering reaffirms this principle. Canadian gray granite covers the entire building to symbolize this idea of protection with the exception of the walls where the volume is subtracted by the grey-plaster made patios.
the pitch of the roof folds restless in search of the zenithal light in an almost gestural attitude, generating three light stacks in the living room,in the kitchen and in the “meditation room” at the end.
The pitches of the roof alternate, “wiggling” the sequence of the lines of the roof section.
Section
So in the inner spaces the value of the light is emphasised. From the typological point of view, the project investigates new combinations depending on the change in the family structure and the use of contemporary living spaces that seems to be radically changed in recent years.
The Italian architect Cesare Cattaneo assumed in “the house for the Christian family” a growth hypothesis of the building organism; the new paradigms on which the evolution of the families of our times are assumed call for a deep reflection on the status of the new housing models.
Floor Plan
What is proposed is an ability to survive to subsequent configurations, at least for some key spaces of the house, but also an organism with a spatial structure that is able to grow in the future.
So the project is not completely saturated by the volume allowed for the lot, occupying it in the manner of a matrix, which leaves voids in the plan and arranges the rooms along a North-South axis, waiting to be completed and added in the future.
Product Description.The covering affirms the principle to protect the house from the sorroundings . Canadian gray granite covers the entire building to symbolize this idea of protection with the exception of the walls where the volume is subtracted by the grey-plaster made patios.
