GSTF International Journal of Engineering Technology (JET) Vol.2 No.1, May 2013
Corporate Image: Consolidation of Pioneer
Architecture with Innovative Structure
Konstantina Demiri
School of Architecture, National Technical University of Athens
Athens, Greece
Email: [email protected]
Abstract- Factories are historically a category of buildings where
pioneer architectural forms interweave with innovative
structures in order to fulfill the spatial requirements of the
production process and also to promote an image of the company
addressed internally and externally to its domain. Selected
examples from the early 19th century until today show that
initially a shift occurred from the era of references to classical
precedents to an age of modern monumentality within the
framework of Modernism. Later on, in the post-Fordist period
flexibility and high-tech idiom prevailed and recently the
industrial space is considered as an area of spectacle and
expression of sustainable values. Transparency as a desired
quality of the corporate image has interpreted and applied in
various ways during the 20th century.
The aim of this paper is to present the evolutionary trends
in the values firms seek to convey through their building. To
this end, famous architects were employed in close
collaboration with structural engineers and the outcomes were
pioneering architectural forms and structures. Selected
examples will be presented, where their architectural form is
consolidated with a pioneer structural system. Thus, this paper
focuses on the cross relationships between form and structure
and investigate their contribution in the making of the
corporate image of the firms.
Keywords-component; corporate image, monumentality,
flexibility, transparency, innovation, environmental sensibility,
structural system, architectural form, Fordism, post-Fordism
At the beginning of the industrial era - the end of the 18th
century - industrialists in Britain were mainly concerned with
the technological equipment of their production e.g.
machinery, power engines and transmission systems. Their
buildings should shelter the heavy machines and workers and
hence, have the appropriate strength characteristics to
withstand heavy loads. The engineers of the period with
architectural talent or even architects with knowledge of
structural engineering, having an experience in iron bridge
design, were the proper experts to offer the solution to the
demands of the early entrepreneurs. Iron with its successful
application in bridge construction was proved as the proper
new material for the demands of industry. However, as
opposed to the simplicity and efficiency of the interior
structure the external appearance of the buildings had
references to precedents. Classical architecture was employed
as the proper architectural vocabulary to express the power of
the ascending industrialists. Common characteristics were the
symmetrical organization of the building volume, the
dominance of the main façade, the accentuation of the central
axis and the emphasis of the entrance (Fig. 1).
I
II THE DAWN OF THE INDUSTRIAL ERA
INTRODUCTION
The factory is its own most effective shop window, conveying an
image of modernity or tradition. The building can be an effective
metaphor or it can suggest a corporate identity, intimated either
by subliminal touches or by the most overt of signals [1]
Factories are historically a category of buildings where
impressive architectural form interweaves with innovative
structure resulting from the architects’ collaboration with
structural engineers or the combined characteristics of both
experts in one person usually an engineer with architectural
talent. The fruitful collaboration or combination is achieved
not only in favor of the spatial requirements of the production
process (big spans, flexibility and ample lighting) but also in
order to fulfill their clients’ intention and desire to
demonstrate certain values and express their power. Over the
years industrialists and later on corporations, became
increasingly concerned with their physical environments
where their products were manufactured. Even from the early
years of the industrialization, buildings were used as a means
of promoting an image of the firm. This image initially was
intended to be addressed externally to the general public, the
clients and their competitors in sharing the market. From the
beginning of the twentieth century onwards and with an
acceleration rhythm this image is addressed also internally to
the workers, and the shareholders of the firm.
Figure 1. Mellor Mill built by Samuel Oldknow
Derbyshire, England, 1790-92 [2].
DOI: 10.5176/2251-3701_2.1.55
203
© 2013 GSTF
GSTF International Journal of Engineering Technology (JET) Vol.2 No.1, May 2013
But in most cases there was an incongruity between the
external form and the inner structure as the result of the
priorities of the early entrepreneurs.
After the middle of the nineteenth century (1871) in
France at Noisel-sur-Marne close to Paris the Menier
chocolate factory (Fig. 3) was erected over the river as a
bridge to take advantage of the hydraulic power of the water.
Based on the masonry piers, the factory was an iron-framed
structure that considered as the first fully-fledge frame
building in Europe [10]. The architect Jules Saulnier working
with the engineers Jules Logre and Girard [11], introduced an
important structural system where the two upper floors were
suspended from the arched roof trusses in order to leave the
space free from columns for functional reasons. The metal
diagonal bracings are dominant on the exterior providing the
necessary lateral rigidity to the skeleton. The colored brick
infill did not have any structural but only decorative function.
The simplicity, honesty and openness of the interior
juxtaposed with the elevations decorated with brickworks
inspired by the flowers of the cocoa tree. It was the owner’s
desire, the building to advertise, with its form, the raw
material of the production. This embellishment of the façade
was one of the first examples where the firm is advertised
through its building expressing an image with reference to the
product itself. Saulnier’s building was mentioned by Violletle-Duc in his Entretiens sur l'architecture [12]. However, the
The British industrialists at the beginning of the 19th
century, having ensure their position as the new prosperous
socioeconomic class “…abandoned the classical dress in
which they had shrouded the previous generation of mills and
factories and reverted to a more functional and robust building
type- more telling of the machinery and processes that they
have housing, and of the effort to engineer a fireproof
envelope, than of stylistic and typological allusion. Image and
reality had fallen into step” [3]. This mirrors the conditions in
Britain which were described eloquently by Karl Friedrich
Schinkel in his travels through the country in 1826. The
situation was different in the Continent (mainly France, Low
Countries and Prussia). Industrialists and State owned firms,
were less concerned with the new building techniques than in
promoting an image of a prosperous firm that exhibited
efficiency, economic and political power.
An early example of a combination of architectural
inventiveness and high-quality technological design was the
Figure 2. Sayner Hütte, Bedford, Germany, eng. Karl Ludwig Althans. View
of the main entrance [4].
Figure 3. The Menier chocolate factory, Noisel-sur-Marne, arch.Lules
Saulnier. Cross section and part of its elevation [9].
Sayner Hütte (Sayn Foundry) (Fig. 2) built in Bendorf,
Germany in 1830. Karl Ludwig Althans, a Prussian engineer
who had studied mathematics, physics, mining and the iron
industry, designed this fine building by integrating “the
foundry’s products, machinery, structure, form and structural
meaning in a way that made them inseparable aspects of the
whole” [5]. Many innovations were introduced concerning the
structural elements of the foundry, its form and organization
of spaces that have many religion connotations (Christian
basilica type plan, the allocation of the furnace at the place of
altar, the sense of exaltation). The transparency of the façade,
with its glass-filled ‘laced’ iron works, offers an impression of
a section to the building that reveals the magnificent inner
structure. Althans acting as both architect and engineer
incorporated a number of notable details such as the cannon
ball columns, the ball bearings and the fishbelly truss
reminiscent of Gothic tracery based on Town’s truss idea [6],
[7]. The result was that the whole acted as a statement of
prosperity and as Tom Peters comments “the building
confidently boasts the strident commercialism of the
nineteenth century. It is readily readable as an industrial icon
and an early example of a building as corporate symbol and
advertisement” [8].
architect received a strict criticism for inconsistency from his
contemporaries. The architect Konstantin Lipsius in his
speech (1878) to the Confederation of German Architects and
Structural Engineers declared that “the iron construction of
the building appears to act as reinforcement to masonry that
has become unsound; construction and facade have no
discernible connection to the ironwork which appears anyway
to have been added later” [13]. The owner was very pleased
with the project since it complied with his intention to
promote an image of his company. As the architect
commented “M. Menier liked the novelty of the idea. This
building was the most important of his works, because of its
position, size and purpose. He did not object to the expenses
and was determined to decorate it with a luxury unusual in
industrial architecture” [14].
The end of the 19th century witnessed a rapid expansion of
firms trying to exceed their national borders. This situation
affected not only the size of their production hall but also their
managerial department. The office building usually
incorporated in the same volume with the production space or
designed as a separate entity became their forefront.
Monumentality was accompanied with a pretentious
204
© 2013 GSTF
GSTF International Journal of Engineering Technology (JET) Vol.2 No.1, May 2013
architecture and metaphors of forms related to the product or
the clients’ taste. This trend was aimed to project the leading
role of industry and the social status of its owners and in most
cases it was a glamorous envelop with a simple functional
interior. Architecture overshadowed the contribution of the
structural engineer. A characteristic case was the Templeton
Carpet Factory at Glasgow Green. At the time it was erected
(1888-1889), Scottish architecture was influenced by its
Venetian counterpart. Allusions from the Doge's Palace [15]
were evident in the façade of the mill. The upper zone of the
façade was decorated with patterns related to Axminster-style
carpets, the products of the firm. “This exotic polychromy,
advertising the firm's high-quality […] was a superficial
display, unrelated to the structure and function of the factory”
[16]. The dominance of the façade and the form over the
structure is obvious. However, the great impression to the
public and the message conveyed was achieved.
II
his factory buildings were innovative in terms of their roof
structure and crisp expressiveness they mainly fulfill his
clients’ aims for effectiveness. Evaluating his architecture in
the context of his European contemporaries, it can be seen as
analogous to an actual turbine than a symbolic interpretation
of it [20].
The monumental power of the American industrial plants
had an effect on young German architects, namely Walter
Gropius, who commented that “the self-evident truth of these
buildings does not come from their material superiority in
extent and scale […] It is much more that those who built
them seem to have retained a natural sense of large-scale,
concise forms in a way that is independent, healthy, and pure.
We should once and for all cease paying attention to historical
yearnings and other misgivings of an architectural nature,
which are crippling modern European artistic creativity and
obstructing artistic naiveté” [21]. He urged in this way his
contemporaries to abandon conventions and references to the
past and directed them to the accomplishment of formalism
influenced by the functional requirements.
THE MODERN PERIOD
At the beginning of the 20th century, characterized by the
modern mode of thought and radical changes in labor
processes and consumer habits, firms continue to increase in
size. Though factories were still erected expressing the ideals
of the end of the 19th century, the situation rapidly changed. In
the United States most of the firms recognized the importance
of the organization of production with the aim to increase
productivity. They focused on the application of scientific
management principles 1 and manifested their effectiveness
and efficiency through the quality of their product. A
functional building was the ‘instrument’ for the fulfillment of
their targets. “The aesthetic basis of American industrial
building design was an ideal of beauty based on function,
utility and process held by engineers, not the formality or
picturesqueness associated with recognized architectural
styles. There was an accepted correct ‘feel’ or tone for
industrial architecture that expressed strength, stability, and
function and eschewed the use of lavish or extensive
decoration” [17]. This attitude is mirrored in Henry Ford’s
comments when was pointing out: “we will not put up
elaborate buildings as monuments to our success. The interest
on the investment and the cost of their upkeep only serve to
add uselessly to the cost of what is produced – so these
monuments of success are apt to end as tombs. A great
administration building may be necessary. In me it arouses a
suspicion that perhaps there is too much administration. We
have never found a need for elaborate administration and
would prefer to be advertised by our products than by where
we make our products” [18]. Under this perspective the
architecture of Albert Kahn for the Ford Company and other
automobile firms can be identified as purely utilitarian,
efficient and practical. The development of various roofing
structural systems allowed him to adapt the factories' layout to
the needs of automobile industry by freeing up the floor
space, with fewer structural supports. His approach is
exemplified in his comment that “industrial architecture is 90
percent business and 10 percent art or science” [19]. Though
At that time in Germany a trend was developed towards
the consolidation of artistic creation with technique resulting
in the establishment of the Deutsche Werkbund, an
association of artists, architects, designers, and industrialists.
In that period of rapid industrial development, the electrical
industry of AEG Company commissioned Peter Berhens to
design initially its products and create an image for the
company. The aesthetic quality of products and their
advertisement was considered of decisive importance for the
dominance of the company in the world competition. Paul
Jordan, head of the planning department and building control
office, described this approach eloquently when he
commented: “Do you think that even an engineer when he
buys a motor dismantles it to check the parts. Even a
technician buys on the basis of the impression he receives. A
motor must be beautiful as a birthday present” [22]. Having
tested Behrens’s capabilities in designing small buildings the
company assigned to him the project of the Turbinenfabrik
(Fig. 4) in Berlin. According to Stanford Anderson, Behrens though talented as a designer- was completely untrained in
Figure 4. AEG Turbinen Fabrik, Berlin, arch. Peter Behrens.
View from the southeast [23].
1
The ideas of scientific management were developed by Frederick Winslow
Taylor and were published in his work: The Principles of Scientific
Management (1911). He proposed a method that would improve workers’
productivity by breaking down each labour process into a specialized
sequence of motions. This finally led to fragmentation of conception and
execution and the alienation of workers from their tasks introducing routinized
and deskilled work. Based on Taylor’s ideas the Fordist model was developed
as a system of mass production leading to a total new way of life.
205
engineering and thus there was a need of an experienced
engineer to collaborate with him offering his expertise [24].
The famous structural engineer Karl Bernhard designed this
colossal construction of iron and concrete (Fig. 5). The final
outcome of this collaboration was an archetype that marked
the beginning of industrial architecture experienced on an
artistic level [26]. Furthermore, it was important for its
symbolic power as an icon of a prosperous firm, connoting
through monumentality and innovative design the high quality
© 2013 GSTF
GSTF International Journal of Engineering Technology (JET) Vol.2 No.1, May 2013
of its products. Additionally, Behrens did not draw upon the
historical forms but explored the potentialities of modern
constructions. Referring to his approach Behrens pointed out
that one must address all the artistic and technical conditions
that a plant imposes and elevate them to a principle visibly
expressed [27]. Karl Bernhard, from his own part, though
emphasing the functional and technological characteristics of
the factory in his article published in the “Zentralblatt den
Bauverwaltung” (1910), pointed out the sense of a cathedral
as a visually attractive material. Decisive influence on him
was his collaboration with the architect Maxwell Ayrton.
They considered the technical and aesthetic potentials of the
new material. “At the outset, both believed in the effective
collaboration of architect and engineer” [31]. At the end of
their joint work, that failed to proceed, Williams developed an
interest in architecture and decided to work as an architect
himself. The commission to design the Boots factory (Fig. 6)
offered him the opportunity to operate as an architect. This
Figure 6. Boots “Wets” factory, Nottingham, arch. Sir Owen Williams [32].
Figure 5. Interior with the glass surface along the Berlichgenstrasse [25].
exhaled by the interior space [28]. Thus, a shift occurred
towards a trend to project an image of a culturally sensitive
company and as Karl Scheffler (1913) commented “… the
leaders of the AEG must have a monumental sense of
industry, they must feel themselves culturally responsible and
yield to a certain feeling of sovereignty” [29].
The promotional power of the architecture of the factory
building in shaping the identity of the firm was stressed by
Walter Gropius in his article “Die Entwicklung Moderner
Industriebaukunst” where he commented that “A stately
exterior rightfully reflects on the character of the entire firm.
Certainly, the attention of the public will be more intensively
captivated by the artistic beauty of a factory building, through
its original contrived impressive silhouette, than through
advertising and company signs which stultify even more the
bored eye through their obtrusive overburdening” [30]. From
that time onwards, the aim of industrialists was to create an
image and address it not only to their clients but also to their
workers. It was considered as important aspect, the worker to
be identified with the high quality of the building premises of
the firm. To this end, architectural form and structure
developed as a unity and as a “mode of thought”.
Figure 7. The interior atrium of the packing hall[33].
project received great publicity in Britain and abroad.
Innovative aspects of the building were the organization of the
production process and the plan layout with single storey
atriums (Fig. 7) that allowed natural light to be diffused into
the deep plan. But the most important features of the building
were its innovative structure and its formal language.
Williams used a flat-slab construction with ‘mushroom’ head
columns with no beams. The absence of beams along the
facades allowed him to create a transparent elevation
equivalent to its Dutch contemporary Van Nelle Factory in
Rotterdam by Brinkman and Van der Vlugt. Additionally, the
structure of the roof with glass discs incorporated into
concrete deck contributed to the ample lighting conditions of
the inner space that helped workers to work effectively and
efficiently. Transparency was promoted as the image of the
prosperous firm. As Chapman- Jesse Boot’s biographer commented “This shining palace of industry did a great deal
for Boots’ image, erasing the local picture of the firm as a
jumble of old factories on the edge of some of Nottingham’s
worst slums, and replacing it by a prospect of a firm in the
vanguard of the movement for workers’ welfare. The new
Beeston factory helped to present an image of Boots as model
employers and to fulfil Jesse’s dreams” [34].
Within these new conditions an important building was
designed by the British architect and engineer Sir Owen
Williams for the Boots Pharmaceutical Factory in Beeston,
Nottingham in 1932. Owen Williams was the most significant
exponent of the use of reinforced concrete 2 in industrial
architecture. Being acquainted with American developments
in industrial concrete architecture and combining engineering
skill with architectural talent he developed reinforced concrete
2
Initially reinforced concrete building technology was introduced in
industrial structures at the beginning of the 20th century in the United States
and France (François Hennebique system). Concrete structural frame became
the pioneering modern system replacing masonry walls combined with inner
steel frame. The main advantages of the new material were its resistance to
fire and its potentiality of achieving large open interior space. Additionally, it
allowed the elevation to be freely organized with large windows for ample
lighting of the interior space.
A similar approach was followed by the Italian
manufacturer Burgo when he erected his paper mill in
Mantua, Italy (1963). To this end the company employed an
internationally well known, prestigious designer Pier Luigi
Nervi. He was hired to design the building and solve the
206
© 2013 GSTF
GSTF International Journal of Engineering Technology (JET) Vol.2 No.1, May 2013
difficult issue of accommodating a linear process exceeding
100 meters and also the problem of the future development of
the production in parallel lines. The impressive structure (Fig.
8), of approximately 250 m long and 30 m. wide, was
designed to contain large modern machinery for the
manufacture of paper. The building reflects a moment of
vivacity in the relationship between architecture and
engineering [36]. Nervi believed that building construction
was both an art and a science and this beautiful shed echoes
his comments on structural honesty: “Every improvement in
the functionality and the technical efficiency of a product
brings out an improvement in its aesthetic quality.[…]But
there is no doubt that any product of high efficiency is always
aesthetically satisfying. In the field of architecture, in which
functional, statical, and economic needs are intimately mixed,
truthfulness is an indispensable condition of good aesthetic
results.”[37]. The oblong building is like a suspension bridge.
and glass. Additionally it embodied a strict code of honesty
of expression, used industries as sources both of technology
and of imagery and had as a high priority the flexibility of use
[39]. Furthermore, it raised the high technology structure to
the main characteristic of the innovative language of form. In
this era the improvements in steel technology and techniques
of manufacturing marked the elimination of concrete as the
material for structural framing of industrial buildings.
Figure 8. Cartiera Burgo (paper mill), Mantua, arch. Pier Luigi Nervi. View
from the south [35].
Figure 9. Renault Distribution Centre, Swindon, arch. Foster Associates [40].
The Renault Distribution Centre (Fig. 9) designed by Foster
Associates with Ove Arup & Partners, at Swindon, UK
(completed 1982) was a notable example incorporating the
high tech idiom. In this case, the building has been designed
as a highly flexible, adaptive space that symbolized high
technology as an integral part of the corporate image. Its
structural system is composed of repetitive two-way
expandable modules. Each one consisted of “unbraced portal
frames, defining the sides and diagonals of the square
modules, of which the masts are the vertical members” [41].
Its roof consists of four steel beams suspended by four
steel cables from four large concrete pylons. The impressive
sense of the huge structure is displayed even during the night
due to the illumination of the huge glass curtain wall which
accentuates the image of a suspension bridge.
The firm acknowledges the contribution of Nervi’s ideas
in solving the issues of the production process but also in
promoting through the expressiveness and impressiveness of
the building an image of a company that excides the local
limits. According to Burgo firm, as stated today in its website,
“Nervi combined in this project the highest levels of
engineering and architecture and his innovative approach to
both design and technique marked the firm’s entry onto the
international market” [38].
III
The delicate architectural form, the lightness of the
structure and its fine integration in the landscape were the
outcomes of the close collaboration of the architects and the
structural engineers. The radical form accentuated by the
yellow coloured structure created a distinctive image that
Renault used it in its advertisements. According to the Jury’s
comment of the Constructa Prize ’86 “the Renault Centre has
such an impressive architectural form that the company has
meanwhile adopted the building as a symbol for its
philosophy of business” [42]. In an era of economic
stagnation for the company it was decided to invest on a
famous architect to create a recognisable image for the
excellence they want to promote to the public. The publicity
value of the building has been proved high, enforced
additionally by the personality of the designers.
THE POST-FORDIST CONDITION
From the beginning of 70’s onwards a shift occurred towards
replacing the dominant system of economic thought from the
beginning of the 20th century named Fordism. The postFordist era is dominated by information and communication
technology and aimed to surpass the disadvantages of the old
system derived from the repetitive and monotonous work for
mass produced products. One of the main features of the new
system is the emphasis it attributes to the people as
consumers. Mass production was replaced by flexible
specialization and weight was given to communication. To
this end, firms became aware of the contribution of the
architecture of their premises to the development of an image
that can promote their position in the global market.
Flexibility at all levels and innovation became the focus of the
firms and their physical spaces corresponded to these
requirements.
During the end of 80s there was a growing sensibility on
issues of global warming and the impact of the wanton use of
natural resources. In that era of public awareness on
environmental issues, the Wilkhahn company, the famous
office furniture manufacturer, addressed to the well known
architect - Frei Otto - to design the production hall of the firm.
The building comprised four pavilions (fig. 10) with a light,
tent-roof construction suspended from wooden beams. The
organic shapes of the pavilions are incorporated
At the same period High-Tech movement in architecture
emerged as a style whose characteristic materials were metal
Figure 10. Wilkhahn production hall and its structure, arch. Frei Otto [43].
207
© 2013 GSTF
GSTF International Journal of Engineering Technology (JET) Vol.2 No.1, May 2013
harmoniously into the landscape diminishing the otherwise
large scale of the production area. Furthermore, they represent
and signify the workstations of the factory. In the spaces
between the pavilions social areas for the workers were
placed. The form and the materials used in Frei Otto’s
building express the intention of the firm to project its
sustainable philosophy. The architect described the building
as a “new prototype with regard both its form as dictated by
structural design and its lighting and ventilation” [44].
According to the firm the “ecological responsibility, a theme
upon which Frei Otto already concentrated with the design of
the pavilions, was adopted as a resolution by the Wilkhahn
Administrative Board in 1989 and thus became an integral
part of corporate development” [45]. The firm commissioned
Thomas Herzog to design a new production area (fig. 11)
focusing not only on ecological aspects but projecting also the
firm’s values on consistency on design standards that
underlined the quality of the products and also of the
production process. Additionally, the building expresses the
culture of the company to maintain good human relations
between employees and management. This approach is
mirrored on the fact that the cover of the brochure of the
company, expressing its values, illustrates the workers sitting
in spiral configuration. Hetzog expounded this idea and
visually applied it in the form of the new building. The
exterior of the building is characterized by the rhythmical
sequence of four "high-rise trestles" [47] from which the roof
of the hall is suspended. The conceptual idea of the building is
an abstract metaphor of the idea of carpenters holding each
other. The sketches of the architect (Fig. 12) illustrate this
reference to the solidarity of the workers. The work of
structural engineers -Sailer Stepan und Partner GmbH- is
apparent with all the supporting elements clearly visible on
the elevations, giving an expressive quality to the whole and
making the architectural idea evident.
on issues of transparency, openness, innovation, excellence
and the corporate image aimed to express these values.
Buildings targeted to convey a coherent image to the outside
and inside world (customers, employees, and investors) in
order to achieve an increase of the firm’s sphere of influence
in the globalized market. Communication and innovation
became important in the new complex, international situation.
A characteristic example of the era is the Volkswagen
Gläserne Manufaktur (Transparent Factory) (Fig. 13),
designed as an addition to Dresden's Grosser Garten, by the
architectural company HENN (completed 2002). It
materializes the idea of the urban factory as a place that
contributes to the city life. This striking conglomeration of
forms wrapped by extensive glass surfaces is integrated into
the landscape and is open to the public to visit the interior and
live the experience of attending the production process.
Additionally, events are offered to the public such as art
exhibitions, music concerts and television talk shows.
According to the architects’ comment “it is a place of
transparency and dialogue […] the material composition of
the building allows a new quality of customer service: spatial
experience of the automobile and spatial experience of
architecture flow naturally into each other” [51]. In this way
the image that is communicated to the public is of a
transparent company. This is achieved in a literal and
phenomenal way. According to C. Rowe and R. Slutzky
literal transparency is the inherent quality of substance
whereas phenomenal is an inherent quality of an organization
[52]. In both ways, the firm, through its premises,
“demonstrates its presence in the public realm and adopts
tasks and functions that are similar to public institutions” [53].
As an outcome of this, the architectural form and its qualities
overshadow the structural system employed.
Figure 13. Volkswagen´s Gläserne Manufaktur (Transparent Factory),
Dresden, arch. HENN [50].
.
Figure 11. Wilkhahn assembly hall, arch. Herzog+Partners [46].
With the advent of the 21st century the emphasis of the
companies on environment issues prevailed. Energy-efficient
buildings express the commitment of the firms to the
environment and convey architecturally this sensitivity. The
architectural forms became more expressive and innovative
whereas the structural system looses its strong presence.
Fig, 12 Conceptual sketches and elevation [48]
At the end of the 20th century according to King the
consumers’ choice depended more on the company culture as
a whole and less on the functional characteristics of their
products and services [49]. The balance between innovative
architectural form and ingenious structure seems to reach its
peak with the high-tech movement. Gradually, there was a
shift to a superiority of the architectural form over the
structural system. The focus of the firms was more than ever
208
The winery of Grupo Faustino’s Bodegas Portia in Ribera
del Duero, Spain designed by Foster + Partners (2004-2010)
is a characteristic case. The design took into consideration the
microclimate of the area and the form of the building is
developed to serve the wine-making process and keep the
inner space cool during hot days. The building is incorporated
into the ground morphology (fig. 14) and its roof is
conceptualized as a continuation of the ground and serves as a
road for the harvested grapes to be delivered into the hopper.
Photovoltaic panels have been incorporated on the roof, to
capture the sun energy. The interior is open to the public and
© 2013 GSTF
GSTF International Journal of Engineering Technology (JET) Vol.2 No.1, May 2013
thus is conceived as a spectacle space. “Ultimately, the
building is a compelling essay in how to stage an industrial
process for both productive efficiency and theatrical
been actualized, translated into the material realm a world
view transformed into an objective force.” [57].
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
G. Darley, Factory, Reaktion Books, Hong Kong, 2003, p.157
Source: http://www.matrust.org.uk/mellor-mill-1792-1892.html (last
visited 13.5.13).
[3] Darley,op. cit, p.26.
[4] source:
http://www.rlp.de/no_cache/einzelansicht/archive/2010/november/article
/foerdermittel-fuer-die-sanierung-der-sayner-huette/
(last
visited
13.5.13).
[5] F. T. Peters, Building the Nineteenth Century, The MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1996, p. 217.
[6] F. T. Peters, “Technological thought is design’s operative method”,
Perspecta 31, 2000, pp.126-127.
[7] H-U, Kilian, “Industrial building before 1900” in K. Ackermann,
Building for industry, Watermark Publications, 1991, pp. 21-23.
[8] Peters, op.cit, 1996, p. 211.
[9] Source: Nouvelles Annales de la Constuction 1872/73 pl. 13 &14 cited
in Kilian, op.cit., p. 29
[10] Kilian, op. cit., 1991, p. 27.
[11] D. Langmead and C. Garnaut, Encyclopedia of architectural and
engineering feats, ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, California, 2001, p. 200.
[12] E. E. Viollet-le-Duc, Entretiens sur l'architecture, A. Morel et cie, 1872,
p. 334.
[13] Kilian, op. cit, 1991, p. 29.
[14] B. Lemoine, Architecture in France 1800-1900, Harry N. Abrams, Inc.,
Publishers, N.Y., 1998, p. 126.
[15] Deborah Howard, Reflexions of Venice in Scottish Architecture,
Architectural History, Vol. 44, Essays in Architectural History Presented
to JohnNewman (2001), p. 123-135.
[16] Ibid, p. 133.
[17] B. H. Bradley, The Works. The industrial architecture of the United
States, Oxford University Press, N.Y., 1999, p. 202.
[18] H. Ford and S. Crowther, My life and work, Publisher Doubleday, Page
& Company, N.Y, 1922, p. 27.
[19] Cited in F. Hawkins, The legacy of Albert Kahn, Wayne State University
Press, 1970, p. 27
[20] G. Hildebrand, Designing for industry: architecture of Albert Kahn, MIT
Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1974.
[21] W.Gropious, Die Entwicklung moderner Industriebaukunst, cited in
A.Behne, The modern functional building, The Gettty Research Institute
for the History of Art and Humanities, Santa Monica, USA, 1996, p. 104
[22] Cited in T. Buddensieg and H. Rogge, “Peter Behrens and the AEG
architecture”, Lotus International 12, Sept. 1976, p.91.
[23] Source: http://www.german-architecture.info/BER-001.htm (last visited
13.5.13).
[24] S. Anderson, Peter Behrens and a New Architecture for the Twentieth
Century, ΜΙΤ Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2000, p. 529.
[25] Source: ibid, p. 142.
[26] T. Buddensieg and H. Rogge, “Peter Behrens and the AEG
architecture”, Lotus International 12, Sept. 1976, p.93.
[27] P.Berhens,”Werbende künstlerische Werte im Fabrikbau”, Plakat 11, no
6, June 1920, pp 266-73 cited in A. Behne, op. cit, p. 107.
[28] K. Bernhard, “The New Hall of the AEG Turbine factory in Berlin”,
Zentrlblatt der Bauverwaltung 30, 15 January, pp25ff, cited in T.
Buddensieg in collaboration with R. Henning, Industriekultur. Peter
Behrens and the AEG, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass., 1984, p. 25.
[29] Cited in J. F. Schwartz, The Werkbund: Design Theory and Mass
Culture Before the First World War, Yale University Press, New Haven,
CT, 1996, p. 58.
[30] W. Gropius, “Die Entwicklung moderner Industriebaukunst”, Jahrbuch
des Deutschen Werkbundes, 2, 1913, p. 20.
[31] D. Yeomans and D. Cottam, Owen Williams: the engineer's contribution
to contemporary architecture, RIBA Publications, Thomas Telford Ltd,
2001, p. 17.
[32] Credit: Amey, U.K.
[33] Credit: Amey, U.K.
[34] S. Chapman, Jesse Boot of Boots the Chemists, Hodder and Stoughton,
London, 1973, p. 155.
Figure 14. Faustino Winery, Gumiel de Izan, Ribera del Duero, Spain, arch.
Foster + Partners. Aerial view [54].
presentation, at once didactic and enigmatic, if sometimes
rather sinister” [55]. The aim of the firm was to express its
love for the land, nature and the environment. The final
outcome is a balance between nature and technology as it is
eloquently expressed in the words of the company: “The wine
is the fruit of balance between nature, ecology and
architecture, thanks to which it has acquired its very own
identity” [56]. The elegant and impressive silhouette of the
building is imposed mainly due to its form that nestles into the
landscape as a continuation of the vineyards. The publicity of
the project owns more to the innovative solution of the
architect and less to its structure designed by Arup Associates.
Throughout architectural history, the factory has been a
place of design innovation for engineers and architects since it
provided them the freedom to explore new materials, spatial
organizations and architectural forms. The examples presented
have shown that during the first years of industrialization
engineers, who maintained the dual role of engineer and
architect, dominated the scene. In the modernist period form
and structure were developed as a “mode of thought”. The
massiveness, solidity and the references to the classical past
were replaced by the impressiveness of size and the references
to the values of the modernism era (openness, transparency,
progress, machine aesthetic). Since then, transparency was
raised to an important parameter in the image making of the
firms and was expressed in the design quality of the
architectural composition. Light, enormous in size structures
were necessary, compromising between dynamism and statics.
With the transition to the post-Fordist period and the post
modernism paradigm, flexibility and the search for innovation
prevailed. The expressiveness and impressiveness of high tech
structures aimed to present a glance to the future and meet the
desire of the firms for flexibility and an image of innovation.
Sophisticated and simultaneously delicate structures developed
to this end. During the turn of the 20th century many
corporations, in order to ensure their viability and their
sovereignty in the global terrain, addressed the consumers by
emphasizing their values. Within this framework they promote
an image of an environmentally friendly organization.
Additionally, they widen their production spaces to other
functions. In this way, the place of the factory is transformed
into a locus of a spectacle open to the public as potential
consumers. Whether this spectacle falsifies reality is an open
issue. As Guy Debord comments “The spectacle cannot be
understood either as a deliberate distortion of the visual world
or as a product of the technology of the mass dissemination of
images. It is far better viewed as a weltanschauung that has
209
© 2013 GSTF
GSTF International Journal of Engineering Technology (JET) Vol.2 No.1, May 2013
[55] O. Wainwright, in http://www.bdonline.co.uk/buildings/faustino-wineryspain-by-foster-and-partners/5008891.article, 2010 (last visited in
30.11.2012)
[56] http://www.bodegasportia.com/bodega.asp
catalogo_inauguracion_2010.pdf, p. 25 (last visited 2.12.2012)
[57] G.Debord, The society of the spectacle, Zone Books, N.Y, 1995, pp.1213.
[35] Source:
http://www.architetturadelmoderno.it/scheda_nodo.php?id=173&lang=_
eng photographer Tiziana Colombo (last visited 13.5.13).
[36] S. Poretti, “Pier Luigi Nervi”, Casabella, 651-652, Dec. 1997-Jan. 1998,
p. 106.
[37] P. L. Nervi, Structures, McGraw-Hill Book Co,Inc,N.Y., Toronto, 1956,
p. 26-27.
[38] http://www.burgo.com/en/paper/works-of-art/nervi
(last
visited
29.11.2012)
[39] C. Davies, High Tech architecture, Rizzoli, N.Y., 1988, p. 6.
[40] source: http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/renault-distributioncentre/ (last visited 13.5.13).
[41] B. J. Harris and K. P-K. Li, Masted structures in architecture,
Butterworth Architecture, Oxford, 1996, p. 83.
[42] G. H. Schulitz, Constructa – Preis ’86, Industrial Architecture in Europe,
Quadrato Verlag, Braunschweig, 1986, p. 40.
[43] Credit: Wilkhahn company.
[44] D. Sharp (ed.), Twentieth Century Architecture. A visual History,
Images Publishing, 2002, p. 401.
[45] http://www.wilkhahn.com/loadframes.html?/6_green/3600.htm
(last
visited 07.04.2013)
[46] Credit: Wilkhahn company.
[47] http://www.wilkhahn.com/0_meta/015_architektur/hallen.html
(last
visited 07.04.2013)
[48] Credit: Prof. Thomas Herzog.
[49] S. King, "Brand building in the 1990s", Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 8, Issue 4, 1991, p. 46.
[50] Credit: Henn Architekten. Photographer, copyright HG Esch
[51] http://www.henn.com/#en/produktion/1207 (last visited 29.11.2012)
[52] C. Rowe and R. Slutzky, “Transparency: literal and phenomenal”
Perspecta, Vol. 8, 1963, p. 46.
[53] Z. Messedat, Corporate Architecture, Avedition Gmbh,Csi,
Ludwigsburg, 2005, p. 169.
[54] Credit: Nigel Young_Foster + Partners
Konstantina Demiri is an Associate Professor at the School of
Architecture of the National Technical University of Athens. She
received her Ph.D from the School of Architecture of the University
of Edinburgh with a thesis entitled A Typological Investigation of
Mill Buildings in Greece. She is a co-author of the publication
Architectural and musical interrelations. Counterpoint as a tool of
synthesis in music and architecture (in Greek), Patakis, Greece.
Research interests: Industrial heritage, industrial building
architecture, modern interventions in historical settings, typological
analyses, architecture and music. Email: [email protected]
210
© 2013 GSTF
GSTF International Journal of Engineering Technology (JET) Vol.2 No.1, May 2013
211
© 2013 GSTF