The first question that occurred to me when I saw this picture was whether the building would be built on concrete footings:

Artist’s rendition of the proposed Frederic C. Hamilton addition to the Denver Art Museum.
Drawing by M.A. Mortenson Co.
Image courtesy of The Denver Post

Now, if I ever refer to myself as an architect, you should understand that I mean software architect. My brother-in-law–who is actually an architect who designs primarily liturgical churches–happens to hate this use of the term, and to his point, I really don’t have much of an idea how buildings are put together.

I don’t have much of an idea, but I do know that buildings are not supposed to crumble to the ground unpredictably, and I know there are established design patterns (concrete footings and foundations, framed walls, etc.) that architects–the real kind, not the software kind–can apply to building design problems with a reasonable expectation of success. Things that have been done before, that are transmitted from one generation of architects to the next as a kind of received, though perhaps evolving, orthodoxy. Things that pass inspection. Things that comport with the laws of physics. In short: there is a Way One Builds A Building such that the Building Does Not Collapse On People.

After chuckling about the picture for a moment (and feeling a bit of anxiety that this monstrosity was going to be imposed on downtown Denver), I read the full article in the Sunday Post. It was better than I had expected.

It turns out that it’s very difficult to build a postmodernist temper tantrum like this. It’s easy to draw them on paper (well, at least no laws of physics, logic, or county inspectors will prevent you), and it’s easy to write about the related concepts with a word processor, but actually making physical instances of these ideas turns out to involve huge and delightfully ironic helpings of very moderist technology. Now, you’ll never hear me heaping unqualified praise on modernism, but the borrowing of capital here is just too obvious to pass it up. Read:

“If we didn’t have this technology, we wouldn’t be doing this project,” site supervisor Jopy Willis said.

…

Another issue is that each [carefully designed steel] beam plays a role in holding up the rest of the building.

If one beam moves or unexpectedly bends the wrong way, it creates problems throughout the structure. If not fixed in time, the whole thing could come crashing down.

“It needs to be fully up before it can stand on its own,” said Dave Sandlin, Mortenson’s senior project manager.

…

Willis and his colleagues aren’t just keeping an eye on the building, though - they are using technology to pinpoint the exact location of each beam.

There are four people at Mortenson charged solely with watching the building to make sure it doesn’t unexpectedly move. They walk around the structure all day shooting survey guns, which use laser technology to pinpoint the exact location of the beams.

…

Keeping the whole thing together is an $18,000 computer program designed by Marietta, Ga.-based Construction System Associates Inc.

The program takes a 3-D computer model of the building, which details everything down to the size of each of the thousands of bolts used to secure each beam…

I can think of no more apt metaphor for what goes on under the label of “postmodern thought” than this exercise. I’ll leave you with this quote, the at least last clause of which is true:

“It will be a landmark building,” Willis said. “Like the (Sydney) Opera House in Australia, it will be on postcards, and people around the world will notice it.”

• 
• Posted by Tim on Sunday, November 2, 2003 at 9:04:08 pm PST
• Category: Miscellany
• Comment RSS Feed