− YongSan Park Masterplan, ‘Healing: The Future Park’ _ West 8+IROJE
− Park Groot Vijversburg
− Marrakech Biennale 2012-Higher Atlas
Concrete Manifestos
from Core-form to Art-form
Concrete and the Art of Dressing a Building _ Nelson Mota
− Sacred Art Museum and Plaza _ Menis Arquitectos
− Yurihonjo City Cultural Center, Kadare _ Chiaki Arai Urban & Architecture Design
− USJ Campus of Innovation and Sports _ 109 Architects+Yossef Tohme
− Bicentennial Civic Center _ Lucio Morini+GGMPU Architects
− Jean Cocteau Museum in Menton _ Rudy Ricciotti Architecte
− Electrical Generator Plant for Argos Cement Factory _ MGP Architecture and Urbanism
− SEBRAE National Headquaters _ GRUPO SP
An Urban Facelift
Carabanchel, Madrid
An Urban Facelift_Marta Gonzalez Anton
− 168 Social Housing _ Coco Arquitectos
− 82 Social Housing _ Amann-Canovas-Maruri
− 64 Social Housing _ Aranguren & Gallegos Arquitectos
− 107 Social Housing _ Sheppard Robson
− 101 Social Housing _ Jose Cruz Ovalle
− 102 Social Housing _ Dosmasuno Arquitectos
− 88 Social Housing _ Alejandro Zaera-Polo Architecture
− 141 Social Housing _ Morphosis
C3 no.334 (2012 #6/12)
Concrete Manifestos
from Core-form to Art-form
Concrete and the Art of Dressing a Building _ Nelson Mota
Throughout the last century reinforced concrete was often the vehicle for stressing modernity’s universalizing vocation, but it was also used to translate vernacular references. Its acceptance by the general public was, nonetheless, rarely unanimously welcomed. Generally speaking, concrete used as both a building’s structural or finishing material became fetishized by architects and disliked by the general public. And nowadays, after being widespreadly used for more than a century, some questions arise: Is concrete still perceived as a strange component of the built environment? Or, otherwise, is it already a common presence in our everyday? Is this material still embedded with such properties as to grant it the status of a privileged support for avant-garde architectural expressions, or has its use already become routine?
In the post-war architectural culture, the use of concrete nurtured intense debates on the seemingly blurred boundary between ethics and aesthetics in architectural approaches, as Reyner Banham famously posited it in his writings on “The New Brutalism.” Architects were then fully exploring the potential of reinforced concrete both as a “structural-technical” and as a “structural-symbolic” material. They were thus divided between the use of concrete as a straightforward structural element or as a material to “dress” a building.
This dialectical relation between the technical and symbolic assertions on the use of concrete endures in contemporary architectural culture. However, while the use of concrete for its static properties became routine, its use as a building’s finishing material is still profoundly charged. Its reception by the public generates binary reactions, and architects seldom use it in a neutral manner. It is, otherwise, often chosen to make a statement, to deliver an unequivocal approach to a given material circumstance or a socio-political context. Today, concrete has become a manifesto-material, one that architects need to master in the art of dressing a building.
C3 no.334 (2012 #6/12)
Concrete Manifestos
from Core-form to Art-form
Concrete and the Art of Dressing a Building _ Nelson Mota
Throughout the last century reinforced concrete was often the vehicle for stressing modernity’s universalizing vocation, but it was also used to translate vernacular references. Its acceptance by the general public was, nonetheless, rarely unanimously welcomed. Generally speaking, concrete used as both a building’s structural or finishing material became fetishized by architects and disliked by the general public. And nowadays, after being widespreadly used for more than a century, some questions arise: Is concrete still perceived as a strange component of the built environment? Or, otherwise, is it already a common presence in our everyday? Is this material still embedded with such properties as to grant it the status of a privileged support for avant-garde architectural expressions, or has its use already become routine?
In the post-war architectural culture, the use of concrete nurtured intense debates on the seemingly blurred boundary between ethics and aesthetics in architectural approaches, as Reyner Banham famously posited it in his writings on “The New Brutalism.” Architects were then fully exploring the potential of reinforced concrete both as a “structural-technical” and as a “structural-symbolic” material. They were thus divided between the use of concrete as a straightforward structural element or as a material to “dress” a building.
This dialectical relation between the technical and symbolic assertions on the use of concrete endures in contemporary architectural culture. However, while the use of concrete for its static properties became routine, its use as a building’s finishing material is still profoundly charged. Its reception by the public generates binary reactions, and architects seldom use it in a neutral manner. It is, otherwise, often chosen to make a statement, to deliver an unequivocal approach to a given material circumstance or a socio-political context. Today, concrete has become a manifesto-material, one that architects need to master in the art of dressing a building.
