It must be the first time I flaunt my vanity so blatantly. And I'm not even sure if the rest of you are still there anyway. But if it helps alleviate my grief, why not then? Moose.
Comparison: Esplanade - Theatres on the Bay and The Grand Louvre Project
 |  |
First, the similarities.
The project objective.
to build an iconic monument and an arts center, or whatever was stated in the question.
Design approach.
Very similar. Both projects go in the direction of Modern Architecture in their adaptation to a modern city and stuff. Both structures (The Esplanade Theatres and the revamped Louvre) are divided into a number of wings (2 for Esplanade, 3 for Louvre) that is joined together by a central lobby (Esplanade Mall, space under Louvre Pyramid). Both lobbies take on some functions and likeness to a shopping centre.
The lobby; stair up to surface (Pyramid?); facing Sully wing entrance.
Accessibility.
Both the mall and the Pyramid lobby are accessible through underground rail (City Hall/future Esplanade station; Palais Royal — Musée du Louvre Métro station). You can also walk in from the city itself. However, presumably no underground carpark for the Louvre. The open space in front of the overground entrance is also much bigger in the Louvre.
Use of glass as a material.
The Durians have glass roofs. The Louvre has a glass pyramid. Only to be added if I have forgotten all the other points / there is no time left for anything else.
The Differences.
Geography.
The Esplanade was a bayfront project, which makes it similar to the Sydney Opera House (it wasn't a that unreasonable choice). The Louvre is hundreds of kilometres inland, in the middle of Ole Paris. No bayfront here. While the Esplanade adapts to the Marina landscape, mediating between the Central Business District and the wild unexplored south, the geographical context of the revamped Louvre is the palace itself. Its enclosure by the palace reduces its relevance to the cityscape.
Design constraints.
Maybe except for the park itself (?) the Esplanade was predominantly a creation ex nihilo. The bayfront landscape seems to be the only thing the design is limited to. According to Wikipedia, it was built upon the former site of the Satay Club.
However, the renovation of the Louvre was an add-on to an existing cultural icon. Design is limited to build a lobby to compliment and improve visitor access to the Denon, Sully and Richilieu wings. There is consequently no consideration to go multidisciplinary here i.e. no theatre, no open space, no amphitheatre etc.
Reputation.
Paris is a city filled to the brim with tourists and stereotypes. There is inherent consciousness of the Grand Louvre Project in terms of city image; will it be destroyed by the Pyramid? Stuff like that.
Singapore is a place where the land flows with milk and cash of all currencies; it's not exactly rich in history or romantic in the sense Paris is thought to be. Because we have got nothing to lose, anything helps in the Esplanade plan. Ok. Another spare point.
Conclusion?
I've written what I wanted to write so badly. It doesn't feel that bad after all.
Two papers left!
Centre Georges Pompidou
By the way, a third option kept coming back into my head. It bore the catchy name of Centre Pompidou. I looked it up after I hit home. Centre Georges Pompidou is much more similar to the Esplanade complex than the Louvre in a way, indeed having an iconic status as well. (It kind of reminds one of Woodlands Civic Centre too, come to that) Also, it's a multidisciplinary hub with a library, a modern art museum and a music research centre. Sounds right for a comparison too, huh?
I think the design helped make it iconic. It's so hideous, it's brilliant.
Pompidou, Pompidou, Pompidou, dou, dou.
No comments:
Post a Comment