Books/Journals on Santa Justa, Seville by Antonio Cruz and Antonio Ortiz

Journals:

• Catherine Slessor, Traveller's joy; Architects: Antonio Cruz, and Antonio  
• Ortiz, Architectural review, no. 1144, 1992 June, p 63-68. UNSW: PJ 720.5/3
• Russell, James S.; Cohn, David, Expo '92 Seville, Architectural record, 1992 Aug., v.180, n.8, p.114-125. 
• Cenicacelaya, Javier, Cruz & Ortiz: Stazione di Santa Justa, Siviglia, Domus, 1992 June, n.739, p. 29-37. UNSW: PJ 747.05/2          
• Cruz et Ortiz: Gare Santa Justa, Seville, Techniques et architecture, 1992 Apr.-May, no.401, p.98-103. UNSW: PJ 720.3/39 
• Juan Jose Lahuerta, The new station of Seville: an underground movement; Architects: Antonio Cruz, and Antonio Ortiz, Lotus, no. 70, 1991, p. 6-22. UNSW: PJ 720.5/4 
• Emma Dent Coad, Action station; Architects: Antonio Cruz, and Antonio Ortiz, Designers' journal, no. 76, 1992 Apr., p. 58-63. UNSW: PJ 729.05/6 
• New station in Seville, Casabella, vol. 53, no. 556, 1989 Apr., p. 40-41. UNSW: PJ 720.5/103 
• A sports complex and a station by Antonio Cruz and Antonio Ortiz, Casabella, vol. 55, no. 583, 1991 Oct., p.12-19. UNSW: PJ 720.5/103.

Books:

• Antonio Cruz and Antonio Ortiz, Santa Justa Train Station, Cruz/Ortiz, 
• Princeton Architectural Press, New York: 1996, p56-77. 
• Binney, Marcus, Architecture of rail: the way ahead.  Academy Editions: London, 1995, p.98-105.
• Alessia Ferrarini, Railway stations: from the Gare de l'est to Penn Station, Electaarchitecture: Milan, 2005.
• Cruz / Ortiz 1975-1995. Princeton Architectural Press, New York, 1996, p.13, p.56 – 77.
• Gustavo Gili, Cruz / Ortiz, Barcelona, 1988, p.16-18, p.80-87

Esquisse 2

The premise for the second esquisse derived from discussion about Boullee’s Monument to Newton. Words that I attach to that project are: visionary, monumental, sublime, timelessness, collectivity, and continuity

My task was to design a building that exists only on paper, architecture of the imagination that explored the idea of monumentality in architecture.

 

The design resembles that of a 35-storey skyscraper of the type familiar to us, but which is built in a mammoth excavation beneath the ground. Only a single storey protrudes about the surface. The building is cylindrical, with a hollow centre and a large reflector above the surface collects sunlight.

By my emphasis is on the significance of the ideology behind this earthscraper. It is not a monument; it is in fact the antithesis of monumentality. A monument beckons us to remember and reminds us of power. Skyscrapers are perhaps our modern answer to monumentality because they recall the power that commands the building of such big imposing structures. They reinforce power and authority, and perhaps a hint of vanity. However by inverting the skyscraper underground, the structure looses its visual height, and becomes an earthly element connecting people to earth, there is no view, only an oculus admitting light.

Buried underground, the building is unpretentious, unassuming. It debunks totalitarian ambition and ridicules human vanity. The design is not a positive preaching, or an utopian vision, but more important to me, I hope it’s a moralising image.

Esquisse 1

Left: Interior of New Museum, starkly white, heavily contemporary. Flexible but static. Right: 798 factory, designed by German engineers in 1950's. Specific but responsive, heavy but adaptable - much more potent.

This discussion became the premise for my first esquisse.

An archetype: concept diagram

The task was a sketch design of a building that is conceived and built with the intention for adaptive re-use: specifically to be converted into three different programs over time.

The design was developed around an archetype, the simple image of the kind of house elevation that we all have in mind - a pentagon formed out horizontal base, two vertical walls and the two sloping pitches of the roof.This form was then stretched out and elongated along the roof slope section and then repeated three times in different sizes. This approach tests the robustness of an archetype rather than a specific building type - It questions whether there are specific shapes that are both enduring and accommodating to spatial functions. 

Site Plan

Stage 1: Residential. The building begins as three separate dwellings of varying heights. The dwellers can find their own homely environment inside each little individual 'house' scaled to their size and connected to their roots.

Stage 2: Kindergarten. The second phase sees the building transformed into a kindergarten. The entry is situated between two houses, and the three units are linked to each other by means of glazed connectors that ensure daylight. While the overall roof line references the archetype, the 'houses' are still distinctively individual, they help children get their bearings and understand the spatial and social organization of the school.

Stage 3: Gallery/Cafe. Thirdly, we see the building evolve into a gallery. Internal partitions are removed, and additional bridges are added.

I think the transformation of this archetype give endless possibilities. It is essentially a protective shell that holds spaces and functions, but at the same time, it is highly figurative, so it defines the overall images of the individual structures. The possibilities for adaptive design are inherent in the archetype.