Crazy, it was opened in 1977, already closed for a couple of years (1997 to 2000) for maintenance and rebuild, and after 20 more years it requires yet again 5 years of work? That's really a terrible building.
To be fair, some of this is because of how the French government operates. This in the culture that invented the word "bureaucracy." Many normal, profit-driven businesses could probably maintain such a building without so many silly closures.
I don't assume it would stay 'just' so high, I just accept that some designs are higher maintenance than others.
Let's stay focused on market-oriented countries since that was the claim here - that the "market" could magically figure out how to maintain any given building cheaply. I'm pointing out that it's far more likely that the market would just give up. Why optimize the crazy building instead of replacing it with a boring easy one? Since you want to be snarky, though: ever wonder why there is such a thing as "historical preservation" status for certain buildings? It's because we know that not every building makes economic sense, but sometimes we want to keep them around anyway, even though if wholly under the control of a profit-motivated organization they'd be gone and replaced with something in the name of efficiency.
Yes that "more" is stealing more money / contracting more debt from french taxpayers to renovate constantly an ugly building that is promoting a politician (Pompidou was president and prime minister)
There are a lot of parallels to the Thompson Center building in Chicago. It’s more or less Helmut Jahn’s prototype for the Sony Center in Berlin and housed government offices. The government couldn’t keep up with maintenance, let it rot, and finally sold it to Google who are planning to make it into a showcase office building. So we get to see if a profit-driven business can maintain such a building!
> It was the first major example of an 'inside-out' building with its structural system, mechanical systems, and circulation exposed on the exterior of the building. Initially, all of the functional structural elements of the building were colour-coded: green pipes are plumbing, blue ducts are for climate control, electrical wires are encased in yellow, and circulation elements and devices for safety (e.g., fire extinguishers) are red.
Was it because of this? I can see that causing some issues.
Having all these easily accessible on the outside of the building (instead of having to open up walls or floors) sounds like it should make maintenance easier, not harder. Although the "structural system" certainly sounds like something that should be weatherproofed.
Perhaps it was complicated by aesthetic concerns: when you put these internals on the outside, there's some pressure to arrange them in a nice- looking way rather than in the most functional configuration.
> Having all these easily accessible on the outside of the building (instead of having to open up walls or floors) sounds like it should make maintenance easier, not harder.
Accessibility is improved, but lifespan is sacrificed. When the systems are on the outside they're subjected to much greater swings in environment (humidity, pressure, temperature, thermal expansion, and so on) that don't happen when they're inside the climate-control envelope of the building.
Indeed, I learned during my degree that this building was designed so that maintenance and refitting would be easier. Turns out it was just an Architectural excuse for the aesthetics of it
> Having all these easily accessible on the outside of the building (instead of having to open up walls or floors)
Don’t buildings like these usually have access panels for maintenance? Plus a lot of “fake” paneling, especially on ceilings, that’s easy to remove to access all the piping it hides?
But when these things are outside, now you need a crane instead of just ladders.
Even without access panels, opening and replacing some segments of drywall sounds pretty easy compared to working on a building’s facade.
Make the crane part of the building. In this case it would not even be an awkward necessity you try to make as invisible a possible, it could be a proud highlight integral to the the design language. Or rather could have been, if it's added now it would be a highlight extension to the design language.
Would that approach change the original design? Absolutely. But I'd see that as a positive. Not because I don't like the original design (I do) but because it would make a nice teaching example: if architects don't want their designs to be messed with, they'd better start making "how will it look and perform after x decades of use and weather" much more a factor in their decisions than they do now. I'm so tired of seeing new architecture that makes pristineness (while new) it's central design statement and has absolutely nothing to show for once that new car smell is gone.
"The architects believe in buildings, which are able to change and adapt in answer to technical and/or client needs, not only in plan but in section and elevation. They believe in a framework which allows people freedom to do their own thing, the order, scale and ‘grain’ coming from a clear understanding and expression of the process of building; in the optimization of each individual element, its system of manufacture, storage, transportation, erection and connection, all within a clearly defined and rational framework; in a giant meccano set rather than a traditional static transparent or solid doll’s house."
Does that all sound familiar to folks building backend systems? That is 'microservices' for architecture, a counter to 'monolithic' structures, using almost precisely the same motivations, and, running into the same exact problems: operational complexity.
It is the standard post-modern circle jerk where mundane things have to be cast in exalted grandiosity so that pseudo-intellectuals can feel important.
Frank Lloyd Wright structures are known for their high maintenance costs, eg. the cantilevers of Falling Water House are insufficiently braced and prone to sagging and have been repaired more than once. The furniture became impractical to insure as collectors made them museum pieces etc.
There's a well established history of high(er)cost of operation attached to artistically noteworthy architecture.
To be honest the Japanese have it right. Tear down buildings after 50 years and build something new. Ofcourse they had the luck of frequent earthquakes and fires (buildings made of wood when the Netherlands switched to masonry in the 16th century).
Yes it is cute and adorable that the Dutch Parlement is situated in a building complex that can be traced back 1000 years (I wish I was kidding). The tourists love it. The symbolism is marvelous. And it costs hundreds of millions to keep it from falling down.
Or learn to build well. There are still standing roman buildings much older than that, that only require sporadic maintenance after earthquakes and such. The Pantheon in Rome is a brilliant example, as is Hagia Sophia in Istanbul. The latter being built in all of 5 years!
> Or learn to build well. There are still standing roman buildings much older than that, that only require sporadic maintenance after earthquakes and such.
Hope you like domes, because that's pretty much the only thing you can build in that fashion. (And even that only works in climates where the temperature never goes below freezing).
a mausoleum for the remains of distinguished French citizens, modelled on the Pantheon in Rome which had been used in this way since the 17th century. The first panthéonisé was Honoré Gabriel Riqueti, comte de Mirabeau, although his remains were removed from the building a few years later.
Most buildings in Japan are very ugly because nobody invests that much in them, because of this mentality that they're all temporary.
More interesting is that many temples in Japan - which are a lot more attractive than the minecraft rectangles that dominate the streetscapes - are completely torn down and rebuilt periodically.
