Still Bugging Me

Quite some time ago I was watching a TV show about the construction projects going on in Beijing in preparation for the summer Olympics. They have a number of truly interesting architectural projects underway. Not the least of which is the Olympic Stadium:


This design is supposed to be evocative of a birds nest, although from this elevation it looks almost as if they've draped it with Rosco texture. The thing is made up of hundreds of unique members, each of which is engineered within an inch of its life. The shell is actually a facade which is attached to the interior structure of support beams.

On the show, they were with the architect while he was on an inspection tour of the facility during construction. They showed a conversation between the architect and the construction manager where they were talking about this lattice of supporting beams. The design was set up so that if you look down the alley between the building and the shell that all of the support beams line up with eachother - so that it just looks like one beam in its front el. On site, they put the things up such that they are all at different angles and significantly obstruct the volume of the space in that same elevation which had been designed so cleanly.

The manager gave a very "what can you do" explanation for the problem and then quickly segued into a treatise on budget and schedule and why there was simply no way the beams could be replaced. The architect let discretion be the better part of valor and did not push the point, choosing not to expend whatever political capital he has on what is ostensibly the building's underwear.

I have to say that weeks later this is still bugging me as a technical director. In such a once in a lifetime project it seems like the attitude for construction was really cavalier. I understand why they can't go backward, but I would have been much more upset that the change had happened in the first place. Even now I find myself thinking that they could apply scenic facias to the existing beams in such a way as to resolve all of the differing elevations into one uniform line. Maybe someone there will think of that too. Because it really does seem like it is a shame.

Building scenery, I often find myself in the "it'll be dark, they'll be drinking" or "if they're looking at that, there is really something wrong with the show" territory. I suppose this construction manager might be thinking that if anyone is looking at the elevation of the inner support beams that there must be something dreadfully boring going on in the competition. But this isn't even something on the order of a Broadway Musical, this is a world showcase; and it isn't an ephemeral project, it is an enduring work of civic art that could stand for more than a century. It just feels the work deserves more respect than it got in this case. But then, maybe that's why I build scenery and not stadiums.