Does Kiasma have a significant site relationship? Not really. The geometry of the plan is based on the intersection of Mannerheimintie with the downtown street grid, and the building's curve is informed by sun angles, but these are mechanistic responses. They don't give the user of the building an experiential understanding of the site. The supposed vectors of "culture" and "nature" aren't evident. Besides, it is difficult to consider Töölönlahti "natural" as it is entirely surrounded by the city.
Additionally, from the exterior Kiasma has a disconcerting lack of scale. Although it is not an immense building, its monolithic massing, smooth surfaces, and lack of ornament make it oppressive. The architect, Steven Holl, deliberately strove for a " 'silence' created by eliminating the intermediate scale." (Kiasma: Museum of Contemporary Art. Helsinki: Rakennustieto Oy, 1998.) In fact, the fine scale of detail is absent as well, and the building is difficult to comprehend from the exterior. It seems overwhelming, even given its location near the (much larger) railway station and Finlandia Hall.
The interior of the building is quite successful, however. Here the absence of intermediate scale in the building is not missed, because the art itself fulfills that role. Indeed, at this level it is appropriate that the building recede so that the art is foregrounded. Considered details provide a texture that, in concert with the overall massing, brackets the intermediate scale of the art. Many details, including lighting fixtures and and door handles, are derived from the building's sectional and plan characteristics - which are themselves closely related. This fractal strategy results in a satisfying, organically unified interior.
No comments:
Post a Comment