This week (31st May) sees the 80th Birthday of Prof. Frei Otto.
Tensile structures- the subject with which Frei Otto is usually associated – are just one facet of this radical thinker, architect and engineer. His collaborations with architects, engineers, theoreticians, academicians and students are as vivid a representation of the search and meaning associated with his work, apart from the mind-numbing technicalities and number crunching that have enabled it.
His critics usually point to the failures of his undertakings- for e.g. the Munich Stadium Roof- one of the largest Tension structures constructed till date, without due acknowledgement of the enormity of the exercise- 135 metre spans using cables and fabric, structural calculations relying on mathematicians and wind tests of models, the embryonic status of what is now state-of the art computer simulation, the choices in materials etc.
Tensile structures- the subject with which Frei Otto is usually associated – are just one facet of this radical thinker, architect and engineer. His collaborations with architects, engineers, theoreticians, academicians and students are as vivid a representation of the search and meaning associated with his work, apart from the mind-numbing technicalities and number crunching that have enabled it.
His critics usually point to the failures of his undertakings- for e.g. the Munich Stadium Roof- one of the largest Tension structures constructed till date, without due acknowledgement of the enormity of the exercise- 135 metre spans using cables and fabric, structural calculations relying on mathematicians and wind tests of models, the embryonic status of what is now state-of the art computer simulation, the choices in materials etc.
As a professional (or as critics would like it- grudgingly), Frei Otto, over the years has acknowledged the shortfalls in that particular design such as over-simplification of a complex form, the factors of safety adopted and the resultant over-design etc.(Sadly, the pitfall of all this has been the concept of Leichtbau is now relegated to fabric structures and the like, without a correct understanding of the derivatives and applications associated with the term )
My personal favorites from his huge body of built and unbuilt works- which embody the quest of Frei Otto- are the German Pavilion- Montreal Expo 65 (dismantled), the Dance floor and entrance arch at the Federal Garden- Cologne (re-erected with new materials), The Tuwaiq Palace, the Japan Pavilion with Shigeru Ban for Expo 2000, his work with Bodo Rasch for the Prophet’s Mosque- Medinah and his theoretical pursuits on Branching Structures. Few can hope to match the trajectory showcased by his work towards the dedicated quest for a lightweight aesthetic of building. The inquiries, research and results achieved by Frei Otto are due to a heady mix of life's incidents, the urge to achieve more with less as a consequence, and the chanellization of that urge into an academic and professional life that can be summed up as “Inspiring”.
For those who love structural systems but find Theory of Structures an insurmountable hurdle with its frameworks for analysis and its classic avoidance of comparison between forms and assemblage processes - they can find expression and antithesis in the works done by the Institute for Lightweight Structure (IL) Stuttgart- an indivisible part of Prof. Otto’s life and work. Quirkily, even the number crunchers love discovering this.
It was at the IL that a dedicated team headed by Frei Otto systematically went about devising form-finding methods aided by cross-comparisons between materials ranging from human hair to concrete to Aramid fibre. The results- available in a series of publications- are a student’s delight in understanding the basis for Form finding. Critics say that by doing this, Frei Otto tries to compare apples with oranges – i.e. things which do not have any relation with each other.
All I can say is that the IL’s work is very technical and mathematically frightening and puts off many seekers. But why miss out on the distilled wisdom (albeit non-conformist in the manner of inquiry)?
This work done in the 1960’s finds more resonance and relevance in today’s Blob-tecture, where one finds an increasing number of architects visualizing their buildings and spaces as blobs, meshes and mobius strips. It would do a lot of good to re-visit his work, understand the underpinnings of such visualizations and apply them more conscientiously to our work, instead of merely aping what the west is doing.
What is India’s connection with him?
To begin with, he was the designer of the India Pavilion at EXPO’70, the very event where Kenzo Tange unveiled his mammoth space frames. Frei Otto's idea of “cradle to cradle”, nowadays uttered by every wannabe environmentalist and then some, finds a clean expression in the concept of the gigantic cable net housing the knock-down display spaces. While interacting with his Indian team, Prof.Otto distilled this concept from his observation of the then Indian lifestyle- frugal, sensible, understated but with a love and grasp over technology which the world was yet to see. As with all things Indian- the erstwhile government thought it unfit to allow a foreigner to design what would represent India on a global platform. It even thought the concept unworthy.
The present day dumbing down of the Tensile aesthetic into awnings and entrance canopies undermine the potential of tensile structures and the larger family of Lightweight forms. This view is shared by many Indian designers- most notably by Prof. Dashrath Patel and Prof. RJ Vasavda- two Ahmedabad pedagogists who have worked with Frei Otto and his methodologies.
While Prof. Dashrath Patel was hands-on with Frei Otto on the Indian Pavilion, Prof. RJ Vasavda used the methodology of the IL, to create minimal surfaces for the Hussain Doshi Gufa in the CEPT University compound at Ahmedabad, designed in ferrocrete by the architect BV Doshi. Dashrath Patel used Frei Otto’s “Inverted Umbrella” form in a modified aesthetic to conjure up another India Pavilion for another world EXPO. This time the principal architect was Charles Correa.
Jorg Schlaich- one of the principal structural designers of the New Howrah bridge- India’s grandest Cable stayed bridge till date, collaborated with Frei Otto on many works in Europe.
Others like my teacher- Khalil Shaikh- tried to follow and communicate the logic and wonder that the vocabulary of Tensile structures brings with it, in his works and exercises in cable net construction at Academy of Architecture. My own Graduate dissertation on the Indian paradigm of Tensile Structures -- a spaced out trip into the world of Frei Otto and spiders- put me in touch with designers like Radhika Kathpalia and her wedding venues using cable nets, Oriole Design and their Exhibition spaces, and structural engineers like Deepali Hadkar and Dhananjay Dake- a personal favorite and guide. All have acknowledged the magic of following Frei Otto’s design philosophies.
Of recent pedigree, the Hafeez Contractor designed Mumbai Airport bears signature forms of Tensile structures- originally researched, designed and erected by Frei Otto for a Pink Floyd Concert in the 1970's.
My personal favorites from his huge body of built and unbuilt works- which embody the quest of Frei Otto- are the German Pavilion- Montreal Expo 65 (dismantled), the Dance floor and entrance arch at the Federal Garden- Cologne (re-erected with new materials), The Tuwaiq Palace, the Japan Pavilion with Shigeru Ban for Expo 2000, his work with Bodo Rasch for the Prophet’s Mosque- Medinah and his theoretical pursuits on Branching Structures. Few can hope to match the trajectory showcased by his work towards the dedicated quest for a lightweight aesthetic of building. The inquiries, research and results achieved by Frei Otto are due to a heady mix of life's incidents, the urge to achieve more with less as a consequence, and the chanellization of that urge into an academic and professional life that can be summed up as “Inspiring”.
For those who love structural systems but find Theory of Structures an insurmountable hurdle with its frameworks for analysis and its classic avoidance of comparison between forms and assemblage processes - they can find expression and antithesis in the works done by the Institute for Lightweight Structure (IL) Stuttgart- an indivisible part of Prof. Otto’s life and work. Quirkily, even the number crunchers love discovering this.
It was at the IL that a dedicated team headed by Frei Otto systematically went about devising form-finding methods aided by cross-comparisons between materials ranging from human hair to concrete to Aramid fibre. The results- available in a series of publications- are a student’s delight in understanding the basis for Form finding. Critics say that by doing this, Frei Otto tries to compare apples with oranges – i.e. things which do not have any relation with each other.
All I can say is that the IL’s work is very technical and mathematically frightening and puts off many seekers. But why miss out on the distilled wisdom (albeit non-conformist in the manner of inquiry)?
This work done in the 1960’s finds more resonance and relevance in today’s Blob-tecture, where one finds an increasing number of architects visualizing their buildings and spaces as blobs, meshes and mobius strips. It would do a lot of good to re-visit his work, understand the underpinnings of such visualizations and apply them more conscientiously to our work, instead of merely aping what the west is doing.
What is India’s connection with him?
To begin with, he was the designer of the India Pavilion at EXPO’70, the very event where Kenzo Tange unveiled his mammoth space frames. Frei Otto's idea of “cradle to cradle”, nowadays uttered by every wannabe environmentalist and then some, finds a clean expression in the concept of the gigantic cable net housing the knock-down display spaces. While interacting with his Indian team, Prof.Otto distilled this concept from his observation of the then Indian lifestyle- frugal, sensible, understated but with a love and grasp over technology which the world was yet to see. As with all things Indian- the erstwhile government thought it unfit to allow a foreigner to design what would represent India on a global platform. It even thought the concept unworthy.
The present day dumbing down of the Tensile aesthetic into awnings and entrance canopies undermine the potential of tensile structures and the larger family of Lightweight forms. This view is shared by many Indian designers- most notably by Prof. Dashrath Patel and Prof. RJ Vasavda- two Ahmedabad pedagogists who have worked with Frei Otto and his methodologies.
While Prof. Dashrath Patel was hands-on with Frei Otto on the Indian Pavilion, Prof. RJ Vasavda used the methodology of the IL, to create minimal surfaces for the Hussain Doshi Gufa in the CEPT University compound at Ahmedabad, designed in ferrocrete by the architect BV Doshi. Dashrath Patel used Frei Otto’s “Inverted Umbrella” form in a modified aesthetic to conjure up another India Pavilion for another world EXPO. This time the principal architect was Charles Correa.
Jorg Schlaich- one of the principal structural designers of the New Howrah bridge- India’s grandest Cable stayed bridge till date, collaborated with Frei Otto on many works in Europe.
Others like my teacher- Khalil Shaikh- tried to follow and communicate the logic and wonder that the vocabulary of Tensile structures brings with it, in his works and exercises in cable net construction at Academy of Architecture. My own Graduate dissertation on the Indian paradigm of Tensile Structures -- a spaced out trip into the world of Frei Otto and spiders- put me in touch with designers like Radhika Kathpalia and her wedding venues using cable nets, Oriole Design and their Exhibition spaces, and structural engineers like Deepali Hadkar and Dhananjay Dake- a personal favorite and guide. All have acknowledged the magic of following Frei Otto’s design philosophies.
Of recent pedigree, the Hafeez Contractor designed Mumbai Airport bears signature forms of Tensile structures- originally researched, designed and erected by Frei Otto for a Pink Floyd Concert in the 1970's.
There may be many others I have not met, but I am sure their views on Prof. Frei Otto would not be very different.Same goes for the skeptics.
One cannot be a fence sitter when it comes to acknowledging/ ignoring Prof.Frei Otto.
On behalf of all of us- Happy Birthday Respected Teacher !
Hey.,
ReplyDeleteThis comes from Ahmadabad and has relation to your blog posting – about frei otto. There are some highly generalised comments you make – for example the comparison of the Frei Otto / Bodo Rasch Pink Floyd concert umbrellas and that of Mumbai airport. You seriously need to have a look at both the pictures and see how different they really are – in concept as well as execution. The only thing that perhaps binds them together would be the fact that they are both upturned umbrellas.
Also the biggest “tensile structure” is not the Munich Olympic stadium – it is the the Hajj Terminal Airport, which is PTFE and has nothing to do with prof. Frei Otto.
I have studied under people viz., dashrath patel, vasavda, Kireet Patel etc. at CEPT, and have also happened to meet Prof Otto on my trip to Germany, where I did my masters in membrane structures. But there is a bit of exaggeration and a myth and mysticism that many architecture students, and architects put across when we mention his name. Trust me there is much more work that was done without the reference to Frei, that gets swept below the carpet, because it’s not famous... The real forte that Prof. Otto had was writing books, through which he has achieved a level of immortality – and his name has spread far and wide. Unfortunately for India, tensile structures is hardly read, forget taught or practised, and hence the only books that were found fit for our library shelves at architecture institutes were Frei Otto’s (which of course has this extravagant splashing of images that all architects love). And as a result everybody is so OTTO.
Unfortunately for India, there are few except for prof. Kireet patel who have carried on Frei’s tradition of sharing knowledge and working with students. Both Deepali Hadkar and Dhananjay Dake in my personal opinion haven’t done much. I speak from experience of both these persons. Mr. Dake is always busy with work and Deepali Hadkar, hasn’t built any structures that I have the knowledge of – she, though, has been known to talk about them a lot.
I really hope you would consider my opinions. It is not my intention to criticize some people or even you, but to help you notice the bigger picture, since you are a fellow blogger, and blogs have a big audience, responsibility and credibility.
Warm regards, hope to hear from you.
Shehzad Irani
Very informative and helpful. I was searching for this information but there are very limited resources. Thank you for providing this information
ReplyDeleteGraduate Dissertation Examples
18 April 2009 01:36
ReplyDeleteTo: shehzad irani
I agree that Prof Otto is not the be-all and end all about the subject and that he is a mere event in the continuum. But we have our favorites in this world don't we?
Now to some things that you have so rightly pointed out:
1- The mumbai airport umbrella forms are more closer to the ones seen at the Prophet's mosque at Medinah. Those ones- by Bodo Rasch are technically and aesthetically far superior. However when I make the seemingly odious comparison of the Pink Floyd umbrellas to the ones at the mumbai airport- it is to address the elementary nature and the genesis of such of spatial design. Maybe such an elementary comparison would reveal the method/science/trajectory of design involved in these "upturned umbrellas". I know many who think that the Mumbai umbrellas are stupendous and a marvel. I hope to make them see the bigger picture.
2- The Haj terminal by Dr Fazlur Khan of SOM is actually a multiple repetition of the same form. The Munich stadium's original design had very little modularity. What ultimately got built was a series of saddle shapes to keep construction costs lower. What the Munich Stadium did (much to its own misfortune) was to look at the hyperbolic paraboloid as the definitive shape, which is slightly more unstable against dynamic flutter in comparison to a cone.
So I don't see any reason why the two should be compared. They are both iconic in their own right and in respect to the time in which they were designed and built (almost 20 years apart).
3- I have not read any coffee table books on Prof Otto. I have been lucky to read the IL journals- at CEPT. My first introduction to the method was a black and white book with hand sketches. So, i must disappoint you that i have never been under the glamour of the glossies. Learning from Prof Otto, it has been an endeavour to make models and arrive at a form rather than use funky software. Thus far, the method has been alive, though very little has been built.
4- Mr Dake has done some work in this regard- his best ones have been those temporary ones that were for his own learning, and using really low cost fabrics and shade nets. I speak about this aspect of Mr Dake from personal communication, a good 10 years ago. For many reasons, his work in the last 10 years has seen very little tensile structures and a larger concentration on steel engineering. Deepali Hadkar's work- i think I know one of her projects in Mumbai. Other than that she has worked with Mick Eckhout and they happen to be more tensigritic than pure membranes. I am sure you know Mr Eckhout's work.
5- There is a whole army of people who have toyed with tensile structures, including Frank Lloyd Wright. However, most scholars on the subject agree that the modern pioneer is indeed Matthew Nowicki --most noted for his Raleigh Arena; a structure that influenced Prof Otto. There is Kenzo Tange, Horst Berger, Peter Rice- who designed the La Nuage in the La Defense, Renzo Piano, Anthony Hunt etc etc. We could go on and one with names examples and facts and figures.
All of them have taken the idea of lightweight aesthetic to a new realm. It is only when there is awareness of one, can an entire spectrum be opened up.
6- I haven't met Prof Kirit Patel, but I did happen to see some of his students' installations at CEPT. the name evaded me. Thanks for bringing it back into memory. :)
I hope you take my opinion in the right spirit. Thanks for an engaging criticism and a chance to dialogue.
Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 3:01 PM
ReplyDeleteFrom: Shehzad Irani
You seem to have done your homework. I am happy and impressed. I just wish more would do so. You are spot on about most things. Some of my things might have been misunderstood but it’s okay.
Don’t understand in any terms that I don’t respect Otto – he is an inspiration – a beacon – the north star by which everybody without exception of world repute has found their bearings in this field. So there is no question as to his position. My only comment was on the fact that he is not the only star – there are others, who shine less and are less useful than the north star – if I were permitted to continue the allegory. His personality itself, forget the work he’s done – itself is an inspiration. The way he thought about our world and what dreams he had for it – it’s a sad torturous reality that his vision today is in tatters, as the word steadfastly moves further and further away from the real concept of lightweight into the realms of material arrogance, which unfortunately cannot be reversed.
Yes – your reasoning about the Mumbai airport is acceptable – but Sri, it would a bit more fun to take people through the magic of Floyd or the mysticism of the Prophet’s mosque umbrellas. I still beg to differ, that they are nothing more than mass produced beautiful umbrellas that are the wrong way up, by a firm that is excellent and world class at its work. But this is not in the legacy of Otto or RASCH. NO WAY. Go find other examples – see MAKMAX work. They are a complete different family of structures with their attitude of mass production and targets and minimising cost or whatever. It has got nothing to do with the classic aesthetics of the structures you sight. Just by the time that Otto / Rasch took to design them should give you a good estimate of how much effort went into them.
I don’t feel that Mumbai airport structure, which by the way is not the first time and certainly not the last time they use this module – (and so it gets defeated on exclusivity straight away), is anywhere in the close vicinity to inspire young souls on trajectory and form modulation. You are at freedom to differ, and I hope we can take this discussion further...
Your blog just cited Munich as the biggest tensile structure – hence the correction. Again – MOP (Munich Olympic Park) is the Mecca of tensile structure enthusiasts – and it is really a sacred feeling to be in the space – of course I speak as I have had the privilege to be there on a shoe-string budget nevertheless. It cannot be compared to anything – before or after – but itself. Its that EXCLUSIVE a structure. But when it comes to biggest, unfortunately the title belongs to Hajj terminal. That's all – with due respect. Again to come back to the point – notice I do not say that Hajj terminal is the mecca of things. It is a repetitive module, and if they had a bit deeper pockets it could be bigger, but that's not what grants you immortality or greatness. Its not size. Its what it gives as terms of inspiration. That's what makes it memorable – immortal... and in that qualitative way, you are definitely right it is great, and thus – never greatest, or greater – just great.
Yes – the famous IL journals at CEPT. They have a long association – CEPT and IL. They even had an IL book on what they did at CEPT. Till sometime back we had the grid-shell model that was made – but then as CEPT is a limited-space program and we hardly think of heritage the way its done in west it got destructed.
Anyway, you are right there are those B/W books and my point really was that was it. Always. It was the books and nothing else you could find could push you in the right direction (that was before of course Jochaim’s book on Soft Shells).
Anyway, thanks for lending me a ear. It was nice to speak my heart out. Its good to know people like what they hear – which not necessarily is in their favour.