“ There is no doubt that the Sydney Opera House is his masterpiece. It is one of the great iconic buildings of the 20th century, an image of great beauty that has become known throughout the world – a symbol for not only a city, but a whole country and continent. ”
In the pantheon of classic modern buildings, Utzon's creation has the status of myth. The myth states that the unknown Utzon, then in his 30s, submitted rough sketches - back-of-the-envelope stuff - to the competition judges, that he ignored most of the rules, that his design was only selected after being plucked at the last moment from the reject pile by one of the judges, architect Eero Saarinen, and that - the clincher, this - the design was un build able.
Stage I was started on December 5, 1958 , and work commenced on the podium on May 5, 1959 by the firm of Civil & Civic. The government had pushed for work to begin so early because they were afraid funding, or public opinion, might turn against them. However major structural issues still plagued the design (most notably the sails, which were still parabolic at the time).
Stage II, the shells were originally designed as a series of parabolas, however engineers Ove Arup and partners had not been able to find an acceptable solution to constructing them. In mid 1961 Utzon handed the engineers his solution to the problem, the shells all being created as ribs from a sphere of the same radius. This not only satisfied the engineers, and cut down the project time drastically from what it could have been (it also allowed the roof tiles to be prefabricated in sheets on the ground, instead of being stuck on individually in mid-air), but also created the wonderful shapes so instantly recognizable today. Arup and partners supervised the construction of the shells, estimating on April 6, 1962 that it would be completed between August 1964 and March 1965. By the end of 1965, the estimated finish for stage II was July 1967.
Stage III, the interiors, started with Utzon moving his entire office to Sydney in February 1963. However, there was a change of government in 1965, and the new Askin government declared that the project was now under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Public Works. In October 1965, Utzon gave the Minister for Public Works, Davis Hughes, a schedule setting out the completion dates of parts of his work for stage III. Significantly, Hughes withheld permission for the construction of plywood prototypes for the interiors (Utzon was at this time working closely with Ralph Symonds, an inventive and progressive manufacturer of plywood, based in Sydney ). This eventually forced Utzon to leave the project on February 28, 1966 . He said that Hughes' refusal to pay Utzon any fees and the lack of collaboration caused his resignation, and later famously described the situation as "Malice in Blunderland". In March 1966, Hughes offered him a reduced role as 'design architect', under a panel of executive architects, without any supervisory powers over the House's construction but Utzon rejected this.
The building and the setting look orchestrated, and the synergy between the setting and the building make it appear that the scheme actually involved flooding the harbour valley to set the building off to best advantage.
Despite so much richness, the building has had virtually no influence on the shape and form of Australian buildings which followed. It remains something of an enigma which crowns the silent collapse of Western Classical architecture from being the one language for great public buildings.
John Utzon’s historic resignation causes a furore and divided the Sydney architecture profession. There were rallies and marches to Sydney Town Hall led by architects such as Peter Killar and Harry Seidler; other architects resigned their profession and became teachers, chefs, film makers and artists in protest, and the Victorian Chapter of the RAIA (but not NSW) black banned the replacement of Uzton by an Australian architect.
However, as with Governor Macquarie, Greenway, Light, Barnet and Griffin before him, Utzon’s vision had exceeded the norm. The immense difficulties of achievement were seen as a waste and the importance of controlling the state’s expenditure won the day. On 19 April 1966 , the new architectural team (Lionel Todd, David Littlemore, and Peter Hall) was appointed in a whirlpool of debate.
“ The Opera House could become the world's foremost contemporary masterpiece if Utzon is given his head. ”
The Opera House seen from the north
- The major hall, which was originally to be a multipurpose opera/concert hall, became solely a concert hall, called the Concert Hall. The minor hall, originally for stage productions only, had the added function of opera and ballet to deal with and is called the Opera Theatre. As a result, the Opera Theatre is inadequate to stage large-scale opera and ballet. A theatre, a cinema and a library were also added. These were later changed to two live drama theatres and a smaller theatre "in the round". These now comprise the Drama Theatre, the Playhouse, and the Studio, respectively. These changes were primarily because of inadequacies in the original competition brief, which did not make it adequately clear how the Opera House was to be used. The layout of the interiors was changed, and the stage machinery, already designed and fitted inside the major hall, was pulled out and largely thrown away.
- Externally, the cladding to the podium and the paving (the podium was originally not to be clad down to the water, but to be left open).
- The construction of the glass walls (Utzon was planning to use a system of prefabricated plywood mullions, but a different system was designed to deal with the glass).
- Utzon's plywood corridor designs, and his acoustic and seating designs for the interior of both major halls, were scrapped completely. His design for the Concert Hall was rejected as it only seated 2000, which was considered insufficient. Utzon employed the acoustic consultant Lothar Cremer, and his designs for the major halls were later modelled and found to be very good. The subsequent Todd, Hall and Littlemore versions of both major halls have some problems with acoustics, particularly for the performing musicians. The orchestra pit in the Opera Theatre is cramped and dangerous to musicians' hearing. The Concert Hall has a very high roof, leading to a lack of early reflections onstage—perspex rings (the "acoustic clouds") hanging over the stage were added shortly before opening in an (unsuccessful) attempt to address this problem.
Utzon left the project on 28 February 1966 . He said that Hughes's refusal to pay Utzon any fees and the lack of collaboration caused his resignation and later famously described the situation as "Malice in Blunderland". In March 1966, Hughes offered him a subordinate role as "design architect" under a panel of executive architects, without any supervisory powers over the House's construction, but Utzon rejected this.
Beginning in the late 1990s, the Sydney Opera House trust began to communicate with John Utzon in an attempt to effect reconciliation and to secure his involvement in future changes to the building. In 1999, he was appointed by the Trust as a design consultant for future work. In 2004, the first interior space rebuilt to an Utzon design was opened, and renamed "The Utzon Room" in his honor. In April 2007, he proposed a major reconstruction of the Opera Theatre. Utzon died on 29 November 2008 .
In 1993, Constantine Koukias was commissioned by the Sydney Opera House Trust in association with REM Theatre to compose Icon, a large-scale music theatre piece for the 20th anniversary of the Sydney Opera House.
Hello. And Bye.
ReplyDeletewhat was that?
ReplyDelete