 |
Review for National Grand Theatre project
The fate of the controversial National Grand Theatre project is likely to be decided this week by a strict technical review, sources close to the project said.
A revised version of the proposal by French architect Paul Andreu will be examined by the China International Engineering Consulting Co August 10.
China International Engineering Consulting was assigned by the State Planing Commission to conduct a comprehensive technical assessment of the proposal before submitting a feasibility study report, and probably the final report, company officials said.
The assessment can make or break the project.
"In terms of procedures, we are now at the technical stage of the feasibility study,'' said Hu Yuanming, vice-director of the company's public assignment section. "If the revised version passes the appraisal and decision-makers are not against it, I don't think there will be new major appraisals before the ground-breaking.''
There have been appraisals of the proposal before but none of this nature, he said.
Some major concerns about the proposal will be discussed, he added.
Andreu's concept, selected a year ago over 43 other proposals solicited internationally, has sparked harsh criticisms.
Some Chinese scientists and architects have submitted two petitions to the nation's leaders, slamming Andreu's project for its hefty cost and the theatre's futuristic style, featuring a gigantic, titanium dome.
Their assessment was far different from the selection committee's. The panel described Andreu's concept as a breakthrough in style that blends romance with reality.
With opposition to his project growing, Andreu agreed to meet with reporters. But the meeting was cancelled at the last minute in April and the preliminary clearing of the construction site west of the Great Hall of the People was halted.
Andreu was required to revise his proposal.
Last week, he was quoted by Hong Kong media as saying that he has managed to cut costs by 25 per cent with changes to the building and was confident the project would cost approximately 3 billion yuan (US$361 million). The Proprietor Committee has set a ceiling of 2.6 billion (US$313 million).
Hu, of the China International Engineering Consulting, said the review panel will take into account four major issues in assessing Andreu's proposal:
1.The necessity of the project, based upon cost and demand.
2.The "safety'' of the investment.
3.Technical issues.
4.Risk assessment.
"The experts need to have a clear and complete understanding of the technological issues to be faced during construction,'' he said. "They need to know which of them can be solved, which are possible, which cannot and how to integrate all the needed technologies.''
By listing the technological problems proposed by opponents of the projects, Hu hinted that all the problems can be addressed in technological terms.
The Proprietor Committee, including representatives of the Beijing municipal government, the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Construction, took similar views.
Architect Zhou Qinglin, a committee member, said the technical problems, such as cleaning the surface of the gigantic dome, can be resolved.
"There are no technical problems that cannot be resolved,'' he said.
He said the review work will be completed in the next few days.
Zhou, an advocate of Andreu's proposal, said most of the questions raised have already been analyzed by the committee.
While declining to predict the outcome of the review, he seemed optimistic.
Preliminary choice sparks heated debate
Criticism of the National Grand Theatre proposal climaxed when two separate petitions, one signed by 49 Chinese scientists and another by 109 architects, were submitted to China's top leaders two months ago.
Yet the Proprietor Committee, which selected French architect Paul Andreu's proposal from the final three as one to be submitted for approval, has been silent since the controversy erupted, except for refuting a media report that the project had been suspended.
Based on the two petitions, of which China Daily obtained copies, and interviews with those for and against the proposal, here are key points of the debate:
Cost
A couple of figures were released, but a more precise figure will emerge once details of the project are determined.
Andreu's original proposal had a price tag of 1.4 billion yuan (US$168 million) for a construction area of 120,000 square metres, but the proposal chosen by the Proprietor Committee last year was amended with the cost at 4.7 billion yuan (US$566 million) for a construction area of 250,000 square metres.
The cost for a proposed 6,200-seat theatre was 758,000 yuan (US$91,300) per seat, equivalent to the cost of an imported Mercedes Benz sedan plus high tariffs, said a Chinese architect who participated in the bidding.
At the request of the Proprietor Committee, Andreu revised his proposal recently and was believed to have reduced both the scope and cost of the proposal.
He was quoted by Hong Kong media last month as saying that he has managed to cut costs by approximately 25 per cent so that the project's price tag is now around 3 billion yuan (US$361 million).
However, a Proprietor Committee member said the project's cost will not exceed 2.6 billion yuan (US$313 million).
Both sides agree the total cost will be hefty, even the maintenance fees after the theatre is built.
For those who are less concerned about the large sum that will be spent on the project, they argue the theatre will be a symbol of national pride. "It is not designed to be ordinary in the first place,'' said one involved in the feasibility study. "It is to be a landmark in Beijing. You cannot simply compare its cost with an ordinary theatre.''
It is also suggested that the cost is not for a theatre but for a "theatre complex'' that provides facilities and a large area for relaxing and strolling.
Those against the project argue that there are enough theatres in Beijing. A new one is not needed now, let alone a large structure with four big halls. "We do not object to the construction of national theatre, but we do think the project should be put off for the time being,'' said He Zuoxiu, a physicist and one draftsman of one of the petitions, "A consensus should be reached on when the theatre will be built and at what cost.''
Some who signed the petition also worry that the huge spending on the theatre would mean expensive tickets out of the reach of ordinary residents.
"It is totally an unnecessary waste of money,'' said Chinese-Canadian architect Alfred Peng, who has been teaching at Qinghua University for 18 years.
Design
There is disagreement on the form and function of Andreu's design.
The criticism centres on the gigantic titanium dome -- 218 metres in span, 45 metres high and 3 metres thick -- nestled in an artificial lake.
Proponents likened it to a water pearl. Opponents call it a blob, even a ball of manure.
All, however, agree that the dome makes the project more costly and more difficult to build.
Opponents say it is silly to overemphasize the form at the expense of function. The entrance is to be built underground to enhance the dome's visual impact.
To have the four major halls in the dome means much digging underground. "It is like people creating a big yet unnecessary problem for themselves and then spend time and money to solve it,'' said Liu Xiaoshi, the former chief architect of the Beijing's Municipal Planning Bureau.
Both petitions accuse Andreu of ignoring the dusty winds typical of Beijing's spring and winter, which would make the dome a dust-covered ball.
Therefore, cleaning the dome's surface would be expensive and possibly impossible.
Andreu and the Proprietor Committee see the dome as the centerpiece of his proposal.
Zhou Qinglin, a member of the selection committee, said there should be no problem cleaning the dome since there are manual and mechanical ways to do so.
One petition cited an expert on stage technology, Li Chang, as saying that even under Andreu's revised design, the theatre won't function well.
"In terms of function, it is still second rate or even worse,'' the petition quotes Li as saying.
Wang Weiyu, a professor in the Architecture Department of Qinghua University who has experience of designing theatres, said the structure would inconvenience backstage work.
But acoustics would not be a problem, she said. "By using the right designs and materials, the acoustics can be guaranteed,'' she said.
Esthetics of style
Both sides deny that theatre controversy is simply a conflict over architectural style.
Modern or traditional? Western or Chinese? Neither?
Is it a perfect blending of two architectural traditions?The two sides are sharply divided.
Critics describe the theatre's style as an arrogant and ignorant offence against the norms of Chinese architecture. "Andreu has no idea of Chinese culture,''said Alfred Peng. "His proposal is extremely incongruous with the surroundings.''
What Andreu did was not new, but something outdated that has been abandoned by the mainstream of Western architects, he said.
Even by Western architectural standards, the proposal is a flop, he asserted.
The Proprietor Committee, however, praises Andreu's concern with the theatre's surroundings, saying the design enhances the environment around Tian'anmen Square, which is dominated by granite architecture.
The dome, half underground, makes the square look less aggressive and compliments the Great Hall of the People, panel members say.
In an article in Architecture Journal, Zhou Qinglin wrote that Andreu's proposal is "very distinctive, creative that breaks the norm of average thinking.''
He added: "It would bring great influence to China's architecture creation.''
French architect defends his plan for grand theatre
China Daily has paid close attention to the progress of the National Grand Theatre project since the proposal bidding two years ago.
After French architect Paul Andreu's proposal was chosen last year, the voice of disagreement grew louder and finally spilled out of architectural circles and into the public sphere.
China Daily sent Andreu an e-mail on the debates and following is an excerpt of his answer.
Q: We know you flew into Beijing for the ground-breaking ceremony, which was cancelled at the last minute, have you ever been told why and have you been informed by the authorities about the theatre's fate?
A: My travel to Beijing for the ground-breaking ceremony was only one trip among many I have made since I was awarded the project to work with the Great National Theatre Proprietors Committee. The committee explained the reasons for the cancellation of the ceremony and I understood them. My relations with all the members of the committee are confident and sincere. We share the will to design and construct my project in due time and with the required quality, but, above all, we share the common belief that this project will fulfil the wishes of many citizens of China and Beijing. The members of the committee keep me informed continuously and we collaborate closely.
Q: Do you have any idea of the criticism about your design and do you feel pressured?
A: I believe I have a good idea of what criticism against the project are, especially through the press. I pay a lot of attention to them. Some, made in good faith, may help to make the project more perfect. Others just convince me not to change. None of them put me under greater pressure than the one I impose on myself in all my projects. Any architect has to be the most severe critic to his work.
Q: According to the two petitions, of which China Daily received two copies in Chinese, criticism of your design is based on the exorbitant cost, which reportedly reach 4.7 billion yuan (US$566 million), more than three times of the original in your proposal. Some critics accused you of deliberately underestimating the cost to win the bid, what's your comment on this?
A: I know most of the contents of the two petitions you mention. They express opinions. All of them are respectable as all opinions are. They also refer to facts. Some of them are wrong.
I did not underestimate the cost to win the contract. Please look attentively at the documents of the competition recently published in Beijing. You will find that all the finalists had the same areas and about the same volumes. They had, if I am well informed, about the same estimations. I remember I was asked questions on the costs by the jury. I answered. My answers today have not changed.
It is true to say that during the preliminary design period we have, together with the client, added extra equipment and facilities with the result of an increase of about 20 per cent of the area and construction cost. Such an increase was judged unacceptable and we have been asked to find how to return to the original figures, which we have done without changing anything to the main equipment, through a reasonable compromise on all the ancillary spaces.
The estimation of the project is now back to 3 billion yuan (US$361 million), fees and general expenses included.
Q: Critics also argue that your futuristic design is an insult to Chinese architecture and is incongruous with the surroundings. What do you think about that?
A: I am convinced of the contrary. These arguments have been repeatedly used against any new building of importance: the Sydney Opera, the Pompidou Centre and the Louvre Pyramid in Paris. Creation always disturbs the past order and opens the future and change. There will always be people who prefer the past and ignore the necessity of evolution. I don't share their position, but I am ready to respect it and discuss.
About the relation of the building to the site and the surrounding construction, I was the only one at a certain stage of the competition to take the risk of proposing a change in the position of the Grand National Theatre so that it would be in better accordance, in a very classical way, with the Great Hall of People and allow for more gardens for public use.
The Grand National Theatre will, in architectural terms, oppose the Great Hall of People in what I see as a classical rhetorical figure: the opposition of contraries. One has impressive neo-classical facades composed of straight lines. The other has no facade, but only a roof and is composed almost exclusively of curves. There will be a dialogue between them, each expressing its time and function.
The theatre will express serenity and mystery, this time a non-forbidden mystery since it will be open to all people and give them a new social place, a new view of the town. Incongruous? No. New, as new as what the Chinese people are waiting for, here and in many other fields.
But the final and most important question is the quality of the architecture. The quality of architecture has nothing to do with style. The quality of architecture, the quality of arts in general, is maybe impossible to define in words.
It is a question of spatial and emotive relations between the public and the building, something so hidden in each of us that we can be only modest and cautious when we mention it. As a creator, I can only say that I am convinced this building will do more than fulfilling its purpose and that it will bring about something positive in Chinese architecture.
Q: Critics have accused you of ignoring the weather conditions in Beijing, which is characterized by dust winds, in your design. They said the surface of the grand dome will inevitably fall victim to dust storms and the cleaning will be a big problem to address in the near future and economically affordable. What's your opinion?
A: I did not ignore the weather conditions in Beijing, nor did my client, who instructed me about it. We are presently looking for the best cleaning solution out of three or four possible. Look at my buildings and you will find that I have not ignored such problems and have always found appropriate solutions.
At the same time, I do hope the critics will reach a better sense of measure. Beijing is not and has never been the dust hell they describe. How often are the roofs of the Forbidden City cleaned? How do they look?
In This Section
|