This Page Is Left Intentionally Blank
1
Figure 1. Exterior View of Ruled Surface
2
Gonzalo Viramonta
IGLESIA DE CRISTO OBRERO Eladio Dieste By Ryan Saks
Firm Brief Eladio Dieste was an engineer turned architect who practiced in the mid-20th century in Latin America. Through his engineering and construction firm Dieste & Montañez S.A., Dieste applied innovative forms and construction methods to common building materials and building types1. As a structural engineer, he was able to push the known limits of brickwork structure subject to bending while entwining a sense of power and poetry into his architecture2. His engineering education offers him the qualifications needed to equally honor the technical and the artistic concerns of his work. Faced with the constraints of limited economic resources in his country, Dieste saw the brick’s potential to have the same “accuracy, efficiency, prefabrication, consistency and analytical rigor” as concrete while remaining more economic3. Dieste produced truly tectonic architecture in the sense that his structures clearly display the structural systems that make them. Eladio Dieste did not partake in the frivolous addition of elements that do not have structural, load-bearing purposes in interior spaces. Not only does he not need additional elements to convey the narrative in his architecture, Dieste strives to push engineering boundaries to further reduce the number of necessary load-bearing elements while still maintaining that same essence4.
Location: Atlántida, Uruguay Program: Church Completion year: 1960
3
Figure 2. North-facing Entrance Facade Julian Palacio
4
5
Project Brief The Church of Christ the Worker in Atlántida, Uruguay was Eladio Dieste’s first architectural commission5. The owner wanted an inexpensive building and had no need for architectural beauty because he believed the occupants of Atlántida, poor manual and domestic workers, “had no aesthetic taste or sensibility”6. Dieste was motivated to demonstrate that beauty and low cost are not mutually exclusive. Dieste accepted the commission on the terms that he would have total design freedom and that the final building would be the same cost as a warehouse7. The church in its simplest elements are similar to a warehouse as it is a “single brick-built volume of 52 x 98 feet and 23 feet tall”8. The floor plan at ground level is a rectangle. The east and west walls progressively oscillate outward from the straight line of the plan at ground level9. They reach maximum curvature at the eaves, which allows for the control of lateral forces and gives the wall stability through transferring of loads to the foundation10. The walls are perforated with small and irregularly sized windows placed strategically to direct light at the altar11. The walls were built as a ruled surface of connecting vertical lines from the wall base to the curved form at the top. The nave walls meet the vaulted roof in a plane at the height of 23 feet. The roof is made of a sequence of gaussian vaults that curve in the longitudinal and latitudinal direction and efficiently resist deflection12. Dieste invented this form to overcome the inadequacies of barrel vaults for his purposes: high rises needed for broad spans, susceptibility to buckling with low rise shapes when thin, increased thickness to counter bending causing increased lateral loads, prestressing needed (also increases weight load), visible horizontal ties deemed unattractive by Dieste13. The Gaussian vault Dieste invented would be a pure expression of “structural surface forms, of his desire to ‘resist through form’”14. The front and rear wall of the Church was recessed from the nave walls to highlight the roof and nave walls structural independence. The edges of the front and rear wall are flush with the nave walls in reality, but this ornamental gap eludes that the connection does not structurally link the walls15. In the Christo Obero Church Dieste exemplfies his commitment to tectonic architecture through the demonstration of pure structural surfaces throughout the entire volume. Dieste was pushed to create more innovative structures by being confined to strict economical constraints. Through brickwork, Dieste was able to accomplish what he could not with concrete in this church: less cost, less material, more structural efficiency to material ratio, and, most of all, a visually powerful volume16. It is clear through the study of the Christo Obero Church that the cost restrictions allowed Dieste to create superior architecture.
6
1
3
4
7
2' 1'
10' 5'
20'
Figure 3. Top: Longitudinal Section drawing Figure 4. Bottom: Front Elevation Ryan Saks
2' 1'
4
5
7
2'
20'
Bapistery Confesionals Nave Chancel Chapel Sacristy Antesacristy
10'
1'
5'
20' 2' 1'
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10' 5'
10' 5'
20'
5
2
3
4
6
7
2' 1'
Figure 5. Plan Drawing, Ground Level Ryan Saks
10' 5'
2' 1'
20'
10' 5'
20'
7
Figure 6. View of the Altar, from the Entrance Julian Palacio
8
Figure 7. Drawing of the Altar Ryan Saks
Scale: 1/40" = 1'-0"
Tectonic Principles Anatomy Semper defines four components of a building’s anatomy as the hearth, the earthwork, roof and framing, and enclosing membrane or cladding17. Semper’s believed that the hearth formed a sacred focus around which the whole [building] took order and shape”18. The idea that the hearth brings life, purpose, and direction to the rest of the structure is embodied in the Christo Obero Church. In this structure the altar serves the function of the hearth, the gaussian vaults are the roof and framing, the foundation and brick that rests on the ground is the earthwork, and the nave walls function as the membrane. Through centering the structural form on the altar, Dieste is able to create a sense of community in his structure. Centering the building solely on the altar allows it to become the nexus of the religious purpose of the structure. In turn, this allows the rest of the structure to take form around it. The windows in the nave walls all purposely shed light on the altar to further accentuate the importance of it. The orientation of the windows that specifically aim light at the altar is only possible because the oscillating ruled surface. Hence, through the importance of the hearth, the ruled surface (the membrane component in Semper’s theory) is able to take form. The same logic can be applied to the skylight in the roof structure. This light as well is directed toward the altar. In order for occupants to perceive that the skylight opening purposely aims light on the altar, it needs to be at a lower elevation so the light does not dissipate throughout the space. The low rise of the ceiling is now taking shape through the life the hearth brings to the structure. 9
1
Figure 8. Construction of the Ruled Surface Nave Walls AR Editors
10
Figure 9. View of the Gaussian Vaults from the Nave Rafael Oliveria
Choosing gaussian vaults as the roofs structural form further developed the idea of the altar as the social center of this structure. If barrel vaults were used instead, the vaults would have risen to a considerable height in order to be structurally sound and not susceptible to buckling. In that case, when entering the building, our attention would be drawn upward and to the sense of the space opening up. Gaussian vaults have a relatively low rise to span ratio in comparison. When entering the building, we are guided to follow the oscillating vaults guiding surface to observe the altar. Through the act of highlighting the hearth in the building, the roof element was able to take shape. The ruled surface functions in the same way by drawing our attention to the opposite end of the building by following the waving surface forward. The components of the roof and the membrane are both realized with the purpose of pivoting attention to the altar, and are able to attain their ideal expression. Construction Dieste’s structures satisfy Semper’s theory of the importance of the correct construction material as well. Through the tectonic principle of construction, Semper emphasized the importance of correct material choice for a particular building’s conditions. By choosing a material with purpose in mind, it allows “for an ideal expression in the building and, ultimately, beauty”. As discussed before, Dieste chose 11
Scale: 1/160" = 1'-0"
14
Scale: 1/64" = 1'-0"
10
Scale: 1/256" = 1'-0"
Figure 10. Diagrams of the Ruled Surface
Scale: 1/128" = 1'-0"
4
brick because of the economical constraints that he faced. By being constrained in this way, Dieste was able to design a superior structure that would have been otherwise less successful with alternate materials. The structure would have been extremely different if constructed with concrete because Dieste would not have been forced to push the engineering limits and innovate a new structure form. The church could only reach this ideal expression by choosing brick as the structural unit.
Scale: 1/64" = 1'-0"
10
Representation Botticher’s theory of core-form and art-form as ways of representing the structure are undeniably present in Dieste’s work. When there is an element in Dieste’s work that is not structurally necessary, it is always present to highlight the structural system. This is seen in the ornemental gap between the nave walls and the front wall. The gap is present to show that the walls are structurally independent of each other. This 12
2
Scale: 1/128" = 1'-0"
1
4
Ryan Saks
The Christo Obero Church primarily took its shape from the structural functions it serves. With so little ornamentation in the entire structure, the whole volume stands to demonstrate its fight with gravity. Each structural system within the whole is constructed to = 1'-0" Scale: 1/256" resist forces and make the volume stable. The gaussian vaults are able to efficiently resist deflection without buckling, a very difficult and precise task with such a low rise compared to span. Dieste wanted this structural surface to present “his desire to ‘resist through form’”19. which in the end, allowed him to also attain beauty in his building. Without the intricacy of the vaults and the ruled surface, the church would simply be another brick building. The display of resistance to gravity that is somehow occurring but does not seem feasible to the untrained eye creates a sense Scale: 1/128" = 1'-0" Scale: 1/128" = 1'-0" of 4 power in the architecture.
Scale: 1/256" = 1'-0"
2
1
Figure 11. Diagrams of the Ruled Surface Ryan Saks
4
Scale: 1/256" = 1'-0"
Scale: 1/256" = 1'-0" = 1'-0"
14
Scale: 1/64" = 1'-0"
2
Scale: 1/256" = 1'-0"
10
Scale: 1/128" = 1'-0"
Scale: 1/64" = 1'-0"
10
2
Scale: 1/256" = 1'-0"
Scale: 1/160" = 1'-0"
Scale: 1/128" = 1'-0"
4
1
4
14
1
Scale: 1/128" = 1'-0"
13 Scale: 1/256" = 1'-0"
2
2' 1'
10' 5'
20'
Figure 12. Elevation Drawing of the Front Facade 2'
1'
10'
5'
Ryan Saks
20'
Figure 13. Interior View of the Entrance Gonzalo Viramone
14
Figure 14. View of the Nave Walls Meeting the Gaussian Vaults Gonzalo Viramone
would make the connection that spans them not a structural element, and it embodies Botticher’s idea of art-form. The recess of the front wall from the nave wall’s sole purpose is to exemplify the mechanical system, or Botticher’s core-form. It accomplishes this through its representation being chosen thoughtfully. Another element that demonstrates thoughtful representation through art-form is the placing of the windows at the top portion of the nave walls. This placement illuminates the altar primarily, but it secondarily illuminates the joining of the nave walls and the roof. The strategic placement at a higher elevation allows the joint to be visible when it otherwise would be cast in shadow. The art-form of the windows serve to highlight the mechanical system that makes up the roof and walls. These are two very complicated systems, and Dieste has chosen to exemplify the complex joining of them. It is no accident that this is the most complicated part of the building, where the loads transfer from the roof to the walls. It is so complex because both of the surfaces are oscillating. He highlights the detail that they come together in the same plane even though they oscillate throughout the structure. It is difficult to perceive that they actually do meet at the same height until one analyzes the joint, a joint that is lit up by the windows. 15
Figure 15. View of Window Detail Gonzalo Viramone
16
Endnotes 1 Palacio, Julian. “Material Tour De Force: The Work of Eladio Dieste.” The Architectural League of New York, 27 June 2012, archleague.org/article/material-tour-de-force-the-work-of-eladio-dieste/. 2 Anderson, Stanford. Eladio Dieste: Innovation in Structural Art. Edited by Nancy Eklund Later and Scott Tennent, Princeton Architectural Press, 2004. 3 Anderson, Stanford. Eladio Dieste: Innovation in Structural Art. pp. 140 4 Anderson, Stanford. Eladio Dieste: Innovation in Structural Art. pp. 33. pp. 141 5 Anderson, Stanford. Eladio Dieste: Innovation in Structural Art. pp. 42 6 “1952 Eladio Dieste, Iglesia De Cristo Obero, Atlántida, Uruguay.” pp. 170–171. 7 “1952 Eladio Dieste, Iglesia De Cristo Obero, Atlántida, Uruguay.” pp. 170. 8 “1952 Eladio Dieste, Iglesia De Cristo Obero, Atlántida, Uruguay.” pp. 170. 9 Anderson, Stanford. Eladio Dieste: Innovation in Structural Art. pp. 42 10 “1952 Eladio Dieste, Iglesia De Cristo Obero, Atlántida, Uruguay.” pp. 170. 11 Anderson, Stanford. Eladio Dieste: Innovation in Structural Art. pp. 42 12 Anderson, Stanford. Eladio Dieste: Innovation in Structural Art. pp. 73 13 Anderson, Stanford. Eladio Dieste: Innovation in Structural Art. pp. 141 14 Anderson, Stanford. Eladio Dieste: Innovation in Structural Art. pp. 144 15 “1952 Eladio Dieste, Iglesia De Cristo Obero, Atlántida, Uruguay.” pp. 170. 16 Anderson, Stanford. Eladio Dieste: Innovation in Structural Art. pp. 99 17 Schwartz, Chad. 2017. Introducing Architectural Tectonics. London: Routledge. pp. 57 18 Schwartz, Chad. 2017. Introducing Architectural Tectonics. London: Routledge. pp. 57 19 Anderson, Stanford. Eladio Dieste: Innovation in Structural Art. pp. 144
References Eladio Dieste : Innovation in Structural Art 2004., edited by Stanford Anderson, Eladio Dieste 1917-2000. 1st ed. ed. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. AR Editors. 1961. “Church at Atlantida, Uruguay.” The Architectural Review (London), Sep 1, 173-5. Carranza, Luis E., Fernando Luiz Lara, and Jorge Francisco Liernur. 2014a. “1952 Eladio Dieste, Iglesia De Cristo Obero, Atlántida, Uruguay.” In Modern Architecture in Latin America: Art, Technology, and Utopia. First edition ed., 170-171. Austin, Tex: University of Texas Press. Carranza, Luis E., Fernando Luiz Lara, and Jorge Francisco Liernur. 2014b. “1955 Eladio Dieste - Tectonics Driving the Accidental Architect.” In Modern Architecture in Latin America: Art, Technology, and Utopia. First edition ed., 190-192. Austin, Tex: University of Texas Press. Ciro Caraballo. 2017. Iglesia De La Parroquia De Cristo Obrero Y Nuestra Señora De Lourdes Plan De Conservación Y Manejo: The Getty Foundation. Gonzalo Viramonte. “Eladio Dieste: Iglesia De Cristo Obrero Y Nuestra Señora De Lourdes”. Divisare. Mar 6 Julian Palacio. 2012. “Material Tour De Force: The Work of Eladio Dieste.” , Jun 27 Rafael Oliveira. “Untitled”. Befront Magazine. https://befrontmag.com/2016/10/17/inside-iglesia-del-cristo-obrero/. Schwartz, Chad. 2017. Introducing Architectural Tectonics. London: Routledge.
17