Double Sided

In the readings this week, I find the extreme contrast between Alejandro Zaera-Polo and Peter Zumthor fascinating. While they seem to be dichotomous ideas, I see a connection between Zumthor’s atmospheres and the idea of designing the envelope that Zaera-Polo introduces; Zaera-Polo may be focusing the intensity of his architecture exclusively on the façade, but does this not also create an exterior atmosphere? His rail station in Birmingham reflects the activities of the city back to the people on the exterior of the building; it is providing an urban atmosphere for the passersby.

But I have an issue with Zaera-Polo’s complete dismissal of the interior; I tend to be of the opinion that we design architecture specifically for the people inhabiting its interior; that our focus should be entirely on creating experiential spaces. Therefore Zumthor’s writing resonates strongly with me and is more aligned with my own ideas – architects should be creating atmospheres, not merely beautiful images. But focusing solely on the interior is the reverse problem of focusing on the envelope; it ignores the possibility of an exterior atmosphere. A building inescapably creates a face to the exterior that should also be thought through and carefully designed.

An atmospheric interior and an expressive envelope are not necessarily mutually exclusive concepts – in my opinion, it is entirely possible to have a façade that expresses or even enhances the interior atmospheric qualities of a space. If this entire semester has been spent discussing the defiance of the cold realities of the architectural practice, why is this subject any different? Why can’t we have both?