Vila Joiosa Auditorium Theatre / Arquitecturas Torres Nadal

Mar 2009

Uploaded by Nico Saieh — Filed under: Cultural ,Selected , Spain, Torres Nadal

▼

Add this to My Bookmarks:

share by email

share by email

Architects: José Mª Torres Nadal y Antonio Marquerie Tamayo
Location: Alicante, Spain
Collaborators: Christohp Schmid, Iván Capdevila, Andrés Silanes, Mabel Toledo, Leticia Ballester
Structural Engineering: BOMA, Agustí Obiol
Acoustical Engineering: Jaime Llinares, José Forteza
Rigger: Rafael Pastor + Francisco Pérez Martínez
Promotor: Ayuntamiento de La Vila Joiosa
Project year: 2002-2004
Construction year: 2005-2007
Photographs: José Mª Torres Nadal, Lluís Casals, Juan de la Cruz Megías, Subarquitecturas

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROJECT OF LA VILA JOIOSA IS ITS ABILITY TO BUILD ITSELF AS A PUBLIC PROJECT GENERATING A PUBLIC SPACE.

Indeed, the volume of construction which requires the program of a large auditorium is huge. It is one of the programs with a greater volume to be inserted in the city. And it is essentially, a horizontal volume. And generally, unless it falls into a capricious situation, the ideal is to be blind to avoid any kind of noise pollution.

These three conditions: its huge volume of construction, its “dumb” condition and its generally horizontal condition, make of this a program that is inserted with difficulty in the city.

… UNLESS IT DOES NOT CREATE ITS OWN URBAN SPACE WHICH TRIES TO BELONG …

It is like creating a circle of art and then enter it … We proceeded in this way to think and build the AUDITORIUM. An auditorium is a main program (hall + foyer) and a series of complementary programs generally in order of magnitude much smaller.

We combined them in a way that the smaller programs surrounded the main program, that they were organized in that “arm”. On the other hand they connected the two ends from the hall to the foyer, like a rolled whiting.

This arm generates a public space, an uncovered space, a large square that allows the access to the auditorium to be an encounter through that space. It is an area which proposes the celebration of the musical or theatrical activity outdoors and allows to have the feeling of entering to the spatial and public area of the Auditorium even before its access itself.

It is a place that generates a shadow, which casts a circle of shade in both plant and section. In plant because this shade builds an area which both separates and unites the project with the city. In section, because that shadow interpose as a layer built that cuts the main volume and gives a smaller scale more urban. In this way, a depth is created that in principle the auditorium, plan and wall, obviously does not possess.

The geometry that we proposed was a geometry that reminded us of the mountains, the buildings that do not distinguish between the plans of facades and roof. In an extraordinary way it proposes solutions of continuity between the horizontal or inclined plans, of the roof and the vertical or inclined plans of the facades.

A single material covers the building walls and ceilings. A piece of sustainable plastic in its construction, development and elimination.

In this way the project reconstructs the image of the mountain that we saw from the place where now the auditorium is located.

: level -200 plan

: level -500 plan

: level +250 plan

: level +550 plan

: level +850 plan

: level +1018 plan

: level +1583 plan

: roof plan

: elevation 01

: elevation 02

: section 01

: section 02

: section 03

: section 04

: section 05

: section 06

: section 07

: section 08

: section 09

: section 10

: section 11

: section 12

Cite:
Saieh , Nico . "Vila Joiosa Auditorium Theatre / Arquitecturas Torres Nadal" 09 Mar 2009. ArchDaily. Accessed 09 Feb 2012. <http://www.archdaily.com/16207>

Comments (8)
Tweets (3)
Links to this entry (1)

Miguel Sá, Arqt says:

particularly liked the treatment of color in interior space

gostei particularmente do tratamento de cor no espaço interior

# March 9, 2009 at 13:39

Ceno says:

seems to be old fashioned for me..

# March 9, 2009 at 23:07

rkw says:

cheap and ugly…….wannabe modern architecture…….
i dont like it…

# March 10, 2009 at 05:36

the big black and white zebra says:

I am sorry to be negative, but this bulding is truly ugly. First of all on-line translators are not good tools, especially for architectonic diatribes or wishy-washy poetical justifications… it makes unclear thought process’ impenetrable.

It is nice that the building is covered in a single skin, albeit with many ribbed interruptions, and that the plastic is sustainabl,e but the puckering makes it look like it is a temporary covering stapled on.

You may complain about being constrained by the linear nature of the site. I don’t see that there is the imposition of that contraint. Only because the architects have used a large part of the site for public open space does it make the planning of the auditorium linear.

I was surprised given the assurance of the architects about their response to the harsh noise pollution of the city that one of the auditorium walls is an external wall.

The handrail is a piece of white painted angle iron. The details are crude… well, I could go on, and on, and on, and on. But finally, why have the architects used the imagery of the mountain as a basis for their aesthetic, why… I don’t understand… is it

To show that the culture of a city must rise above it’s day to day existence, or is it that
the pinnacle of a societies achievements are shown through their Art, or
when patrons use the centre they must be transported to the high ground and clean air of the cities cultural expression?

No, it is because it “… reconstructs the image of the mountain that we saw from the place where now the auditorium is located”…

Poor
… and I agree it looks like a poor seventies arts centre in a forgotten UK provincial city, done by an architect who had got very excited about Hans Scharoun’s Philharmonie building.

# March 10, 2009 at 09:36

Martin says:

Aren´t you just tired of this “objects” that land all over the world?

Shouldn´t a City Hall with auditoriums and outside activities be a useful, warm, public place to visit and enjoy? It must be a scary place to visit at night.

# March 11, 2009 at 18:27

wartian says:

The selected materials for external cladding is tasteless. The overall architecture gesture looked cumbersome and bulky. The building does not show aesthetic judgment and sensitivity. The complexity and intricacy of the geometries resemble roadside trash. The floating passage is an indescribable failure, reminds me the low-cost air terminal passenger way, has nothing to do with elegance and style.

The slanting planes and diagonal lines in the plan is the incarnation of deconstruction of failure one, leaving a black spot on spanish contemporary architecture.

Anyway, the interior designer does a good job! the dazzling red is fashionable and chic.

# June 12, 2009 at 11:50

sc says: