We tend to think of indigenous Sardinian construction as robust and direct although not particularly refined. This is due in large part to the widely published images of nuraghi, the stone towers that gave name to the Nuragic Era which spanned from

about 1800 to 535 BCE. It is believed that at one time there were as many as 20,000 of these constructions of massive, roughly hewn volcanic stone. Their simple geometric forms are iconic in the natural landscape. Of the approximately 7,000 that have survived, many are sufficiently intact to be experienced as buildings.

There is, however, another archetypal

form of masonry from the Nuragic Era. This is the precisely cut stonework of the pozzi saccri (sacred wells).Examples include the limestone remains at Perfugas and the reassembled pozzo at the Santa Cristina archeological site, about 115 kilometers from Cagliari. Here, the carefully finished blocks of stone, many non-orthogonal, generate complex geometry both in volume and surface. Built around 1000 BCE, the well itself and the walls that establish its precinct define a construction vocabulary that can be seen in Sardinian architecture for the following 2,000 years; that is emphasizing symbolic building elements by contrasting their high level of finish against a rough background. This may be seen not only in the ceremonial buildings such as churches and tombs, but also in the details of vernacular building. While this device is not unique to Sardinian architecture, there are few other places where a 3,000 year continuum is so clearly seen.

Images 1, 2 Nuraghe, Santa Sarbana
Images 3-5 Nuraghe, Santu Antine
Image 6 Sacred well, Perfugas
Images 7-15 Sacred well, Santa Cristina (Image 14, Aperture at top of tholos – well chamber)
Images 16, 17 Necropolis (cave tombs), Sant Andrea Priu
Image 18 Santa Sarbana
Images 19, 20 Ss Trinita di Saccargia
Image 21 Santa Maria Regno in Andara
Image 22 Duomo di San Nicolo, Sassari
Image 23 Santa Catarina, Sassari
Image 24 Decorated entry, Perfugas

cialis online

who have not had the chance to visit Brno in the past eight months, here is an

opportunity to get some sense of this remarkable work of architecture.

Iveta Cerana, Director of the Villa Tugendhat, offers unique historical and cultural perspectives on this Modern monument.

The work of Mies van der Rohe is often viewed as being exercises in purist geometry, dry and mathematical. A May 2012 visit to newly restored Villa Tugendhat in Brno,

Czech Republic, most easily recognized from its west façade (image 1) with its precise and controlled layering, as seen in Mondrian paintings (image 2), Mies’ European work is also deeply involved with the transparency, reflectivity and ambiguity of Moholy-Nagy. (image 3, 4, 5, 6,7)

The above is in addition to the unmistakable concern with the architecture of material and construction (Materiality) (image 8) which has been discussed with clarity and detail by Professor Ivo Hammer in several articles; or the effect of the understated entry (image 9) that begins the experiential drama resolving in the remarkable public spaces.
Since the 1970’s and before, there have been efforts in architectural and social criticism to discredit Modernism as simplistic and bland, cold and antihuman. Experiencing Villa Tugendhat, as well as Modern

icons such as Villa Savoye (image 10)

and the Barcelona Pavilion (image 11) totally contradicts these claims.

evident in considering the use of Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete (GFRC) as the primary reconstruction material, in lieu of other materials.

The project’s 72,000 units of replicated terra cotta – the largest terra cotta replacement project in the world – yields an embodied energy savings by using GFRC of approximately 29,880,000,000 Btu or the equivalent of about 207,000 gallons or about 4,900 barrels of #6 oil when compared with cast stone and approximately 57,600,000,000 Btu – the equivalent of about 400,000 gallons or about 9,500 barrels of #6 oil – when compared with terra cotta.

In addition, in considering just the energy savings in transportation of the much lighter GFRC, the 72,000 units of replicated terra cotta, the savings in the weight of material that must be fabricated, transported to the building, lifted and installed is 14,400,000 pounds – or 7,200 tons.

Here is how we arrived at the findings in savings. Information on the embodied energy of various materials is from the Handbook of Energy Use For Building Construction prepared for the US Department of Energy by Elemental’s Carl Stein and the late Richard G. Stein:

EMBODIED ENERGY and WEIGHT OF MATERIAL COMPARISON

The analysis examines two alternative systems for replacing decorative, cast masonry units – thin shell glass fiber reinforced concrete and cast stone.  Cast stone is used for the solid alternative because there is limited embodied energy data available glazed terra cotta, the original material and, at other buildings on the CCNY campus, cast stone has been used to replace deteriorated terra cotta.  Note, however, that structural facing tile – a clay-bodied vitreous-glazed unit masonry product that is similar in composition to glazed terra cotta – has an embodied energy of about 860,000 Btu/ft³ as compared with that for precast concrete which is approximately 318,000 Btu/ ft³

The exterior reconstruction of Shepard Hall was the first large-scale use glass fiber reinforced concrete (GFRC) – thin shell units for historic preservation.  This greatly reduced the quantity and weight of the replacement cladding as well as achieving a number of technical goals such as accommodation of thermal movement

Currently, more than 65,000 damaged terra cotta units have been replaced.  When complete, the total will be approximately 72,000 units. As a frame of reference, GFRC (Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete), with an average wall thickness of ¾” is compared with cast stone (precast concrete) having and average thickness on 6” including the complex molding and sculpture.

Embodied energy in precast concrete is 318,000 Btu/ ft^3.

Average face area per unit is approximately 3 ft²

Volume of GFRC is 0.19 ft³

Embodied energy for GFRC is approximately 60,400 Btu/unit

Volume of cast stone is 1.50 ft³

Embodied energy for cast stone is approximately 477,000 Btu/unit

GFRC saves approximately 415,000 Btu/unit (average) when compared with cast stone.

Note: this does not include the embodied energy in the polymers and matakaolin that would be added to both materials, increasing the embodied energy savings for GFRC; however, it also does not include the Alkali Resistant glass fiber reinforcing (approximately 4½% of the total weight) which would apply only to the GFRC. If the embodied energy in the glass reinforcing is similar to that in conventional glass fiber, it would be about 6,500 Btu/pound or about 9,000 Btu per unit.  In other words, even discounting the fact that there would be significantly more polymer and metakaolin in the cast stone, the addition of about 9,000 Btu of reinforcing results in the saving of about 415,000 Btu of concrete

The 72,000 units of replicated terra cotta for the entire project yield an embodied energy saving for GFRC of approximately 29,880,000,000 Btu (the equivalent of about 207,000 gallons or about 4,900 barrels of #6 oil) when compared with cast stone.

Using the embodied energy for structural facing tile to represent that of glazed terra cotta gives the following analysis:

Difference in volume of concrete between GFRC and terra cotta is approximately 1.0 ft³/unit.  (The cellular construction of the terra cotta body allows it to made with somewhat less volume of material than with cast stone

Volume of GFRC is 0.19 ft³/unit

Embodied energy for GFRC is approximately 60,400 Btu/unit

Volume of terra cotta is 1.00 ft ft³/unit

Embodied energy for terra cotta is approximately 860,000 Btu/unit

GFRC saves approximately 800,000 Btu/unit (average) when compared with terra cotta

The 72,000 units of replicated terra cotta for the entire project yield an embodied energy saving for GFRC of approximately 57,600,000,000 Btu (the equivalent of about 400,000 gallons or about 9,500 barrels of

#6 oil) when compared with terra cotta

Weight of Materials:

Although not directly convertible to energy quantities, it is also instructive to consider the weight of materials that must be handled in the reconstruction process. At 1.5 ft³/unit, the average cast stone unit weighs 225 pounds. At  0.19 ft³/unit, the average GFRC unit weighs 28 pounds. The weight saving for GFRC when compared with cast stone is +/- 200 lbs/unit.

For the 72,000 units of replicated terra cotta, the savings in the weight of material that must be fabricated, transported to the building, lifted and installed

is 14,400,000 pounds – or 7,200 tons.

recognized for its pioneering work in sustainable architecture, design and advocacy is pleased to announce

that founding principal Carl Stein, FAIA will be delivering a keynote address at the 16th

International Congress on GRC in Istanbul, Turkey on September 6, 2011

The four-day conference brings representatives from twenty nations to share knowledge and advancements in glass fiber concrete technology. Keynote presentations by Elemental Architecture, New York and Foster and Partners, London

award winning process for restoring City College’s Shepard Hall,

discussed in an in-depth interview with Carl Stein on PROSOCO’s buy cialis blog, “Green Journey” Shepard Hall Restoration

These realizations aren’t new. Interestingly, in 1993 Carl Stein notes in “Energy Conscious Architecture” for the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) that a report from the Energy Policy Project determined:

“From 1965 to 1973, U.S. energy consumption grew at the annual rate of 4.5 percent. This is doubling roughly every 15 years. If we could, miraculously, switch to total solar power in 1995, and if this switch created a return to the “cheap energy” attitudes of the 1960s with the

vertical jump

associated exponential growth, by 2010, we would have to devote one percent of our land area to solar collection; by 2025, 2 percent; by 2070…10 percent of the United States would be taken up by collection systems; and before 2110…solar collectors would completely cover the

buy deltasone

United States.”

Clearly, there is no “silver bullet” to meet our demand for energy consumption and when considering the environmental impact of creating such systems the attitude that renewable energy is the answer is, in fact, directly contradictory to an environmentally responsible point of view. As Carl further points out, “…we must never fall in the

trap of thinking of [renewable energy] as easy, cheap or environmentally neutral.” Simply put, there is no free lunch.

The best and most immediate solutions to address the demand for energy are by decreasing the rate of consumption through conservation, resourceful planning and energy conscious design.

I follow the thin black line.
Drawings by Costantino Nivola

Although Costantino Nivola was an extraordinary draftsman, and for almost ten years had worked as a graphic designer and a professional illustrator, he regarded himself above all as a sculptor, or more precisely a sculptor-builder, heir to the ancient nuraghi builders, faithful to the vocation passed

on to him by his mason father. This is why his graphic work has gained little recognition. Yet, it is a body of work of great interest and quality, a cross-section of which is exhibited for the first time: over a hundred works, almost all unpublished.

The drawings and illustrations on display, made between 1941 and 1980, document the central and most productive phases of the artist's career: his first period in New York, shortly after his flight from Fascist Italy, divided between commercial graphics and exploratory works (1940-1945); his approach to sculpture in 1950 and a return to his home-town, Orani, in 1958; the preparatory drawings for major public commissions; the so-far ignored episode of tapestry design (1960 – 1966); the private series of the Beds and Male Figures; the biting drawings of political and social

criticism he had begun working on since 1968.

A Nivola emerges who is in many ways different from the well-known creator of large public monuments and solemn sculptures (the Mothers and the Widows of the final phase), but a an artist who is by no means less fascinating. (Excerpted from the exhibition catalog)

___________________________________________________________________

During his time

in New York, Nivola collaborated with numerous architects on the installation and integration of his artworks into architectural projects.  Over the coming weeks, Elemental will be showcasing images of some of these important collaborations with Carl Stein, FAIA and the late Richard G. Stein, FAIA on Facebook

UPDATE:

Visit our online galleries on Facebook for the following projects:

• New York City Public School Collaborations
• Piazza Sebastiano Satta
• Combined Police & Fire Facility

Learn more about Nivola at the Museo Nivola website and in an extensive article on his architectural collaborations in Metropolis Magazine.

the New York

Times T Magazine’s buy cheap viagra online article “Dinner at 8″ by Stephanie LaCava.

Of course, there will almost certainly be some construction, and therefore some energy commitment, required to extend the useful life of older buildings including implementation of measures to significantly improve performance.  The net avoided energy cost will be less than the total energy cost on the new building.  Nonetheless, the new energy that must be “embodied” into the existing building will typically be 1/3 to 2/3 that of starting from scratch.  Additionally, there is that much less debris sent to landfill and that much more “embodied” culture carried forward.

This is not to say that saving older buildings will always be the best choice for the environment, nor is it saying that one should only consider saving important historical buildings if their continued existence can be justified through energy savings or other environmental benefits.  The considerations will be based on a sliding scale.  At one end, there are the truly sig

nificant historical and cultural artifacts that must be preserved at all costs.  At the other end, there are the purely utilitarian structures whose continuance will be determined by quantifiable, pragmatic concerns.  In the middle is that vast majority of buildings that make some contribution to the understanding of history and sense of place, and whose reuse will offset some portion of the embodied energy that would otherwise by required for new construction.  These are buildings that are neither historically and viagra in india culturally indispensable, nor clearly justified by environmental imperatives.  In some cases, the positive attributes embedded in these structures will be outweighed by benefits that can only be achieved through new construction.

Decisions regarding adapting and reusing instead of demolishing and replacing should be informed by multiple factors; some environmental, and some, as Roberts noted, cultural.  What is critical, however, is that all significant considerations be included.  This is particularly true for those middle ground buildings for which no single criterion is likely to prove decisive.  While it’s true that embodied energy itself is not a recoverable resource, it is a valuable asset that can offset the need to expend new energy resources.  And, while it’s unlikely that the energy offsets inherent in building reuse will be the sole determining factor in deciding whether or not to save a building, it is a real consideration that may push the eventual decision in one way rather than another.  To exclude this asset from the equation is to neglect a readily exploitable and relatively benign resource.  To knowingly neglect such a resource at this point in history would be irresponsible.

We highly recommend visiting friend and colleague, James online pharmacy cialis Lewi

s' Datum International . While relevant in regards to current

events, the site also offers valuable insight and is closely connected to Elemental Architecture's goals.

Residential Architect Magazine editor, S. Claire Conroy, writes in the November/December how to buy viagra online without prescription 2010 issue on architects and social media.  We offer a response:

Ms. Conroy;

Your observations in your piece “Publish or Perish” are well taken and I believe true, however, I would offer that rather than cast online forums such as Facebook and LinkedIn as tools for self-promotion, architects should be using them to assert thought leadership.

Our responsibility, as architects, extends not only to the places we create but also to communicating & educating on issues that we observe and are engaged in. Social media, be it through Facebook, Twitter, blogging or other forms, allows architects to do so for both the general public, as well as internally to the industry, in ways never before seen. Whereas  previously in order to have an audience for publishing original content or critique one was forced to survive editorial review, now anyone is given the opportunity to express thought. Within the formats of each online medium, the profession is offered opportunities to share content and by doing so, has the ability to educate and promote change.