Search China Travel News:

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 fulfill 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 criticisms 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 Center 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?