br Conclusion br Utzon s Chinese architecture Utzon

Conclusion
Utzon׳s Chinese architecture Utzon׳s interest in China and his pursuit for modernity foreshadowed a deeply rooted inner conflict, which is manifested in the chronology of his life and the three houses that he designed and built for his family. Throughout his lifetime, Utzon was much drawn to China׳s past – its architecture and the way of life. He named his daughter Lin after his favourite Chinese author Dr Lin Yutang; he attributed a feeling of “firmness and security” – an architectural quality that he held dear – to the Chinese platform on which a house, or a temple, stands. “Platform”, or “plateau”, became his lifelong architectural fixation. But does the platform in China׳s pre-modern buildings actually deliver what Utzon had felt? Why, then, should “firmness and security” occupy the mind of a modern architect, which Utzon set out for himself to be one? Let me begin with a common observation, which is familiar to most architectural readers; from here I will move to an uncommon observation – that is, to my mind, a peculiar omission in Utzon׳s interpretation of Chinese architecture. In his famous parti diagram illustrating the idea of the Sydney Opera House design, the prominent Chinese roof above a raised platform is compared to the floating cloud hovering over the ocean horizon (Utzon, 1962, pp. 113–140) (Fig. 1). The walls are deemed insignificant, hence diminished by the modern master. We therefore assume that Chinese architecture too facilitates a command of panoramic horizon as promised by modern architecture. This parti, which is now iconic, has been repeatedly used by architects and scholars to understand the defining character of not only the Sydney Opera House, but also the remainder of the works in Utzon׳s oeuvre. But what has been neglected all together is that any such pre-modern Chinese building, be it a house or a temple, is confined in a walled p-gp inhibitors list (Fig. 2), like a piece of precious jade stone sitting unlidded in its wrapping box. There is no privileged horizon here but only the sky framed by the courtyard. In his widely quoted essay, “Platforms and Plateaus”, published in Zodiac no.10 in 1962 (Utzon, 1962), in addition to describing the sensation of a splendid “visual life” when the ancient Mayans emerged from their dense jungle to reach the top of their temple – the plateau, Utzon curiously was also attracted to the Chinese house, where he found “firmness and security”. Utzon׳s feeling for the Chinese house, I incline to think, has something to do with the serenity of the Chinese “sky well”, an allegorical name for the southern Chinese courtyard. Though that he never elaborated on it, Utzon had a keen interest in the Chinese courtyard, which he incorporated in some of his widely published housing designs. It is therefore puzzling as to why Utzon did not attribute “security”, to say the least, to the encircling walls, which, together with the platform and other elements, comprise a Chinese building.
Utzon׳s houses In the Hellebæk house, a persistent pattern of Utzon׳s houses has been planted. The house in its first stage, when the children were still young, was essentially a viewing platform. Sited on a south facing slope on the edge of Hellebæk forest, the 130-square-metre house is raised on a brick platform, and backed by a long solid brick wall on the north. The light-weight flat roof is supported by slender steel posts on the south, which is sealed with floor to ceiling height glass wall. Utzon did not produce any drawings before the house was built, for the plan was so simple. The architect supervised a team of skilled builders on the site with a few sketches that established the parti of the house and its enclosure. The dominant character of this house was this long brick wall in both plan and the actual building: Utzon extended the wall beyond the building envelope to make it a visible statement. Categorical and powerful it must be, Utzon maintained its singularity and completeness – a gap in the wall that allows the back entry from the garage is the only corruption (Fig. 3). The architect even sacrificed the opportunity to give the children׳s bedrooms a window to the north. He instead only allowed them each a skylight. If this single wall house sends out any message, that is, the architect׳s life is to be lived in a viewfinder towards the distant horizon. The contradictory parti of Utzon׳s house surfaced when the house was enlarged: the added wing on the north naturally affords the house with an inward courtyard. The windowless children׳s bedrooms by now are erased to become part of the open living room. The early house fronting south, it seems, has become a pure pavilion without any specific use other than provide the setting to gaze out. The added wing and the courtyard, on the other hand, provide all that is needed for the family life. Curiously, Utzon never wanted to publish the enlarged house in Hellebæk. Is it because the sheer “visual pleasure” has been tarnished by the miscellany of day to day living?