HSTARC2: Midterms Requirement (Manila Structure)

Basilica Minore de San Sebastian

The Basilica Minore de San Sebastian, also known as San Sebastian Church, is a Roman Catholic minor basilica in 

Manila.

The final Basilica was completed in 1891. It is the best known example of Gothic Architecture here in the Philippines. It has also been implausibly reputed to be the first prefabricated building in the world, and more plausibly claimed as the only prefabricated steel church in the world.

It is located at Quiapo, Manila, Philippines. It has a Neo-Gothic Architectural Style and; Basilica as an Architectural type. The most common materials used was steel, mixed sand, gravel & cement.

Genaro Palacios

- A Spanish Architect

- He is the Director of Public Works of the Insular Government

- Genaro Palacios was appointed by Esteban Martinez (the parish priest of the ruined church) to re-design the ruined Basilica of San Sebastian. The previous 2 basilicas standing at the said location was destroyed by fire and earthquake. This led Palacios to plan a fire and earthquake resistant for the Basilica, making the church made up of entirely steel.

Purpose

A basilica/church for the mass.

History

In 1621, San Sebastian Church was first built with the help of Don Bernardino Castillo, a patron and a devotee to Christian martyr Saint Sebastian. He was the one who donated the land where the Basilica stands now. It was originally made up of wood, and was later on burned down in 1651, during a Chinese uprising. The ruined structure was revived which was built from brick and were destroyed by fire and earthquake in 1859, 1863 and 1880.

The current design that we see right now came upon in 1880, as the parish priest of the ruined parish, Esteban Martinez, requested Architect Genaro Palacios to design a cathedral that can withstand and can both resist fires and earthquakes.

Genaro Palacios now had a plan to build a fire and earthquake resistant structure made entirely of steel. It is also said to be the first one of its kind in the whole world.

Hoax

It was also said the Gustave Eiffel, the designer of the Eiffel Tower and the steel design of the Statue of Liberty in New York. Though, there were no official statement that he was the one who designed the building.

Chinese American Architect I.M. Pei, visited the Philippines in the 70's because he heard that Eifell was building an all-steel structure in the Philippines.

For what I've searched, Eiffel was just part of the engineering feats of the construction handling and designing the metals that was about to be used on the San Sebastian Church.

Details/Analysis

The Basilica welcomed me with a giant light green spires, towering a 105 feet, with a huge rose window, embedded stained glass and Gothic’s own pointed arches.

When I first entered the church, just looking in from the outside already amazes me. It's the first time I saw a church in the Philippines which has a Gothic type of Architecture. The first thing that I noticed was the groined vault design of the ceiling, it's really hard to ignore. When I roamed around the church, when I was at the Central nave looking at the altar, there I saw massive steel towers of columns supporting the groined vaults to almost 40 feet high.

I also researched about the paintings that I saw at the groined ceiling, and it was done by Lorenzo Rocha, a Mexican Architect.

On both sides of the church, colorful stained glass windows and Trompe l'oeil (3D-like paintings) artworks line the hall. The centerpiece above the altar is an image of Our Lady of Mount Carmel which was given to the church by the Carmelite sisters from Mexico City in 1617.

Dealing with Rust

Yes, the building right now is fire and earthquake-tested but there's one factor that affects the building, which is rust. It has survived the countless disasters of human nature that could give.

In Manila, with its humidity and frequent rains, the church needs to be covered, every five years with several layers of paint. San Sebastian was also once listed under the World Monument’s Fund list of 100 Most Endangered Structures. For some unknown reason, the church did not accept the grant of $25,000 and whole thing was return to the agency.

It's very sad to know that it's very possible to say that this structure is just a stone-throw away from collapsing. I hope that government would somehow preserve and keep the structure strong ang stable. It's really one of the best churches that I've been to and I can say that it's very rare. The ambiance inside is really classic. But at the same time, it's sad because this structure doesn't have the same fame of the Eiffel Tower and the Statue of Liberty, and any minute, it could just demolish itself. I really hope this church could be preserved.

Supporting Details

- The prefabricated steel sections that molded the church were manufactured from Binche, Belgium. 52 tons of prefabriacted steel sections were transported in eight separate shipments from Belgium to the Philippines.

- The first shipment arrived in 1888. Belgian Engineers supervised the assembly of the church.

- The walls were filled with mixes sand, gravel and cement

- The stained glass windows were imported from the Henri Oidtmann Company, a German stained glass firm.

- It only took them a year to renovate and to finish the construction in Manila.

Why I chose this building

I chose this building because most of our discussions that spanned the midterm half was all about Religous-based Architecture such as Romanesque, Gothic and Renaissance Era. I felt that having a church would fit our past discussions and I'd be able to present them well because they were already taught to us.

Then, I was looking for churches around Metro Manila, in the internet. And I had 4 options, but my first 2 options were already taken, unfortunately.

Then, I only got the San Sebastian Church and the Binondo Church. I chose San Sebastian because I felt something about that church, besides from it being beautiful. It turned out to be just good, rather than my first 2 options, fortunately.

Trivia:

- It is said that it one needs to reserve a year in advance just to get wed inside its lofty hall.

- It is the only all-steel basilica in Manila.

References:

• http://www.pbase.com/carinoza/chu_san_sebastian_church
• http://lakad-pilipinas.blogspot.com/2010/08/manila-basilica-minore-de-san-sebastian.html
• http://www.ternar.com/asianart_98/ph-arki.html

AESTETA: Manifesto (Platonic and Aristotelean inspired)

"All good poets compose their beautiful poems not by art, but because they are inspired or possessed...there is no invention in him unless he has been inspired and is out of his senses and the mind is no longer with him...these beautiful poems are not human, or the work of man, but divine and the work of god."

- Plato, Ion and Phaedrus

Architecture is the output of our work and the input of our imaginations.


On one paragraph that I wrote on my Manifesto was:


"Architecture for me is all about what we see in our respected surroundings. From the measurements of each object, from the design concepts, from the philosophy, from the life experiences, from acoustics and music and how we interpret every detail on our imagination and creativity to our output work and how we think critically on what we see."

- Coronado, Philippe Jiro L.

The Philosophy of Aristotle, mainly the Theory of Causation, supported that paragraph of mine because, the Theory of Causation was all about the input and the output of a certain material. In relation to Architecture, a building must be well designed inside and out. You must know what is the purpose of that certain structure and what does it express. Does it express emotions of the designer? Does it symbolize a certain country? and such. Because as architects, you must know the means and purpose of your building.

In Platonic term, Plato discussed the Theory of Forms. Which means anything that imitate the real forms (according to Plato are ideas), are fake, imperfect. He also stated that there is only one pure form, and it only exists in our mind. Plato was more of an Idealist which means that for him, ideas are more real than the objects that manifest them. He gives more credit to the thought behind a certain object, and not the object itself.

 Just like what I have remembered in my notes: Beauty is an essence not appearance. I find that phrase very catchy and strong at the same time, because, a lot of people might take it the wrong way, but what they don't realize, is that, an object is beautiful because of its substance that gives meaning to an object. In an easier way, the essence or the purpose of the object is what make the object beautiful.

(*Plato and Aristotle, for me was really the opposite of one another. That is why, I am having a little contradicting argument with myself here)

In Aristotlean term, he denied Plato's Theory of Forms, wherein he said that Forms exists in the real world. He said that, a substance is in the form itself. May it be its purpose, its shape, its esthetics. Aristotle defined forms as the manifestos of a certain object. (I am trying hard not to mess up and not to tangle words. Haha.). In much more easier term, Aristotle, defined forms as the inside soul of an object. Just like the example, last week, a chair becomes a chair, because of its means and purpose, because of the substance that is in the form itself.

He described that you will find beauty after tragedy. That is why the movie Pleasantville was a good appetizer for us to start the discussion, because how will you find beauty if everything is happy, if everything is perfect. It would be such a boring world if you do have a world like that. Someone in that world really has to make a mistake, for them to find beauty in themselves (colors).

In relation to Architecture, I just want to share again a part on my Adesprn Manifesto during the 1st term:


"It requires critical thinking. We must look beyond and ordinary object, to make it an extra ordinary object. We need to exceed our own expectation. We need to think outside of the box. We must look for possibilities, and when we say possibilities, it’s made up of imaginations, and imaginations are limitless. It’s more than what we see outside, but it’s more on what we see inside."

-Coronado, Philippe Jiro L.

As Architects, we must design with inspiration, we must design not only to make a structure beautiful outside, but also the inside.
____________________________________________________________________________

People often over look a certain beauty of a structure, where in the people miss the best part of it. The concept of each building is what makes the building meaningful and beautiful. The concept is the most basic foundation of the structure, it’s the main character, then the materials and the design are just the supporting characters.

Here is an example of Cesar Pelli's masterpiece: The Petronas Tower.

The tower looks so good, elegant and is really one of my favorite. People may find this tower universally beautiful, but what people miss in this building is mainly, maybe the most important part of it.

Architect Cesar Pelli designed this building through a Rub el Hizb, which today is oftenly called as the Star of David. Cesar Pelli, used that Rub el Hizb, to symbolize Malaysia's Muslim religion.

Having that kind of concept through a building just makes that building even more meaningful. (The design was the icing, and the concept was the cherry on top)



We as Architects, should be driven or to be possessed by something to create/ or to have an inspiration to have a one of a kind building (I guess, One of a Kind is just the perfect word, because inspiration comes from our mind and soul. According to Plato, what we have in our mind is the real deal, the real thing, the legitimate thing, therefore, our ideas can't be copied by any other of our kind.)

For me, I personally think that the concept is in the output itself. In the first place, there would not be an output without a concept. But they only differ on one thing: and that is limitations. Concepts are synthesis of ideas supported by a human philosophy which makes it eternal and universal. In today's world, we see extremist architects who exceed their own expectations to perfections. We see extremist architects who make the imagination, a mere reality. Just like what Plato implied, forms (ideas) manifests its physical object.

At the same time, the concept is much more important than the output because, the concept is the one who drives and inspires you to exceed your limits to have a quality output. With having a mediocre concept, you will also have a mediocre output. In simple analogy, the concept can be the engine, and the output is the driver. The engine is the driving force, who gives support and energy to the driver (output). The driver could lead us to different places with a good engine.

A landscape drawing would look like much real with shadows on it.



____________________________________________________________________________



"That architectural tracings are apparitions, outlines, figments
They are not diagrams but ghosts"

-John Hejduk

This phrase from Hejduk, was similar to Plato's Theory of Forms. It was stated that the purest form of things only existed in our mind. They are only imitations or possibly illusions.

Architect John Hejduk was also a symbolic architect.


'The architect starts with the abstract world, and 
due to the nature of his work, works toward the real world."

-John Hejduk, The Mask of Medusa

I understood this quote as, an Architect should start thinking beyond what is possible, he/she must defy his/her own standards. Once he's/she's finished with all the concepts, all he/she has to do is to apply that concept to the real world. No matter how impossible our concepts are, we must still pursue and continue with that because that we must defy the impossible. Just like what Frank Gehry did, no one thought that the Walt Disney Concert Hall would be looked at as a beautiful structure. I guess, when you go on to the extreme, it gives more beauty to a certain structure.



____________________________________________________________________________


In conclusion, Architecture is not all about creating buildings. Constructing is already given as our forte, but we must excel more on the philosophical side, which gives life to the structure. We as architects, must compromise to each of our clients, we must adopt their philosophy, so we would be driven to create a unique design only for them. For us to be good architects, we must take advantage of Plato and Aristotle's philosophy. Ideas are limitless, universal, never-ending, infinite. It's impossible for us to have a mediocre output, because each and every one of us has an inner "form", and that form consists of our emotions, experiences, sufferings, happiness. We should always remember that our inner selves are always represented by our designs and constructions.

As individuals, we have our own self realizations, we have our own inspirations, we have our own set of goals. We must learn how to mash up our inner selves to our philosophy for us to have boosts inside us, we must let our creative philosophical side, to have a bulletproof concept that would make our output, even better that what we expected.

HSTARC2: Reaction Blog (Renaissance Architecture)

Just a little knowledge:
During the 15-16th Century (the Renaissance Era), there was no unity running the churches. Churches from different countries are having a dispute on what book to follow. (Before, at every country, they use different kinds of Books [Mathew. Mark. Luke. John]) They didn't have a pure leader to order unity this time.


Then, the philosopher in this Era was Martin Luther; he was the one who engaged an agreement, which was known as the Council of Trent, to church leaders to settle down, so they'd be able to fix the error in this era. After this event, church all over the world was now unified. Now, they have all the 4 Gospels in their church until now that is being told as the Good News.


Going back to Architecture:
Renaissance Architecture were influenced by columns, round archs, and dome. They also feature the Classical Orders of Greek and Roman Era which were: Tuscan, Composite, Doric, Ionic, Corinthian. I find these era a somewhat combination of the Greek and the Roman characteristics.


There were a lot of changes from the Gothic Architecture to Renaissance. In the Renaissance Era, I feel like it's more on the Greek/Roman style of Architecture because of its features. It's like the modern style of Greek and Roman Architecture. 


This era, also has different kinds of period which was the High Ren, Early Ren and the Mannerism period. During the High Ren, structures from Bramante was the most significant one because he was able to apply the applicability of classical styles to contemporary architecture. He was addicted to classical forms and he was able to dominate Italian Architecture during thr 16th Century.


I'm just happy with the way they mixed the Greek, Roman and Romanesque Architecture in one style of Architecture.

This is the Sant Andrea at Mantua. Here, I can see the Greek Parthenon, because it has an entablature on its facade. Then, the round arches which reminds me of Roman Architecture.

This is the church of San Lorenzo at Florence. Here, I can see features and characteristics from the Romanesque Architecture, because of it's floor plan, the aisle and the apse are in place. Then some characteristics from Gothic which is the high ceilinged roof + the use of the classical orders in the side.

It's like the combination of the 4 Eras in Architecture summed up to one, and they somehow made it more moderned and is more pleasing to the eye. (Unlike Gothic Architecture, Hahaha.)

____________________________________________________________________________

HSTARC2 Blog update:

Romanesque

Gothic

Renaissance

Baroque/Rococco

American Architecture

Growth of European States

Industrial Revolution

Arts & Crafts

Art Nouveau

Beaux Arts + Neo Gothic

Art Deco

Bauhaus

International Architecture

Louis Sullivan

Frank Lloyd Wright

Le Corbusier

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

HSTARC2: Reaction Blog (Gothic Architecture)

I'm really fascinated on how change has transpired through the Greek Era until the Gothic Era. Every next era just add a little detail just to modify another new era.

In my reaction blog last week about Romanesque Architecture, I thought that was the scariest one of all Architecture Eras, but then I saw this Gothic Era, which I found very demonic because it has a lot of pointed and sharp edges. I was also confused on why did they used gargoyles to scare away bad spirits. I mean, I just can't imagine the church or cathedrals using gargoyles as their details to their structures. They could've used angels or saints instead, but gargoyles? Nay.

I was also happy on the way they add the flying buttresses which allowed them to put larger windows compared to Romanesque Architecture. This now, gives more light inside the structure.

Also, I find this era very creative because they were able to make different kinds of pointed arches. They were able to add details such as fire or rose as detail in their pointed arches. I also noticed that they were very high on tall structures (which gives me another scare, pointed edges + tall structures)

I'm really not fascinated with the high ceilings but maybe for them, it's beautiful. A thing that I noticed about high ceilings is that, since most the Gothic structures are cathedrals and churches, and when we say cathedrals and churches, it has choirs and all the musical instruments, which gives an echo-ing sound. (Just a guess!) (Together with the creepy organs, are hails of the choir which is very scary.)

People in this era was very high on religion. They symbolizes religion as power. They thought that, when you have cathedrals in your country, then you have a rich and wealthy country. That's what it is for them. They're just like the modern Greeks: They were high on housing their gods and goddesses with massive structures. In Gothic Era, they were high on building cathedrals for their God. Religion was really something to their concept and philosophy.

____________________________________________________________________________

HSTARC2 Blog update:

Romanesque

Gothic

Renaissance

Baroque/Rococco

American Architecture

Growth of European States

Industrial Revolution

Arts & Crafts

Art Nouveau

Beaux Arts + Neo Gothic

Art Deco

Bauhaus

International Architecture

Louis Sullivan

Frank Lloyd Wright

Le Corbusier

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

AESTETA: Pleasantville

The movie Pleasantville was really impressive.

Actually, there's a lot for me to say about this movie and it's so many that I don't even know where to start.

First off, figuratively, the colors Black and White for me is just like answering a "Yes and No" question. While the different colors answers question with a lot of details in it. The colors black and white are dull, because it doesn't emphasize the detail of a certain object. (Well, Black and White are sometimes cool alone, like in gadgets and other techy stuffs, but when you put Black and White to a colorful area, it simply looks out of place.)

In a place where I thought everyone was perfect, In a place where there’s only one place to be, In a place where everything seems to be at the right place and at the right time, In a place where you don’t miss a basketball shot, In a place where you don’t know anything bad, something was still incomplete.

For me, at the movie Pleasantville, they were Black and White because everyone in that movie didn’t have an identity. I mean, they don’t know who they really are and they didn’t what’s their purpose in their world. They don’t even have an idea on where they are. It’s like their stuck in a world where they only know. (They don’t even know what’s outside Pleasantville, and assume there’s nothing outside Pleasantville.) They live in a mediocre life where they’re satisfied with what they already have and don’t even bother to explore more things and to know the meaning of life.

Here are just some of the scenes that I remembered prior to the change that began:

1. 1.       When Bud was at the basketball gym, and when Skip Martin(captain of the basketball team) knew that Jennifer didn’t want to go out with him, he was kind of depressed so he just tossed the ball at the ring, and as we expected, the ball should’ve went into the hoop, but it didn’t.

- It was really an interesting scene, because finally a basketball shot was missed, and I assume that the ball missed the hoop, because the perfect man in the perfect world got his heart broken. (An experience he never experienced.)

1. 2.       When Skip had sex at the Lover’s Lane with Mary Sue

-          For me, this was another interesting scene because it was showcased that Skip doesn’t know anything about sex, to the point that he didn’t know the substance that’s coming out inside him. It just gives another example of how a person in the world Pleasantville was really mediocre. And then, when Skip drove back home, it was the first time he saw a colored rose. He saw colors because that moment in his life, he started learning what his purpose is and that was to love Mary Sue.

1. 3.       When the fire sparked out at the tree and no one else in that place seemed to care.

-          In that part, again. It was the first time encountered a fire. And no one exactly didn’t know the meaning of fire. In that perfect place, they even cared more about kittens stuck on a tree. That changed the movie when Bud, hurriedly went to the “fire” station to ask for help on firemen. But unfortunately, they only could care less about the fire and didn’t even know how to use the water. It became the turning point of the movie when Bud used the water hose to put away the fire. And after that event, everyone thinks that Bud was a hero. (Well, I also considered him a hero for putting out the fire. But not a hero, like a hero. Whatever.)

The rest of the characters bloomed to colors after that event. The clock now had its neon green light colors. The jukebox now had colors and giving life to the diner.

In short description, the people in Pleasantville blossoms to color because event by event, they get to know themselves more, they get to know their worth, they get to be who they really want to be. They are free to do something different things, things that they’ve never done before, may it be missing a basketball shot. The important thing is that they get to be themselves freely. Just like the couples at the Lover’s Lane, everyone has their color, because they find themselves in that significant other and they feel free when they love each one another. It’s like loving the other is their purpose in their world. (What a cliché/cheesy statement. Haha.)

Meanwhile, when all things are starting to get beautiful, authorities of men started a movement to remove all the colors because they feel that having colors is not safe in their world. They tended to trash and burn all the paintings and books, to the point where they even proposed a law that having color is a prohibited law. They see their world with a mediocre perspective. They’re satisfied with what they have, and they don’t want to change it any further. They want things to be exactly the same. They prefer to be somebody else than to be themselves, because that’s how they view it and that’s their own perspective on life.

In the movie, arts were represented in two ways; either the people would love it, or the people will hate and be disgusted by it. Books were empty that time; it represents the lives of the people who lived there. Now, when Bud found this that he was familiar about, it was empty, and he started telling stories on what happened there. By that simple event, every people inside that bar are starting to get out and sprout from themselves. Each and every time they learn, the world comes to be colorful with them.

In relation to my personal experience, there was this point in my life where I didn’t know where my life would be. When I was at my 4^th Year at highschool, I didn’t know what to write on college application forms, I didn’t know what I want to do 5 years from that time. So, I was really confused about myself that time. I didn’t have an identity that time; I didn’t know what I was born to be that time. So, I just placed random courses (courses which I’m not sure about) at the application forms, and failed to pass on them. When I spent my first year at UST, I took up a last-resort course, a course which I’m really not interested to. I wasn’t happy with that 1 year and as time goes, something just went into my mind that, I wanted to take Architecture. I knew in myself that I was creative enough to do things an architect student can do. So I stopped at UST; and later on found out that SDA was having an Architecture course. So I took it and here I am now, full of colors, I feel like I do belong in this course. I know I’m still not as good as other students, but I do know that I can still learn and improve any aspect in it. I just feel comfortable doing the stuffs I really love.


For me, a person sees the world based on what is beauty to him/her. And we define beauty based on our interests, and we define interests based on our environment. Each and everyone of us has an identity. Everyone of us has different surroundings and environment. Everyone of us has different experiences.