About
The Paradigm of a New Order: Zaha Hadid
2026.04.17 Admin Hit 37[The Paradigm of a New Order: Zaha Hadid]
DDP is one of the most controversial works in the history of modern and contemporary Korean architecture. It was not simply due to the fame of a foreign architect or issues related to construction costs, but rather because of the various reactions that followed from the symbolism inherent in its form. Unlike the existing logic through which Korean architecture has developed, the unfamiliarity of its unconventional form and the space without the division of floors must inevitably have been quite a shock to everyone. I believe that when discussing the meaning of non-typical forms, a value-oriented approach beyond the utility of space is necessary. I also think that attention should be paid to the fact that such spaces can become a means of creating new value rather than simply functioning as something that contains things. In that sense, rather than criticizing it only from a uniform perspective, it is necessary to pay attention to how architecture has developed historically and how many diverse architectural attempts have existed within this architectural history. This is because it has opened up spaces of a new era beyond simply containing and functioning, and has exerted complex socio-cultural influences. In this way, the criteria for evaluating architecture should be more diachronic and complex. Looking back, it is also paradoxical that the Eiffel Tower, which so many Parisians opposed, has now become an indispensable symbol in France and an architectural structure that brings enormous tourism revenue. Perhaps because of such a learning effect, France and many European countries do not think that only one style of architecture is the answer. Rather, they think that a single uniform answer leads to the regression of architectural discourse. In other words, architecture is a kind of arena that creates social discourse and is viewed as a comprehensive art form in which new symbols and functions of the era are integrated.
As in the growth of modern Western architecture, familiarity and novelty have always been the point of collision where discourse is formed. The fact that innovative spaces that lead the world are created in France and the United Kingdom, which are famous for thoroughly preserving existing buildings, shows in part how they lead architecture and understand the historical context. This is not simply a matter of creating a space and using it in a certain way, but is like a manifesto about what kind of architectural history will be written in a historical context. In this regard, I think that the value and meaning of architecture should not be belittled simply because of the unfamiliarity of form in the case of DDP as well. In other words, I think it is right to criticize by considering in a complex way the impact that such spaces have on society from a more diachronic perspective and within the context of architectural history. Also, the fact that the debate surrounding DDP is the most popular debate in modern Korean architectural history is very meaningful from the perspective of an architect. In fact, before DDP, architectural debates in Korea were limited to discussions among a few critics and architects, and I think that due to these limitations Korean architecture was not able to grow more broadly. In Western architectural history, where architects are selected and buildings are completed over several generations just to build a single cathedral, architecture was a very important element for the public, representing both the beginning and the end of life. I think that the current culture of Western architecture was formed through countless debates and trials and errors. On the other hand, in Korean society, architecture has been recognized as a means to maximize real estate value, and it is also true that it has been reduced to a measure of realizing the maximum floor-area value. From the perspective of Korea’s economic scale with an income level of $30,000, looking at our architectural culture is truly something to be ashamed of. I think that DDP served as an opportunity in such a Korean context to raise discussions about the meaning of architecture in a more universal and refined way. Even if the beginning of such debates is still immature, if we can look at architecture from broader and more diverse perspectives by using these debates as nourishment, DDP itself may have sufficient value.
-Development of Architectural Forms in History-
Throughout human history, architectural forms have transformed in various ways in accordance with the ideologies that societies pursue. In addition, such changes in ideology and paradigm have induced innovative transformations in architectural space, and for this purpose various technological evolutions have been continuously developed. If in the Greek era the spacing of colonnades was determined by the size of the lintel connecting columns above, architecture in the Roman era began with innovative changes in span structures for the expansion of space. In other words, what made it possible to expand various spaces beyond the combination of linear columns and beams was the invention of the dome and the arch. The form of the arch was devised to overcome the structural limitations that could be extended by columns, and it was an innovative technology that could transform architectural space to be wider and larger. In other words, the form of the arch diversified the unit width possessed by columns and enabled space to be expanded more flexibly both vertically and horizontally. Roman aqueducts are a good example of innovatively improving such linear structures through curved arches. The method of spatial composition through the distribution of forces evolved technologically and was rationally applied not only to architecture but also to various fields such as civil engineering and mechanical engineering. In addition, the dome structure of the Roman Pantheon was built thickly with bricks and slaked lime mortar, yet it has a system in which structural forces interlock and support each other. The method of composing space constructed through such curved surface stress later influenced Byzantine architecture and modern Baroque construction methods in various ways. Domes and arches, which were the highest structural technologies of the time, later became a major foundation for the formation of Romanesque and Gothic architecture.
Unlike Roman architecture, a major characteristic of Romanesque architecture is that it is composed of pure geometries such as semicircular arches. It was an inevitable conclusion due to ideological reasons as well as technical limitations of stacking structures high. For this reason, Romanesque architecture is characterized by spaces filled with deep light through thick walls. In contrast, Gothic architecture improved these semicircles into more pointed forms, using pointed arches to realize spaces with greater openness. This evolution of form was spatially adapted to fit social ideologies, namely patristic philosophy and scholastic philosophy, and later laid the foundation of mathematics and engineering that would become the basis of modern architecture. Numerous attempts to find the proportions of minimized yet refined structures filled with stained glass later gave birth to another evolution of architecture through quantified data. The structural evolution found in Gothic architecture differs significantly from the non-typicality pursued by modern architecture. In other words, since cathedral architecture at that time was based on the logic that dominated the social system, the distinction between typical and non-typical forms had little meaning. It was a form as structure, a form as philosophy, and itself as an absolute doctrine.
After Gothic, through the Renaissance and into the Baroque period, space came to be dominated by various forms transformed to a human scale rather than the vertical splendor of Gothic. In particular, Baroque space is characterized by drawing light into the interior gently and softly instead of the grand luminous space pursued by Gothic architecture. In other words, instead of the arch-type vault structure connecting walls and roofs, an era of unified interior space emerged in which walls and columns are connected in a single flow. Borromini’s San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane church perfectly reveals the spatial beauty pursued by Baroque architecture. Walls and ceilings are unified in a continuous flow and filled with various geometries transformed from ovals and hexagons. In addition, the oval dome and the softness of light transmitted through it reveal how the sensibility of religious light can be newly interpreted. Baroque architecture connects spaces in various ways rather than segmenting them by structural elements, realizing architecture as a unified space. In other words, it explores new possibilities for architecture to be free from conventional forms and leads innovative development of space in an aesthetic sense. Such Baroque spaces, where the boundaries between major elements become ambiguous, later become the starting point for the emergence of Art Nouveau architecture.
If such Baroque space was a space in which boundaries were dissolved, architectural space after the Industrial Revolution evolved innovatively once again through various structural systems. Due to social demands arising from population growth and the movement of goods, railway station architecture and bridges became necessary. In other words, for station architecture connecting cities, a new type of engineering-based architecture interpreted through engineering was required. Gustave Eiffel is an architect representing such architecture of a new era. While existing architectural systems were based on wet construction methods using brick and stone, engineering architecture represented by Eiffel expanded the architectural domain into various forms based on steel structures. In other words, depending on the connection methods of steel and mathematical interpretation, the engineering limitations of typical architectural forms were overcome to realize freer forms. In particular, the Eiffel Tower is a representative architectural structure constructed through such engineering interpretation. It is a structure in which formal freedom and mathematical engineering are combined, opening up the possibility for the expansion of various modern steel architectures. The Eiffel Tower, constructed by combining tens of thousands of different members, distributes loads across four points. It also forms structural rationality by connecting four structural axes with arch-shaped frames. Through the evolution of materials and structure, architecture suited to the ideology of a new era was born.
In this way, while architecture at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century evolved based on steel, the 20th century saw the development of architecture with various regional characteristics through the mass production of reinforced concrete. In particular, Le Corbusier materialized the formal principles of modern architecture that he pursued through reinforced concrete structures. From early works such as the Unité d’Habitation to later works such as the Chapel of Ronchamp, he presented new spaces and ideologies that could be formed through concrete structures. Among his works, one of the most formally interesting is the Philips Pavilion proposed at the 1958 Brussels World Expo. The pavilion, which has a double-curved structure of a hyperbolic paraboloid formed by connecting tubes in a concrete structure, is a design based on acoustic theory. It moved away from orthogonal structures composed of horizontal and vertical connections and instead formed three-dimensional curved spaces by connecting linear members. It is a late masterpiece in which interpretation of new structural systems, form, and function are synthesized.
Along with this, Buckminster Fuller was an innovative engineer and architect who made new forms of this era possible. He proposed a kind of geodesic dome through the combination of various units using the mechanics of structural forces. In other words, he interpreted architecture as a combination of structural units and presented possibilities for various combinations and transformations of form. He also proposed an innovative shift in perspective on architectural space as a way for everyone to enjoy a good life while consuming minimal resources. By transforming the fundamental way of creating architectural space, he exerted a significant social influence not only on the evolution of form but also on the function of space. Although mid-to-late 20th century architecture was dominated by modernism, various architects and engineers conducted extensive research on the evolution of form. Félix Candela, a structural engineer and architect, is a good example. He conducted various architectural form experiments using thin concrete structures. At L'Oceanogràfic completed in Spain, hyperbolic paraboloids are structurally combined like waves as a single unit. Flexible formal experiments that could not be imagined in existing architecture began to be realized through engineers’ interpretations of materials. These architectural experiments on form became the foundation for various future architectural evolutions.
-Architecture of Zaha Hadid as a Paradigm of a New Order-
If there is an artist who influenced Zaha Hadid the most, it would be Malevich. In fact, she submitted her graduate project at the AA School under the theme “Malevich’s Tektonik.” This is a project that connects pictorial experimentation with the three-dimensional constructiveness inherent in architecture. This perspective of Hadid, which moves between two dimensions and three dimensions, is realized mainly in her early works. The Peak Blue Slabs, proposed in 1982, reveals a dynamic tension in the relationship between the mountain and architecture as architectural elements expand within a three-dimensional perspective. In the methodology where three-dimensional architecture is reorganized into dynamic lines and composed into a two-dimensional plane, new attempts to read the gap between surface and space can be observed. Based on such two-dimensional drawings of three-dimensionality, the first project in which architecture was realized was the Vitra Fire Station. The sharply angled geometric volumes and the sensuously finished exposed concrete were evaluated as a masterpiece that broke away from the conventional notions of fire stations at the time. As if Malevich’s sharp compositions were constructed and assembled in three dimensions, space is fragmented and broken into pieces, yet functions are distributed through a certain order and appropriate proportions. The Vitra Fire Station, her debut and breakthrough work, attracted attention for its bold acute-angle design and architectural language rich in deconstructivist characteristics, which were rare at the time. Of course, it seems clear that the formation of such a design vocabulary was based on her accumulated three-dimensional interpretation of Malevich. In addition, it is evident that through her work with Rem Koolhaas, who was her mentor and colleague at the time, she systematized her design through considerable theoretical discussions on new architecture.
Like many young European architects, Zaha Hadid had to go through countless periods of hardship before her early works were realized. As she confessed, until her first work was completed, she endured ridicule as a “paper architect” and challenged numerous competitions with her team members. The Strasbourg station, one of her early works, clearly shows how the dynamic lines characteristic of Zaha Hadid combine with landscape design to exert a powerful effect. The lightness of circular steel beams combined with exposed concrete volumes elevates an ordinary station and parking lot into a part of landscape art. The directionality of speed and the refinement of sharp acute angles are combined with the linearity of the site to construct an original design in which architecture and landscape are fused. Perhaps the unique vocabulary of Hadid, such as the integration of ground and architecture and the integration of landscape and architectural lines established at that time, is also commonly found in her later parametric designs. It is very interesting that at this point a distinction can be found between Zaha Hadid’s architecture and that of other notable architects of the time. Perhaps her greatness lies in the fact that she did not compromise but carried through the architectural motifs she had established during a transitional period in contemporary architecture into real built works. Although she established her architectural identity through such acute-angle vocabulary and integrated design with landscape, she was still limited by hand-drawing-based methods in terms of form. Changes of the times and the development of computer tools brought a major turning point in her architecture. Just as Frank Gehry ushered in a decisive revival in design by introducing the CATIA program used in aircraft design into his architectural design, Zaha Hadid also actively adopted computer tools in the evolution of form. For example, in the subway station project completed in Austria, forms designed as free-form curved surfaces began to appear.
The angular forms seen in her early works evolved into free-form elements in accordance with the development of tools that made it easier to refine surfaces three-dimensionally. In particular, it is necessary to pay attention to the principle of dividing and assembling such non-typical forms. A major characteristic of Zaha Hadid’s non-typical forms is that a single volume is understood as a complete entity and is constructed by dividing it as it is into free-form curved surfaces. In other words, due to the limitations of construction methods inherent in architecture, instead of dividing volumes with various free-form curves into flat panels and attaching them, the form itself is divided and completed. In this case, unlike the method found in Frank Gehry’s architecture, which involves overlapping panels, the major difference is that one piece must have a curvature that is perfectly integrated with another piece. In other words, architecture is understood as a single smooth object. This process of resolving double-curved surfaces was a very important turning point in the evolution of Zaha Hadid’s architecture, and in order to realize such forms, relatively lightweight materials such as FRP (Fiber Reinforced Plastic) or FRC (Fiber Reinforced Concrete) were used instead of traditional materials such as stone, brick, and aluminum. In the case of the Nordkette project located in Innsbruck, Austria, double-curved surfaces were constructed with FRP by applying the manufacturing method used for making yachts. In other words, just as Frank Gehry realized the surface of the Guggenheim Museum with titanium, Zaha Hadid also applied materials used in yacht construction to architecture in order to achieve her smooth free-form curved architecture. In this way, the development of computer graphics along with the evolution of construction methods brought a major turning point to Zaha Hadid’s architecture.
It became possible to easily study non-typical forms that could not be interpreted by conventional methods, and through more free formal experiments, she was able to expand her own style. In other words, it is clear that she invested considerable time and effort in both design and actual architectural realization while moving between typical and non-typical lines, from the period when sharp angular lines were the main motif to her later parametric designs. Ultimately, as technological conditions changed and the architectural market became globalized, her architecture grew into an icon in a diversified global market. In other words, from the perspective that values the context of existing cities, Hadid’s design, which insists on a new context, could hardly be viewed favorably. However, conversely, in places that required a new urban identity through architectural icons, her architecture was sufficient to instill the belief that a new identity for cities and nations could be established. In particular, in the Middle East or developing countries, where changes in context were needed rather than in advanced countries with established urban order, Zaha Hadid’s architecture would have been recognized as an effective means to transform cities at once. These distinctive free-form curved shapes unique to Zaha Hadid, combined with various regional technologies, became icons of new capital and urban systems in the global market. In particular, for various groups that required the formation of new urban symbols through bold formal imagination and used them as a means of national industry, her architecture was highly attractive. In line with these historical trends, Zaha Hadid’s architecture was able to carry out various projects worldwide and moved toward a stage of more systematized and highly refined detail.
The key to such non-typical architectural forms lies in how perfectly one can control tools that can more easily interpret parametric patterns. A major characteristic of Hadid’s office is that it performs script-based design from the perspective of engineers who create their own software beyond the limitations of existing tools, thereby easily developing their architecture. In other words, not only are all staff members proficient in 3D tools, but they have accumulated considerable know-how in developing complex parametric designs in a short period of time and further implementing them during construction. In other words, they have established an architectural foundation capable of executing such free-form curved architecture and perfectly realizing it in construction on a global scale. In addition, the rapid growth of the office cannot be explained without considering the urban characteristics of London and its collaborative relationship with the AA School. In other words, the ability to carry out rapidly growing global projects at once was supported by a structure within the EU system that allowed the easy hiring of talented architects of various nationalities from across Europe. In particular, the boom in the UK construction market ahead of the London Olympics and the relatively easy issuance of work permits were also factors behind the growth of Hadid’s office. In addition, the fact that they could easily hire architects trained in accordance with their philosophy through specialized programs within the AA School is another distinguishing factor. The evolution of Hadid’s architecture into parametricism coincided with the development of software tools capable of interpreting it, and through collaborative relationships with educational systems that shared this, it was able to evolve more easily. It was also due to the increasing global interest in the so-called Guggenheim effect, which could attract floating populations in a globalized architectural market.
-The Technological and Architectural Value of the DDP Project-
The DDP project must be understood within such historical and internal contexts. The development of innovative technologies and the inherent capacity to rapidly industrialize them made the fundamental advancement of Zaha Hadid’s architecture possible. In the case of DDP, the curved aluminum panels used on the exterior each have different sizes and curvatures. In this case, if even one panel among the entire paneling has an error, a complete surface cannot be formed. In order to divide and assemble such a free-form volume into constructible panels, it requires machinery capable of accurately generating the ductility of aluminum as curved surface data. As a kind of machine for producing 3D curved surfaces, a system was established that recognizes the physical properties of the material as data and mass-produces panels with precise vector values through a hammering process at a consistent intensity to achieve the required curvature. In addition, a notable feature of DDP is that its curved surfaces were attempted using aluminum panels rather than the FRP fabrication method previously used by Zaha Hadid in non-typical architecture. Considering that such panel work was of unprecedented difficulty and had no prior examples worldwide at the time, it can be judged to have significant meaning in terms of technological evolution. In addition, it is distinctive that panels were divided into various sizes to construct double-curved surfaces and perforated panels were used for flexible construction of curved surfaces. It is impressive not only that the form was perfectly realized, but also that new methods for waterproofing and solutions for gutter trenches to realize that form were devised. Furthermore, it is highly commendable that such a high level of architectural completion was achieved solely through the efforts of domestic engineers, adapted to the Korean climate with relatively large external temperature variations.
In addition to the completeness of the exterior space, a notable feature is the composition of the interior space without hierarchy. The spatial divisions of DDP are difficult to define in terms of the conventional concept of floors. In other words, each floor is connected horizontally without hierarchy, linking spaces at different levels. This follows Hadid’s characteristic approach of integrated interior space, as well as the method of connecting interior and exterior spaces along a continuous line. The division between floors, architecture, and interior—taken for granted in conventional buildings—disappears in DDP, and a new concept of floors is constructed. In this way, DDP successfully embodies the characteristics of interior and exterior spaces found in Hadid’s architecture. In particular, it is impressive that the complex, intertwined memories of the city within an urban context are captured as a condensed landscape and extended into the interior space.
Contrary to the initial concerns of many people, after completion, the architectural completeness and the flows that induce a new urban order seem to have alleviated much of the skepticism people once had. The context of the Dongdaemun fashion town, which once represented a facet of Korean society, has come to establish a relationship with a new future with the introduction of DDP. It signifies architecture as a new center oriented toward the future rather than a context directed toward the past, providing highly meaningful implications for one aspect of Korean cities. Rather than criticizing the opportunity cost for this space, it would be worthwhile to consider how this space, as a representative of a new order, can be transformed into future value.
2019.12
Jeonghoon Lee
[This article was commissioned by Seoul Foundation for Arts and Culture]