What looks clear from the post-fire photos is that the basic structural shape of the TVCC building does not appear to have been altered at all. The lines look to be consistent with the pre-fire lines, though what it looks like inside is still, for me, a guess. I don’t believe that there is any fear of collapse, though it was obviously something that looked apparent during the conflagration. I must reiterate that I have not been to the site, and all of my opinions are from others’ photos).
If, in fact, the structure is salvageable, this will become the story, which may be the silver lining for Arup and OMA. There are not many engineering tests that have been so publicly witnessed and so viewed, via youtube, by so many. In the past I’ve told people that if I were in Beijing during an earthquake and had a choice to pick a spot to be if the big one rolls through, I’d choose to be in one of those two buildings. A fire, obviously, is something quite different, but the engineering of this building may very well become the biggest and most spectacular story. Or, rather, one of the big stories (More on another future problem below.)
Arup’s Cecil Balmond is supposedly either in Beijing or on his way to assess the structure. Not much from OMA, other than a short mention of the ‘tragedy’ on their website. I assume that Rem Koolhaas will make an appearance soon enough, if he hasn’t already. I also imagine that he slips in and out fairly quietly.
________
I believe that another huge problem facing this project in the future – if, in fact, the structure is recoverable – will be the public relations blitz that will need to be done in order to sell this site as a viable hotel, especially one with 44 floors. There is now an odd mojo-y smoky shadow hanging over the place that will not interpret well though the Chinese filter. Can you imagine a great rush to book into a hotel with 44 floors that has been through what appears on endless videos as a barely contained eruption of Hell, even though the containment might have everything to do with the superior engineering of the construction.
Another related story to watch would be the potential legal battle between CCTV and Mandarin Oriental Hotel, both of whom are well aware of the superstition rider that this building now carries. Will CCTV take the high road here, since they are responsible for burning down their own house? Well, if they do it will be the first time in their history that they would choose an honorable path over their penchant for constantly slogging down the lowest road. I’m not looking for any lost cherries on this one.
________
I have not had the urge to go see it. I’ll wait for the crowds to thin out and then go have a look. I’ve been asked what I would have focused on if I’d been on-site the night of the fire, and there is no question what I would have been shooting: the burning TVCC as reflected from the CCTV HQ towers. There were already enough folks going for the flaming money shot, and there have been some real beauts. But I look forward to spending some time with it later in the dawn/early morning light before the city gets cranked and rolling.
________
I have had much activity on my Flickr site regarding my CCTV HQ Project set, and this one has drawn the most attention:


5 responses so far ↓
1 China Journal : Best of the China Blogs: February 12 // Feb 12, 2009 at 3:23 pm
[...] looking ahead at the future of the burned structure: Even if the structure is salvageable, the images of the building as a towering inferno (with an [...]
2 ?? // Feb 13, 2009 at 12:16 am
Why do you keep calling CCTV “TVCC”?
3 jg // Feb 13, 2009 at 6:12 am
Because the building that burned is called the Television Culture Center, therefore TVCC. It’s an OMA thing. OMA, the Koolhaas architecture group, has a counterpart called AMO. Or as they say on their website: “The counterpart to OMA’s traditional architectural practice is AMO, a design and research studio based in the company’s Rotterdam office. While OMA remains dedicated to the realization of buildings and master plans, its subsidiary AMO is a think tank that operates in areas beyond the boundaries of architecture and urbanism – including sociology, technology, media and politics.”
So it’s the yin-yang, part/counterpart thing. The big building is called CCTV (Headquarters) and the one that burned is called TVCC. I had nothing to do with it. Everyone is calling it the Mandarin Oriental, which is another name for it, though it was called the TVCC from the beginning, long before the Mandarin Oriental showed up. Go to the link I have to OMA’s website and you’ll see it referred there too as TVCC. Just keeping the vocab straight.
4 Alex Pasternack // Feb 26, 2009 at 1:54 am
Jim: Thanks for this lucid post and the photo, as always. I put some of my own quick thoughts about the fire from the architectural perspective down on my blog, and thought I’d share. (And I hope we meet sometime!)
http://theflashmemory.blogspot.com/2009/02/rem-koolhaas-oma-beijing-tvcc-fire.html
5 Vincent Brannigan // Jul 18, 2009 at 8:55 pm
It is now July 18 and I have seen almost no technical information released about the fire.
Has there been much in the Chinese language press?
Leave a Comment