Trans RINA, Vol 156, Part C1, Intl J Marine Design, Jan -Dec2014
Figure 27: Boat Concept (2012) by Heatherwick Studio [42]
Figure 26: Superyacht A in Valletta [40]
Starck describes the 119m A as ‘A monolith, an artefact from the future, a line in the sand that makes every boat that came before it obsolete.’ [41] Though not technically an architect Phillipe Starck’s extensive portfolio of architectural
architectural field. Though A (Figure
The Bouroullecs’ Floating House uses a similar material palette to ‘Boat’. Its superstructure is disrupted by vertical aluminium seams (visible manufacture)
and
projects lends him credibility in the 25) may be
revolutionary in form (with its upside-down hull and stacked superstructure it is submarine-esque) its surfaces conform to the archetype. In port it dwarfs the local architecture (Figure 26), its simplicity contrasting harshly with its surroundings. It appears quite simply to be out of scale – a giant model of a much smaller vessel.
4.4 PRECEDENTS While there is clearly a relationship being
between terrestrial and
horizontal wooden trellis (designed to support plant coverage) – a grid system created with raw architectural materials. We are also visually reminded of Raymond Loewy’s Greyhound Bus and the cars of New York’s Subway system – it is not static architecture, it remains a piece of transport design.
forged marine architecture, the
superyacht has yet to be bestowed with much more than styling cues from the world of buildings. When architects design superyachts the results so far conform to our expectations of what a superyacht is, and how that form might be surfaced and rendered.
There is however a precedent for both architectural forms and materials on the water. Two projects by leading designers have surfaced in recent years:
Figure 28: Floating House (2006) by Ronan & Erwan Bouroullec [43]
‘Boat’ by
Thomas Heatherwick (Figure 27) and Floating House (23m) by Ronan & Erwan Bouroullec (Figure 28). Perhaps the fact that these are not perceived as luxury craft enabled the designers to deviate from convention?
Heatherwick’s concept is clearly redefining the form of the riverboat, but is also the result of some interesting surface decisions: Tessellating aluminium panels (not painted white) break up the hull and superstructure. These panels intersect with wooden decking (unusually visible from the side) which gives warmth and contrast. We can also see completely through the vessel on three levels, which gives it a visual lightness. There is visible geometric structure and
human-scale details
(balustrading) are on clear view. In short: it uses many of the approaches introduced in section 3. It is floating architecture.
C-50 5. CASE STUDY
In response to this gap in current approaches, and as an attempt to demonstrate how architectural approaches might be applied more comprehensively to marine design a case-study design project was undertaken.
Sam Richardson’s Hive mothership concept (Figures 29- 30) is not a superyacht, but it is an example of how the architecture can inspire new directions in marine design and at 100m in length, is comparable in scale to a large superyacht.
It was designed at Coventry University in
2013 and is one of the first projects to employ this aesthetic ideology. Designed to house 120 staff and crew, the Hive supports offshore wind farm maintenance.
©2014: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188