History of Construction Cultures – Mascarenhas-Mateus & Paula Pires (eds)

© 2021 Copyright the Author(s), ISBN 978-1-032-00202-6.

Open Access: www.taylorfrancis.com, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license

Replicating Candela’s Los Manantiales

M. Luzuriaga
Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador

ABSTRACT: The idiosyncratic 1958 thin shell roof of Los Manantiales restaurant in Xochimilco, south of
Mexico City, designed by master Félix Candela, became a model often replicated during the following 50
years. The appearance of this futuristic shell was Candela’s dream design, a seed planted in Mexico that then
flourished across four continents. This replicating phenomenon is hereby studied chronologically through seven
case studies. For each case study, the investigation briefly discusses the background behind its construction,
gives a profile of its designers, explores similarities and differences in construction methods vis-a-vis those used
in Xochimilco, and considers whether the structure subsequently acquired local or national prominence. During
his lifetime, Candela was pleased that his ideas were adopted and developed by other practitioners, and lessons
can be learned from Candela’s work and from the sequels it inspired.

1 INTRODUCTION

What is so unique about the triumphal arches of Rome

or the design of the Seagram Building in New York
City that they became design models for countless
constructions in many cultures? Do these archetypes
embody the symbolic spirit or societal aspirations of
their time and place? Like these monumental works,
projects by master shell builder Félix Candela became
so recognizable that the name Candela is synony- Figure 1. Postcard of Los Manantiales, ca. 1960s (Eduardo
mous with projects whose construction resemble his Alarcón collection).
principles. Responsible for making the thin, concrete
shell popular, and in particular the groundbreaking
development of the hyperbolic paraboloid (hypar), an
inverted umbrella form with four tympans, Candela is
a signature name in modern architecture.

1.1 Los Manantiales: Function, form, construction

Candela’s most famous project is Los Manantiales, a
restaurant facing a lake basin canal in Xochimilco,
south of Mexico City. Its roof shell was first developed
for a project that did not come to fruition. How-
ever, the architects of record, Joaquín and Fernando
Álvarez Ordóñez, and Candela, used the same concept
to replace a burned down restaurant in Xochimilco.
Built by Candela’s firm, Cubiertas Ala, in 1957–1958,
according to Candela’s description “the shell over the
main dining area is an octagonal, groined vault, formed
by the intersection of four hyperbolic paraboloids.
Edges of the shells were formed by cutting the surfaces
in an outward-tilting plane” (Progressive Architecture
1959). Fernando Álvarez Ordóñez claims he person-
ally ensured the groins were modeled upward to form
an endless undulating surface. Los Manantiales is
listed in the INBA catalog (Figures 1, 2).
Figure 2. Today (photo by the author, 2020).
Notwithstanding its seemingly complex double cur-
vature, constructing the roof shape was accomplished
with straight-line pine board scaffoldings arrayed
along the generatrix of the hypars alone. These wooden
boards were fixed atop thousands of wooden uprights,
ledgers, and stringers assembled in place by special-
ized carpenters. A reinforcing steel mesh topped the
formwork and viscous concrete was poured by hand,
one bucket at a time, by dozens of laborers. The
wooden scaffoldings and formboards were removed
when the concrete achieved its bearing weight capac-
ity, leaving a shell resembling a giant clam or a flower
with eight petals or segments.

382 DOI 10.1201/9781003173359-50

 Table 1. Candela’s groined hypar vaults.

Building, Location-Country Year Segments

La Jacaranda Cabaret, Acapulco 1957 3

Los Manantiales, Xochimilco 1958 8
Casino de la Selva, Cuernavaca 1959 5
Centro Electrónico, Mexico City∗ 1960 10
Iglesia de la Florida, Mexico City 1963 8
L’ Oceanogràfic, Valencia-Spain 2003 8
∗
Unbuilt

Figure 3. Panel from Dennis visits Mexico comic book,

1960. Courtesy of Aldo Solano Rojas.

Figure 5. Iglesia de la Florida (photo by Eduardo Alarcón

Azuela, 2012).

Figure 4. Capture from The Coming of Astro episode of The

Jetsons, 1962.

1.2 Los Manantiales: Symbol of the future

It took virtually no time for Los Manantiales to
gain fame. Its swooping shell was reproduced in
popular international publications such as the Den-
nis the Menace visits Mexico comic book (Ketcham
1960) (Figure 3) and LIFE Universal Library’s Mexico Figure 6. L’Oceanogràfic (photo by Concha de Rojas,
book (1962). With Eero Saarinen’s airport terminals 2020).
and later Heinz Isler’s ultra-thin shells, Félix Can-
Fernando López Carmona for La Bolsa Mexicana de
dela’s unconventional works conveyed revolutionary
Valores (Mexican Stock Exchange) building in Mexico
possibilities. These architects were forecasting their
City, continuing to explore applications of the same
collective dreams by means of their extraordinary con-
constructive principle (see Table 1) (Figures 5, 6).
crete sculptures. Los Manantiales became a symbol of
After 1958, Candela’s buildings resembling Los
Mexican modern architecture and an image of future
Manantiales are considered “clones”; they bear all of
architecture. Hanna Barbera’s comic sitcom, The Jet-
Félix Candela’s genetic makeup. L’Oceanogràfic, built
sons, routinely aired Candela-style shells floating in
six years after his death, was the last clone; its span
Orbit City’s (Benedict 1962) (Figure 4).
diameter was 8% larger than the original, but more
According to Alan Hess, “you see this interest in
slimly proportioned. Its construction included recently
these futuristic ideas not only in architecture or car
developed concrete techniques with stainless steel and
design but in cartoons like The Jetsons and places like
Dramix steel fibers (Domingo et al. 2002). The curtain
amusements parks like Disneyland’s Tomorrowland –
walls have heavy mirror glass fenestration which inter-
in advertisements, in magazines, and so forth, certainly
rupts the transparency of this posthumous homage to
in the movies as well” (Novak 2012).
Candela in his home country.

1.3 Candela’s variations of the groined hypar vault 1.4 Spreading the news
In 1954, Candela built his first groined hypar vault Starting in the early 1950s, international journals
by developing the design by Enrique de la Mora and enthusiastically published articles written by or about

383
Table 2. Groined hypar vault replicates.

Building Location Year Segments

Mineral Water Pavilion 1959–1960 3

Olanesti, Romania
La Concha Motel 1961 3
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
T. L. Osborn Headquarters 1962 10
Tulsa, Oklahoma-USA razed 2009
Sant Louis de Gonzague church 1964–1965 12 of varying
Richibucto, Canada heights Figure 7. Locations: 0. Xochimilco, Mexico; 1. Baku, Azer-
San Pablo Apóstol church 1971 8 baijan; 2. Tucson, Arizona, USA; 3 Bishkek, Kyrgyz Repub-
Guadalajara-Mexico lic; 4. Stuttgart, Germany; 5. Coca, Ecuador; 6. Esmeraldas,
Miguel Hidalgo Market 1973 8 (separate Ecuador; 7. Potsdam, GDR; 8. Valencia, Spain.
Guadalajara, Mexico hypars)

Candela. He presented at multiple conferences at influ-

ential universities such as MIT (1954), where he
proposed a simplified thin shell calculation method.
The Journal of the American Concrete Institute,
Progressive Architecture, the French L’architecture
d’aujourd hui, and Spanish Arquitectura, among oth-
ers, were launching pads for the works of a man who
proposed a practical and affordable technique. That
technique resulted in forms that seem to emerge from
nature, forms in which engineering and sculpture go
hand in hand. In February 1959, two articles about Los
Manantiales were published in Progressive Architec-
ture, the architectural journal with the world’s highest
circulation at the time: “Recent Work of Mexico’s
Felix Candela: Restaurant Xochimilco” and “Can a
Man Be Architect, Engineer, and Builder?” The lat-
ter states, “In his own opinion, Candela’s restaurant
structure at Xochimilco is probably his most signifi-
cant work to date (…) the final result of one phase of
structural investigation” (Holmes & Craighton 1959).
Twelve drawings and images illustrate the finished
shell without any discussion of the construction pro-
cess. Did the thirteen-petal Covered Market (1955) in
Royan-France, designed by René Sarger, anticipate the
aesthetics of Los Manantiales? The ellipsoidal shell
at La Concha Hotel (1958), in San Juan de Puerto
Rico, takes formal clues from Sarger’s project (Levy &
Parnes 1961). Certainly, the Progressive Architecture
articles led to a wealth of Los Manantiales-inspired
reinterpretations (see Table 2).
Subsequently, other significant monthly magazines
published on Candela: Spanish Arquitectura and Swiss
Bauen + Wohnen. In the former, Rafael de la Hoz
(1959) celebrates that Candela generously submitted
construction drawings. The latter offers detailed con-
struction specifications (Bauen + Wohnen 1961). Both
magazines predate Colin Faber’s canonic book, Can-
dela/The Shell Builder, which displays full construc-
tion information and a beautiful perspective draw-
ing that illustrates the way the shell derives from
hyperbolic paraboloids formed by straight-lines (Faber
1963).
Undoubtedly, the iconic buildings’ appearance has
also been disseminated globally by non-academic
Figure 8. Zhemchuzhina (now Mirvari) Café, ca. 1962.
publications such as postcards, postal stationary,
tourist brochures and travel guides. Some media
spread the designs more broadly and quickly than
books, trade journals, or professional magazines.
2 REPLICAS OF AN ARCHETYPE
Case studies
During the next five decades, Los Manantiales’ shell
was replicated in four continents. Some are well
known, others more obscure. This paper brings them
to light, concentrating on those that: contain a groined
hypar vault formed by the intersection of four hyper-
bolic paraboloids; rest on eight supports; and contain
an outwardly tilted lobe or segment configuration. One
exception is the Harrenstein House, which has six
lobes.
Each case study, introduced in chronological order,
offers a short history about the circumstances of its
commission, naming its designers, exploring simi-
larities and differences in construction methods with
respect to Xochimilco, and questioning if each case
study acquired local or national prominence or sym-
bolism. Illustrations of each project prioritize com-
pleted buildings, postal reproductions, works under
construction and status pictures, some obtained ad hoc
for this investigation (Figure 7).
2.1 Mirvari Café in Baku-Republic of Azerbaijan
The first replica of Los Manantiales was constructed
in 1962 in Baku, capital of the Azerbaijan Soviet

384

Figure 9. USSR postal stationery, 1976.
Figure 10. Mirvari Café under construction, ca. 1960.
Figure 11. Today (photo by Sanan Aliyev 2020).
Socialist Republic, then a founding member coun-
try of the USSR (Figures 8, 9). Architects Vadim
Shulgin, Roufat Sharifov, Anna Val, and Irena Orlova-
Stroganova designed this shell for a commission from
Mayor Alish Lemberansky – an important figure in
Baku’s modernity. Lemberansky learned about Can-
dela’s projects during a trip to Scandinavia (Bulanova
2015). Did the Mayor see the Botanical Garden
(1962) in Oslo-Norway under construction? Perhaps
he stumbled upon one of the previously-mentioned
publications? Shulgin placed a small shell in a conspic-
uous location on Baku’s boulevard facing the Caspian
Sea (Figure 10). The Mirvari Café shell sits atop
a square platform that originally rose three meters
above ground. Construction photos show wood board
uprights, horizontal stringers, and diagonal cross brac-
ings which hold parallel parabolic wooden arches in
place and upon which the formwork rests, as opposed
to on hypar generatrix boards. The advantage of using
parabolas is addressed in case study 2.6. Local archi-
tect Elchin Aliyev asserts that the concrete placement
involved “two workers with one cement shotgun for
three days”. Gunite, or shotcrete technology, consists
of a calibrated cement-sand-water mix; the mix is shot
through a pressure hose to apply a dense concrete layer
to the formwork.
Shulgin was known for his openness to world
culture and detachment from ideological dogmas.
385
Figure 12. Harrenstein House (photo by Bill Sears 1966).
However, due to Soviet era political sensitivities,
the project was attacked as an “imitation of bourgeois
architecture” (Nasibov 2019) (Figures 11). Interest-
ingly, a design idea that arose in a distant, developing
country, Mexico, was perceived as representing for-
eign capitalism. Documenting its popularity, the US
National Geographic Society published a travel book
in all 15 Soviet Union republics and chose the Mirvari
to represent Baku (McDowell & Conger 1977). Today,
the building is listed as an architectural monument
of Soviet Modernism and is protected by the State.
Corroborating its modern character, the Baku Pearl
was replicated one decade later in the Kyrghiz Soviet
Socialist Republic (See 2.3). In his book, Yuri Lebe-
dev speaks of both projects as Soviet developments
of architectural bionics without mentioning Candela
(Lebedev 1973).
2.2 Harrenstein House in Tucson, Arizona, USA
Located in Tucson, a US city 100 km north of the
Mexican border, Harrenstein House (1962–1963), is
the only residential building among the case studies
presented here (Figure 12). Owner and designer Dr
Howard P. Harrenstein was a professor who special-
ized in concrete structures and was instrumental in
the development of hypar construction norms in the
USA. Given its proximity to the Titan missile defense
system during the Cold War, Tucson was a nuclear tar-
get. Harrenstein envisioned the house as an experiment
on thin shells and nuclear fallout shelters. Originally
conceived as an eight-petal arrangement with an open-
to-the-sky central courtyard, to aim interior views to
the surrounding desert landscape, the design switched
to a six-segment display. According to the Tucson His-
toric Preservation Foundation application for Historic
Landmark, “The geometric, one story plan creates inti-
mate and expressive interior spaces while promoting a
vision of tomorrow” (Clinco 2018). Each cantilevered
lobe works as shading device as the window fenes-
tration is recessed deep into the shell while the roof
unloads its weight on brick columns.
Shulgin devised a noteworthy system of reusable
formworks. Roof construction proceeded 1/6 section
at a time with only one formwork assembly.The assem-
bly was relocated 60◦ to the next section until the circle
was completed. Construction images show wooden
boards placed horizontally to create the formwork
without following the generatrix of the hypar. Once
the form and steel reinforcing were in place, concrete
was poured manually with buckets.
Figure 13. Formwork placement (photos by Howard Har-
renstein, 1962). Tucson Historic Preservation Foundation
digital collection.
Figure 14. Formwork placement (photos by Howard Har-
renstein, 1962). Tucson Historic Preservation Foundation
digital collection.
Figure 15. Bermet Café, ca. 1971.
Harrenstein House (Figures 13, 14), first listed as a
National Monument in 2018, stands out for its original
reutilization of materials, its specialized craftsman-
ship, and as a representative civil defense response
to the Cold War Atomic Era.
2.3 Bermet Café in Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic
The 1971 Bermet Café (Figures 15, 16), meaning
“pearl” in Kyrgyz, was built in Friendship Park in
Frunze (now Bishkek) in the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics (USSR). Located on the steppes, the city
has a centrally planned layout. In the 1960s, authori-
ties developed the Fifty Years of USSR Park. A smaller
portion of that open space was named Friendship Park.
To build it, “in typical Soviet fashion, they [the peo-
ple] had to work for it. Schoolchildren and workers
were drafted into brigades of volunteers, clearing away
rocks, carting in soil, and planting trees” (Dzhumag-
ulov & Li 2019). The Bermet Café was not directly
386
Figure 16. USSR postal stationery, ca. 1970s.
Figure 17. Today (photos by Alina Pugacheva 2020).
inspired by the shell in Xochimilco but by the structure
in Baku. According to Besien Kariev, the project was a
centrally planned construct without an apparent design
architect. As a consequence, the design is rather pre-
scriptive: it has the same one-storey-high platform and
the same thin shell form and proportions as Baku. Built
by the same regime as the Baku but a decade later, the
Bermet Café is a second-generation replica that vali-
dates the significance of the edifice in Baku. Unlike
Baku, the Bermet Café is fronted by a sculptural pub-
lic stairway. Its angular lines, exposed concrete panels,
and cantilevered slabs speak to a Constructivist style
representative of the period when it was built.«
USSR postcards and postal stationary featuring
the café demonstrate that the building acquired a
certain prominence within Soviet Frunze. This con-
clusion is supported by a catalog sheet in the State
List of Architectural Monuments, in which the build-
ing is registered since 2003, research provided by local
professors Dzhumamedel Imankulov andTatyana Fila-
tova. Decades ago, the Bermet Café was a well-known
element of urban life. Recently, however, significant
portions of the public park were handed over to private
hands and the remaining portions are ill maintained.
A local envoy, Alina Pugacheva, verified the poor
condition of the building site. The trees are overgrown
throughout the park, while the areas around the build-
ing have been disturbed by poorly planned additions,
wooden shacks, and fences that seriously compromise
its appearance. (Figures 17, 18).
Currently privately owned, the top floor was
enclosed with opaque mirror glass walls that block
the transparency under the shell. The café is currently
a hookah lounge, open just a few days a year, and little
Figure 18. Today (photos by Alina Pugacheva 2020).
Figure 19. Postcard of Pavilion for the 1977 BUGA, ca.
1977.
has been done to procure adequate protection for this
jewel of Soviet-period heritage.
2.4 Pavilion for the Federal Garden Exhibition in
Stuttgart, Germany
The 1977 Federal Garden Exhibition, or Bundes-
gartenschau (BUGA 1977), took place on the lower
grounds of the Kingdom of Württemberg palace gar-
dens in Stuttgart and received seven million visitors.
Continuing a tradition of expanding city green
spaces and open environments, BUGA 1977 consisted
of a 44-hectare master plan with landscape architec-
ture, lakes, parks, squares, pedestrian and vehicular
bridges, extensive walkways, urban art sculptures, and
permanent and temporary exhibition pavilions. The
latter included this case study by prominent structural
artists Jörg Schlaich and Rudolph Bergermann. This
200-spectator Pavilion (Figure 19) was developed as
a structural experiment on lightweight shells. At that
time, Schlaich was exploring the capabilities of glass
fiber reinforced concrete (GRC). Aside from trials
with the new composite material, the project required
a form inherently resistant to buckling. This is where
shape of Los Manantiales shell entered into play. Tri-
als on lighter weights also contributed to off-site shell
prefabrication in eight separate segments. Because the
shell used GRC, its thickness was reduced to only
12 mm, i.e. it is thinner than an eggshell relative to
its size. The temporary shell earned the reputation of
being “the building with the thinnest concrete roof in
the world” (ArchInform 2018) (Figures 20, 21).
Frei Otto criticized the Pavilion, calling it a blatant
copy of Los Manantiales. Fortunately, Schlaich took
advantage of Candela’s 1977 stay in Europe. He invited
387
Figure 20. Precast segments lifted by crane and assembled
into position, ca. 1976.
Figure 21. Precast segments lifted by crane and assembled
into position, ca. 1976.
Figure 22. Under construction and recently removed form-
work (photos by Laercio Almeida 1980).
Candela to join him to visit his Stuttgart Pavilion. An
older Candela was so excited to see a German engineer
developing his ideas that “climbing to the top of the
shell, he jumped up and down to test its deflections”
(Holgate 1997). The Pavilion was scheduled to be dis-
assembled six months after the start of the exhibition.
However, it was demolished only five years later, in
1982; because it was critically vandalized, the GRC
was brittle and its shell was deformed.
2.5 Auditorio Amazonas Casino in Coca-Ecuador
In the late 1970s, the Ecuadorian Army Corps of
Engineers (CEE), a centralized office in charge of
constructing all military compounds in this South
American country, devised a plan to deploy a standard-
type casino at all military bases. An officer’s casino
is a large event hall enjoyed by high-ranking military
personnel. Finished ca.1980, the Auditorio Amazonas
officers’ casino at Brigade #19-Napo (Figures 22, 23)
was erected on the north bank of the Napo River;

Figure 23. Under construction and recently removed form-
work (photos by Laercio Almeida 1980).
Figure 24. Drawing of parallel parabolic scaffoldings, 1978.
Figure 25. Today (photo by the author, 2017).
it lies in a remote Amazon tropical rainforest loca-
tion, near the northern border with Colombia. Initially,
the casino’s roof was meant to be identical to the
one in Xochimilco. The structural plans directly copy
the drawings found in Faber’s 1963 book. The engi-
neering drawings, stored at CEE archives, were by
engineer Juan B. González S. Remarkably, González’s
worthy contribution is evident in a unique construc-
tion process, different from the one used at Los
Manantiales.
González created a system of wooden formwork,
supported not by the straight-line generatrix of the
hypar but by translation surface parabolas; the result is
a series of parallel parabolic arches derived from cross-
sectioning the lobes in vertical planes (Figure 24). Like
case study 2.1 in Baku, the parabolas’ sections were a
product of geometric deductions at the drafting table;
these resulted in simplified carpentry work tailored to
non-specialized workmanship. Architectonically, the
structure was only different from Xochimilco in that
388
Figure 26. Casino modification drawing, 1981.
the architect, Hernando Parra, lifted the entire struc-
ture 1.82 m to prevent the hypar groins from discharg-
ing rainwater at ground level. As a result, potential
drainage problems were eliminated and accessibility
to the roof controlled. Site engineer-in-charge, Laercio
Almeida, pointed out that the isolated location of the
brigade suggested access and logistics difficulties. The
scaffolding required enormous numbers of wooden
poles and boards. (Figure 22). Resembling Candela’s
method, concrete placement was completed bucket by
bucket; but here, pouring started at the summit of the
hypars and finalized downwards at the groins.This
shell, the largest curved free-edge shell in Ecuador,
is the least known of the case studies still standing. It
remained mostly unnoticed until a suspension bridge
was built nearby in 2012. Recently, a request to have
it registered in the Ecuadorian National Institute for
Cultural Patrimony was submitted by the author.
2.6 Montúfar Battalion Casino in Esmeraldas,
Ecuador
The BE-1 Montúfar Battalion officers’ casino
(ca.1981, Figure 26) was placed inside a military
compound on a high mound overlooking the city of
Esmeraldas. The battalion is located near the north-
ern border with Colombia, close to the Pacific Ocean.
Again, Juan González was the engineer of record.
Upon its completion in the early 1980s, two Ecuado-
rian military precincts replicated the Xochimilco icon
(Luzuriaga 2020). Unfortunately, the Montúfar casino
was demolished between 1987 and 1989 after criti-
cal structural damage appeared, caused by seats on
the structure’s grounds. Because no known photo-
graphic records remain, it is impossible to compare
it to Los Manantiales and draw conclusions about
its foundational problems. No doubt, the unexpected
demise of the Esmeraldas work contributed to the halt-
ing of subsequent construction of these standard-type
casinos.
2.7 Shore Pavilion Seerose in Potsdam, GDR
The 1982–1983 Café Seerose, or “water lily”, was built
in a Stalinist-style, a high-rise, residential complex on
the shore of Neustadt Havel Bay in Potsdam. When
Ulrich Müther was commissioned with the project, he
turned to a 1971 unbuilt Neubrandenburg kiosk based
on Xochimilco. He owned the author’s rights for that
shell structure (Figures 27, 28), so he reused them,
unaltered, for Potsdam (Ambrosius & Seebock 2016).
Figure 27. Scaffolding, 1982–1983. Müther Archive of
Wismar University.
Figure 28. Potsdam-GDR postcard, ca.1985.
To avoid the appearance of political agendas, the
International Association for Shell and Spatial Struc-
tures (IASS) held congresses in Eastern European
cities, such as Leningrad and Bucharest. Matthias
Ludwig asserts that, upon obtaining party authoriza-
tions, Müther attended some IASS meetings where
he befriended Heinz Isler. No evidence indicates that
Müther ever met Candela in person, but he could turn
to the 1961 Form und Bauweise der Schalen by Manuel
Sánchez-Arcas and to Faber’s books. He admired Can-
dela’s figure to such an extent that his company logo
was a variation on the San José Obrero church, seen
in profile. Müther’s accomplishments included using
slim, available resources while still achieving the sense
of wonder that only hypars inspire (Lammler & Wag-
ner 2010). Müther was a rare entrepreneur, capable of
leading his family-owned construction company under
a controlling, socialist regime. Over three decades,
he built over 70 standalone double curvature shells
and developed projects in the GDR and overseas.
Early GDR architecture was widely and favorably
appraised; but it soon deteriorated into dull, prefab-
ricated panel housing structures where aesthetics was
of lesser importance. The country’s political leader-
ship saw in Müther’s oeuvre a counterpoint to the
at-best-average official architecture. With noteworthy
commissions, his work blossomed. Margarete Fuchs’s
film It’s Up to You to Make It Swing describes the
role Müther played as builder of extraordinary facili-
ties that beautifully fulfilled the material and cultural
needs of the people (Fuchs 2002). The construction
process was carried out by specialized manual workers
using scaffoldings on steel pipes and telescopic noz-
zles as well as a wet gunite spray method. (Figures 29,
30). On the shell’s top, a three-to-five-centimeter-thick
expanded polystyrene insulation and two layers of
389
Figure 29. Gunite spraying, 1982–1983. Müther Archive of
Wismar University.
Figure 30. Today (Frank Leipelt 2020).
roofing felt were put in place. The restaurant roof has
a round opening in the apex for mechanical ventilation
and a flatter inclination of the shell segments. Dieter
Ahting, the architect, devised a functional distinction
between supply wing, guest area, and terrace areas,
thereby safeguarding the shell’s transparency.
The Seerose is considered the most exceptional
Soviet period monument property in Potsdam. It was
listed in 2004 under monument protection, separate
from the surrounding complex within which it was
originated.
3 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The idiosyncratic Los Manantiales became a dream
design, a seed that was originally planted in Mexico
and that then flourished in many other locations.Two of
the case study replications disappeared. Functionally,
three are food venues, three others are or were great
halls, and one is a dwelling. Four were placed near
a waterbody: a sea, a lake, or a river. However, their
form was not a response to the context where they sit,
since they are located randomly in steppes, deserts,
or tropical rainforests. Figure 31 portrays geometric
forms with top and front views.
Most structures are considerably smaller than Los
Manantiales; one of the Ecuadorian structures has the
same diameter and only Candela’s L’Oceanogràfic is
larger. All the structures have different proportions,
petal inclinations, and architectural dynamism. Fig-
ure 31 and Table 3 compare supports span and outer
 When Candela visited Stuttgart and viewed a
project that reinterpreted his design concepts, he was
not only delighted but also “with tears in his eyes he
declared that he was gladdened to know his ideas were
being passed on and developed in such a way” (Hol-
gate 1997). We can only imagine how he would react if
he knew that his masterpiece was reproduced so many
times in so many places before his death, and we can
learn much from Candela’s projects, as well as from
those he inspired.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to recognize the contributions of Pro-

Figure 31. Case study comparison (See Table 3 for tag fessors Juan Ignacio del Cueto and Eduardo Alar-
identification). Elaborated by the author, 2020. cón Azuela in Mexico; Professor Elchin Aliyev and
photographer Sanan Aliyev in Azerbaijan; Profes-
sors Besien Kariev, Dzhumamedel Imankulov, Tatyana
Table 3. Comparative data on the case studies. Filatova, and photographer Alina Pugacheva in Kyrgyz
Republic; General Laercio Almeida in Ecuador; Pro-
Span  Shell Shell fessor Matthias Ludwig at Müther-Archiv and photog-
Building Outer  High-Point Thickness
City-Country (m) (m) (cm)
rapher Frank Leipelt in Germany; and photographer
Concha de Rojas in Spain.
0. Los Manantiales 32.47 9.93 4–5
Xochimilco, Mexico 42.43 9.93
1. Mirvari Café 15.20∗ 5.46∗ 6–8 REFERENCES
Baku, Azerbaijan 22.00∗
∗
2. Harrenstein House 13.72 4.06 8 Ambrosius, S. & Seebock, T. 2016. Café Seerose. Ein
Tucson, Arizona, USA 19.66∗ schalenbau von Ulrich Muether und Dieter Ahting. Bran-
3. Bermet Café 15.72∗ 6.54 ∗
10 denburgische Denkmalpflege 2(II) Aachen: Geymüller.
Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic 23.40∗ Verlag für Architektur.
4. 1977 BUGA Pavilion 26.00 5.67 1.2 ArchInform. 2018. Gartenschaupavillon der BUGA 1977.
Stuttgart, Germany 31.00 Available at: https://deu.archinform.net/projekte/7277.
5. Auditorio Amazonas 32.47 11.14 8 html (accessed 11 March 2021).
Coca, Ecuador 42.00 Bauen + Wohnen 1961. Garten-restaurant in Xochimilco.
6. Montúfar Battalion 32.47∗ 11.14∗ 8∗ Gebaut 1958. Bauen+Wohnen 15(11).
Esmeraldas, Ecuador 42.00∗ Benedict, T. 1962. The Jetsons. Hanna Barbera’s comic
7. Seerose Pavilion 23.00 6.23 6–7 sitcom. The Coming of Astro episode (14 October).
Potsdam, GDR 28.00* Bulanova, O. 2015. Pearl of style. Eco. Social and Political
8. L’Oceanogràfic 35.10 12.27 6 Newspaper 242(15 August).
Valencia, Spain 48.73 Clinco, D. 2018. Pima County historic landmark zone appli-
∗
cation. Tucson: National Register of Historic Places.
Approximate dimension De la Hoz, R. 1959. Láminas de hormigón armado. Félix
Candela. Arquitectura 1(10).
Domingo, A., Lázaro, C. & Serna, P. 2002. The aesthetic of
lobe diameters, exterior highpoint and thickness of the visible structures. IABSE Symposium.
shells. Together these figure and table establish differ- Dzhumagulov, M. & Li,A. 2019.The park that was lost. Orga-
nized crime and corruption reporting project, OCCRP.
ences in the shells’ sizes and the slenderness of their Faber, C. 1963. Candela/The shell builder. New York: Rein-
proportions. hold.
Construction methods vary significantly from one Fuchs, M. 2002. Für den Schwung sind sie zuständig. Docu-
project to another: some use the same principles mentary film. Berlin: Margarete Fuchs Filmproduktion.
employed by Cubiertas Ala; some develop their own Holgate, A. 1997. The art of structural engineering: The work
daring structural and construction techniques, e.g. of Jörg Schlaich and his team. Stuttgart: Axel Menges.
off-site prefabrication, formwork reuse, variations on Holmes, B. H. & Craighton, T. H. 1959. Can a man be
scaffolding design, use of gunite concrete applications, architect, engineer, and builder? Progressive Architecture
and cranes. 40(2): 140–141.
Ketcham, H. 1960. Dennis the Menace in Mexico 8. Meri-
Like Xochimilco, the Baku and Potsdam shells den: Hallden Division of Fawcett Publications. New York:
retain a status of symbolizing modernity; unlike these, Editors Press Service.
the one in Bishkek lost its former standing as city icon. Lämmler, R. & Wagner, M. 2010. Ulrich Müther shell struc-
However, most of the case study structures function tures in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. Zurich: Verlag
well and are soundly maintained. Niggli AG.

390
Lebedev, Y. 1973. Bionics and the city of the future: City and
time. Moscow: Stroyizdat.
Levy, M. & Parnes, R. 1961. La Concha shell. Informes de
la Construcción 13(127).
Luzuriaga, M. 2020. El paraboloide hiperbólico de concreto
armado en el Ecuador. DAYA Diseño, Arte y Arquitectura,
1(8): 233–256.
McDowell, B. & Conger D. 1977. Journey across Russia:
The Soviet Union today. Washington DC: US National
Geographic Society.
391
Nasibov, F. 2019. Café “Zhemchuzhina”: A pearl on Baku’s
waterfront. IRS Discover Azerbaijan Heritage 2(98):
50–56.
Novak, M. 2012. Googie: Architecture of the space age:
The futurist design movement that divided critics and
swept the nation with space age coffee shops. Smithsonian
Magazine. Washington DC.
Progressive Architecture 1959. Recent work of Mexico’s
Felix Candela. Progressive Architecture 40(2): 132–139.