1960-1980:
Critical voices I
15. September 2014 - Eli Støa
Contents
• Ideological confrontation
• International ideas
– Alternative utopies: Situationism
– Open form / Structuralism / Flexibility
– Alternative to high rise: Low / dense
– Community / Participation
Critique
• Changeability
• Individual influence
• Privacy – community
• Low – dense
• User participation
Issues
• Ideological confrontation
• International ideas
– Alternative utopies: Situationism
– Open form / Structuralism / Flexibility
– Alternative to high rise: Low / dense
– Community / Participation
Alternative utopies: Situationism (1960s)
• utopian, revolutionary ideas where changeability played an important
role : ”ephemeral, temporary, multi-interpretable architecture” (Bosma, 2000:46)
• Open spaces in the city should offer situations for action and activities
• Confidence in the creativity of the masses
• the nomadic life
• the dynamic labyrinth:
”the occupier as the producer of space. The architect has, at most, a supporting
role as an intermediary between consumer and producer” (ibid:52)
’New Babylon’
Constant Nieuwenhuys (1971)
“..the city is an artificial landscape built by human beings in which the
adventure of our life unfolds.” Constant Nieuwenhuys, 1960
‘New Babylon’
Constant Nieuwenhuys (1971)
”The act of creating is more important than the product created, and the act of
travelling outweighs arriving at one’s destination. Life has the features of a road
movie” (Bosma, 2000:51)
Archigram
• Walking city
• Plug-in city
• Instant city
© Ron Herron, Archigram Courtesy Ron Herron Archive
Archigram
• Walking city
• Plug-in city
• Instant city
Peter Cook (1964)
Archigram
• Walking city
• Plug-in city
• Instant city
© Ron Herron, Archigram Courtesy Ron Herron Archive
Learning from the vernacular
«The use of single building types does not
necessarily produce monotony»
(Rudofsky, 1964: 55)
Bernard Rudofsky (1964): «Architecture without architects»
Portable roof, Cherrapunji – India (Rudofsky, 1964: fig 142)
«The mobile home of vernacular architecture offered a figure of domesticity not tied
to the ground or captured by administration and commercialism, one that might
sustain both respect for the environment and offer a space of dwelling» (Scott, 2000:231)
Open form – Oskar Hansen
”Hansen developed the theory of ’the open form’, an
architecture which should open up for changed use, new
forms as well as individual interpretations”
(Guttu, 2003:224)
Området Slovackiego i Lublin, Polen er Oskar Hansens eksempel på åpen
form (Guttu, 2003:235)
Open form – Oskar Hansen
Three objections against functionalism (according to N O Lund):
1. That individual need are not sufficiently considered
- Some decisions should be left to the individual, the product should be
possible to adapt to specific needs
2. That changing needs and user patterns are not sufficiently
considered
- It should be possible to supplement or substitute existing functions with
new ones within the same structure
3. That architecture was adapted to a specific way of life (formal
critique)
- It should be possible to add new forms without disturbing the
(aesthetic) totality
From ”På sporet af den åbne forms elementer”, lecture by Oscar Hansen (adapted from Lund, 2001:62-63)
Open form – Oskar Hansen
Example of Open Form: Slovacki housing
estate in Lublin (Hansen, 2005)
Kystmuseet i Sogn og Fjordane,
1985
«I vår tid tyder Open Form
arkitektonisk frigjering»
«In our time Open Form means
architectural liberation»
(Svein Hatløy, 2009:
http://openform.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/open-form-50-ar/
http://hoff-andersen.blogspot.no/2010/05/visit-to-mr-hatloy.html
Supports – N J Habraken
•
Separation between ”support” and ”infill”: Fixed vs
changeable
•
User and residents should have influence on their
home environment
•
•
Production of houses involve several actors and
professions
The meeting between different technical systems
should be designed in a way which makes it possible
to replace one system with another with a similar
function
•
Architectural Press, 1972
Acknowledging that the built environment is
continuously changing
Source: http://www.habraken.com/html/introduction.htm
”..a systematic division
between elements defined
by the designers and mass
produced commodities /
products among which the
users could choose ”
(Guttu, 2003:224)
Habitat 67, Montreal. Architect: Moshe Safdie
Skjettenbyen, Skedsmo (1969-73)
Arch: Skjettenprosjektering: Nils-Ole Lund and Hultberg, Resen, Throne-Holst
1050 terracced housing, 600 flats
Rational production / elements: modules
3x3m
User participation: Half of the houses are
extended
Structuralism in Norway
• Residents regarded as an individualised diversity – not only as member of
a standard nuclear family
• A new role of planners introduced, their task was more organisation and
adaption rather than designing all details
• Idea of users’ co-determination
• Low-dense structures as alternative to both detached houses and high
rise buildings
Hultberg & Seablom (1966-7) (adapted from Guttu, 2003:225)
Structuralism in Norway
Preconditions
• Mass production
– unknown users, the dwelling had to be adapted after completion
• Without predefined assumptions
– redefinition the basic housing needs – aiming to break with locked-in
conceptions
• Trust in technology
– possibilities for equality and creativity among residents
• The strict physical structure – a condition for individual
display
– within the restrictions of the totality
(Guttu, 2003:226)
Critique
• Technologically based flexibility / system thinking results in a
mechanistic architecture without deeper meaning
(Svein Hatløy)
– Structuralism led to formal dictate
– ”Diligent variations” instead of ”new situations”
– Lack of architectural qualities which could have provided people with
possibilities for rich experiences, use and interpretations of a diversity of
situations
(Guttu, 2003:234)
Critique
• Generality more important than flexibility
– Opening for functional interpretation (Ola Mowé)
• Polyvalancy:
– A term introduced by the Dutch architect Herman Hertzberger in 1962
meaning that architectural space can be used in different ways over time or
in different situations without having to undergo physical changes
–.
Privacy and community
– hierarchical thinking
• Urban – Public
•
• Urban – Semi-Public
•
• Group – Public
•
• Group – Private
•
• Family – Private
•
• Individual – Private
From Chermayeff & Alexander (1963): ”Community and privacy”
Privacy and community
– hierarchical thinking
”We are interested, principally, in establishing the
integrity of those places where the smaller human
scales of immediate experience are possible”
Chermayeff & Alexander (1963: 121)
Privatlig og offentlighet
– hierarkisk tenkning
Siedlung Halen, Bern
Atelier 5 (1961)
80 terracced houses surrounding a common square
•
•
•
Planned by a group of intellectuals in Bern
Formal associations to purism of the 30s + vernacular villages
Common spaces: pool, greens, heating central, petrol station, café, shop
•
•
The surrounding woodland – commonly owned
Concentrated built structure – alternative to the suburbs
•
Hierarchy private – semi private – common
Dalen Hageby, Trondheim
Foto: Tore Brantenberg
Jarle Øyasæter, 1961
Foto: Tore Brantenberg
Foto: Tore Brantenberg
Foto: Tore Brantenberg
Meek Borettslag, Molde
NBBLs arkitektkontor v/Torstein Ramberg (1978)
Foto: Mette Sjølie Source: www.mobo.no
Kilde: www.mobo.no
Foto: Mette Sjølie
Foto: Mette Sjølie
Cultural shift in the 1970s
From
To
– Universalism, optimism for
the future and trust in the
technological ability to solve
societal problems
– Small scale, historical models,
alternative technology
– Increased focus on ”life
between buildings” and the
community
– Focus on housing standard:
functional plans and indoor
family life
– ”Small is beautiful”
– Large scale
– Cultural heritage
– Adaption to place
(Jon Guttu, 2003)
From high rise
to ’low-dense’
•The Ammerud report (Byggforsk
1969-71): Critical to the residential
quality – in particular for children
•”Urban planning costs” (NIBR, 1969):
Not economically profitable to build
higher than 3-4 fl
User participation
• An objective in its own right
• Direct dialogue – adaptation after completion is not enough
• On the residents’ terms
Sherry Arnstein’s ”Ladder of
participation” 1969
Carsten Hoff & Susanne Ussing:
”Alternative architecture”
Louisiana 1977
Kilde: Nils Ole Lund, 2001:167
• Demolition / renewal of worn down
tenements for workers
• Large degree of participation e.g. through
the establishment of an architectural office
within the neighborhood
• 2317 dwellings
• 80 % terracced houses, 20 % flats in the
”Byker Wall”
• 7-8000 people
Source: Egelius, 1988
“…to maintain, as far as possible, valued traditions
and characteristics of the neighbourhood
itself…The main concern will be for those who are
already resident in Byker, and the need to rehouse
them without breaking family ties and other
valued associations or patterns of life.”
Ralph Erskine, source: http://municipaldreams.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/thebyker-estate-newcastle/
Source: Egelius, 1988
”Byker for the Byker people”
•
•
Complete and integrated environment
•
Low cost, collaboration with residents
Maintain existing traditions and characteristics
•
•
Exploit the physical character: slope, view, sun
•
•
Rehouse those already living in Byker
Complete system of pedestrian routes
Provide a character / a recognizable physical form, local
individuality to each group of houses
Source: Egelius, 1988
«It was a lovely place to live. Now it’s changing.
People don’t feel safe anymore» (Resident’s view, BBC 2007)
Source: Egelius, 1988
Selegrend 1, Bergen CUBUS AL
Architects: Odd Løvset & Nils Roar Øvsthus (1974)
Photo: Steinar Anda
Seletunstiftelsens målsetning:
• Enkeltmennesket skal kunne influere på sin egen boligsituasjon
• Boligområdene bør gjenspeile det samfunnsmessige gjennomsnitt mht
kjønn, yrke, sosial status, m.m.
• Boligområdet skal planlegges for samarbeid, fellesskap og sosial kontakt
• Gjennomsnittsmennesket har et sosialt ansvar for dem som
ressursmessig er dårligere stilt
(Martens (2000): Århundrets Norske boligprosjekter)
”..drømmen om de
sæle grender”
(Brantenberg, 2002)
Photo: Tore Brantenberg
Photo: Tore Brantenberg