AAR 4812 / Theory and history of housing
06. September 2013
Critical voices I - Structuralism and low-dense
movement
As we have seen, during the first decades after the second WW,
aspects of modernism such as industrialisation, mass production and
standardisation had a great impact on cities all around the world.
This happened clearly as a response to housing shortage and bad
living conditions for the growing urban population – set back by the
war. And technically it led to an improved housing standard for
thousand if not millions of people.
Still – more and more critical voices was heard both within and
outside the architectural profession. In fact, most of the ideas and
theories that have marked the architectural debate after the war in
one way or another were critical to aspects and results of the modern
movement and it approach to housing and urban planning.
In the rest of this lecture and the next, I will present some of these
critiques.
Ideological confrontation with modernism
CIAM (Congres Internationaux d’Architecture) – the organisation
gathering the modernists who dominated the debate, and with the
swiss historian and theorist Sigfried Gideon as a secretary – was
established in 1928. They had several meetings before the second
WW, among others the one in Frankfurt, arranged by Ernst May in
1929 with ‘Dwelling for the existence minimum’ was the topic. And on
a boat in the Mediterranean in 1933 where they agreed on the so
called Athen-charter which advocated the zoning of the city
1
according to four different functions: living, working, recreation and
transportation. (Lund, 2001:60).
After the world war, several young architects believed the CIAM
became too dogmatic and questioned among others things their
approach to the city. They still worked within the organisation and in
1959 a group, who named themselves Team 10, organised a
conference in Otterloo (Netherlands) which gained a great impact on
the future debate. Not at least because the discussions were
publicised in a book later on (Team 10 Primer). Among the
participants were Aldo van Eyck, Alison & Peter Smithson, Kenzo
Tange, Oskar Hansen, Louis Kahn, Arne Korsmo and Ralph Erskine.
A diverse group with rather different approaches and viewpoints.
Common for them was however that they were critical to the direction
that modern architecture and urban planning had taken. It was
regarded as too static and custom-made (tailor-made) for only one
purpose at the time (Guttu:223).
Slide xx: critique
Situationism
Slide: alternative utopies
This term is used to designate utopian, revolutionary ideas where
changeability played an important role: ”ephemeral, temporary, multiinterpretable architecture” (Bosma, 2000:46) A lightness in urban
design – often illustrated as megastructures. Presented as an
alternative to the functional poverty that marked the modern
movement – open spaces in the city should offer situations for action
and activities. They had confidence in the creativity of the masses,
quite a different approach to the role of the planner within modernism
– as the omniscient expert – who knows best on behalf of the
masses. The nomadic life was furthermore regarded as part of
modern life – but an issue that was not taken care of in conventional
urban planning. ‘The dynamic labyrinth’ was the ultimate urban
2
concept: ”The occupier as the produces of space. The architect has,
at most, a supporting role as an intermediary between consumer and
producer” (ibid:52)
Examples:
Constant Nieuwenhuys / Debord: New Babylon
"Town planning is not industrial design, the city is not a functional
object, aesthetically sound or otherwise; the city is an artificial
landscape built by human beings in which the adventure of our life
unfolds.” Constant Nieuwenhuys, 1960
A theoretical model, a global, post-revolutionary state which
emphasizes the nomadic way of life rather then static, individual
settlements. They imagine a society where all production of
commodities is fully automatic, where leisure is more important than
work and where all land is collectivized: ”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).
Home ludens,( ‘the playing man’) is what characterize humans in the
post-industrial period where work no longer is important.
Archigram
London based group consisting of 6 architects (1960s): Peter Cook,
Dennis Crompton, Ron Herron, Michael Webb, Warren Chalk.
They established a Magazine with the same name: representing an
enthusiastic and disrespectful critique of conventional modern
planning (NO Lund, 2001:158).
Marked by popular culture and fascinated by technological
structures, according to Nils Ole Lund ”beruset av
forbrugersamfundets tilbud om den totale utfoldelse” (ibid): “elated by
the consumer societies offer on total display”
Combination of science-fiction and cartoons.
No normal cities but a, but a conglomerate of towers, cranes, pipes,
refinery and oil drilling platforms translated into a city.
3
Slide - Walking city: Architecture is not regarded as fixed physical
frames (shelter) but rather as structures linking individuals to the
society.
Slide - Plug-in city: A fast changing and mechanized world – best
expressed thorugh the idea of the ”Plug-in” city (Peter Cook)
Slide - Instant city: The city as a mobile technological system floating
in the air in balloons with temporary structures (performance spaces)
over underdeveloped, sad and grey urban areas.
The situationists did not build many projects – they were rather
artistic visions publicized in magazines and exhibitions. But became
all the same important in the professional debate in the 60s. With
their freshness and radical approach they managed to call attention
to some of the weaknesses of the modern movement – the idea that
buildings and cities are static entities with a range of use given once
and for all. These ideas were followed up by several other architects
– who were more down to earth and aimed to influence the
production of new housing in ‘real life’.
Learning from the vernacular
Bernard Rudofsky: Architecture without architects
(ref. F. Scott’s article)
On one hand – modernists inspired by images of Mediterranean hill
towns. Rudofsky, himself a modernist – an architect working with the
modernist vocabulary - became an outspoken critic of the modern
movement. The exhibition at MOMA 1965 – was an attack on the
state of modern architecture. Vernacular architecture offered an
alternative to the condition of architecture: cultural homogenization
and monotony rising from an increasing degree of commercialisation
of the built environment. He was (according to Scott) much occupied
4
with the sensuality and richness of vernacular architecture. But also
with how it’s temporality and sometimes even movability was
relevant to the nomadic existence of modern man (just like the
situationalists): “the nomad represented an alternative strategy of
occupying territory” (Scott, p218)
Structrualism: Open form / open building / flexibility
Oskar Hansen
(Emphasised the interplay between society and indivduals in mass
production)
The Polish architect Oskar Hansen gave a presentation at the CIAM
Otterloo 1959 conference on open form: ”The open form in
architecture – the art of great number” (Den åpne form i arkitekturen
– det store antalls kunst”). Starting point – the problem of great
numbers.
1. ”In spaces which are defined by a great number of similar
forms and monotonous lines – which are impossible to
experience – we will feel lonely and abandoned”
2. ”Time is today an more important factor than ever before, and
we can no longer make use of fixed elements. Our creations
are obsolete (out dated) the moment they are created. (…)
They do not open up for the essential: Respect for the
individual and for the spontaneity of each one of them”
”Open form is characterised by an enlargement of subjective element
on the expense of the objective. The new system utilize the industrial
production system giving the specialists responsibility for the
objective elements (the closed, fixed form) while the subjective
elements are left to the users’ initiative. (…) Open form means
adapting space to human needs and movements” (Lund)
5
From the lecture by Oscar Hansen ”På sporet af den åbne forms
elementer” (‘On the track of the elements of open form’) (quoted and
translated from Lund, 2001:62-63)
Hansen had mainly 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 (the
functional margin)
3. That architecture was adapted to a specific way of life (formal
critique)
- It should be possible to add new forms without disturbing the
totality
Open form – still a living idea – and basis for the establishment of
Bergen School of Architecture, by Svein Hatløy
Ny? Lucien Kroll: La Mémé (1970-72) Student accommodation
Lueven outside Brussels
NJ Habraken: Supports (1961/1972): ‘Open building’
The Dutch architect and researcher NJ Habraken published early in
the 1960s the book ”Supports: an alternative to mass housing”. With
this he became a pioneer for a movement named ’open building’. It
has quite a lot in common with Oskar Hansen’s ‘open form’ but
focused more on the production system and not so much on user
influence and formal variation and spontaneity:
6
•
A building consists of several layers. Necessary to separate
between ”support” and ”infill”: Some should be fixed and
some changeable
•
User and residents should have influence on their home
environment
•
Acknowledging that production of houses involve several
actors and professions. Architects work in teams
•
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
•
Acknowledging that the built environment is continuously
changing – and the need to comprehend these changes
•
The built environment is a result of a continuous design
process in which the surroundings change step by step.
Habraken was (still is) a spokesman for a critical approach to
modernism which has been named ”structuralism”, where it was
important to include the human scale, open of for changes, regard
buildings more as living organisms etc. Flexibility and adaptability
became important issues.
Furthermore, Habraken was an advocate for involving users and
residents in the design process. He proposed to do this by
introducing a systematic division between elements decided by the
designers and mass produced commodities / products among which
the users could choose (Guttu, 2003:224)
Ideales: Changeability, variation and incompleteness – as a contrast
to the mass produced satellite towns which were perceived as too
static, authoritarian and alienating (fremmedgjørende) – without any
user influence.
Even within a system of mass production of housing, Habraken
believed that it could be possible to achieve an interplay between
7
house and resident: ”..the anonymous client can also use
architecture to develop a personal form of housing” (Bosma,
2000:65).
A grid system was used as a basis (both on building and area level)
– buildings were seen as a stage in a continuous development
process – where all parts in principle may grow.
Construction system: Seperation between permanent constructions
and changeable elements (furnishing, equipment, non bearing inner
walls etc) – open for individual variation within fixed frames, a certain
(limited) kind of user participation.
Structuralism also led to several examples of module-construction.
Slide: Habitat 67
By combining the modules in different ways, adding and subtracting it
opened up for individual variations. It aimed create a greater
accordance between the physical and the social structures.
Furthermore one tried to recreate a kind of a village quality with
repetetive elements and various combinations and groupings of the
modules in different kinds of rows and clusters.
Habitat 67 is a well known example. Built for the world exhibition in
1967. Made up by concrete modules in a manner that should create
vertical spatial diversity – with a density similar to a high rise building
– but with much more variation and individuality. Gives associations
to a kind of mountain village. Should provide privacy, fresh air, sun
and other suburban qualities in an urban situation. Planned to be
1000 units – but ended up with only 158. became too expensive and
technically complicated.
Slide: pueblos
8
Slides: Skjettenbyen
Norway: Hultberg & Seablom (1966-7) (adapted from Guttu,
2003:225):
 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
Preconditions (according to Guttu, 2003:226)
 Mass production
o Unknown users, the dwelling had to be adapted after
completion
 Without assumptions
o Within the modernist tradition, the architects start with
‘clean sheets’, they redefine the basic housing needs –
aiming to break with locked-in conceptions” (ibid)
 Trust in technology
o Provided possibilities for equality and creativity among
residents
 The strict physical structure – a condition for individual display
o Individual display should not get out of control – happen
within the restrictions of the totality
Slide 32: Critique of the flexibility idea
Slide 33: Herman Herzberger
9
Slide 35
Community and Privacy
Alexander & Chermayeff (1963)
In Community and Privacy Christopher Alexander and Serge
Chermayeff (1963) were spokesmen for the establishment of a clear
hierarchi of levels between the really public and the very private –
they criticized modernism for not taking seriously peoples’ need to
protect their privacy in an urban context:
”We are interested, principally, in establishing the integrity of those
places where the smaller human scales of immediate experience are
possible” (p.121)
Urban – Public: arealer som det offentlige / samfunnet eier i
fellesskap: Byrom, parker, veier osv
Urban – Semi – Public: Offentlig arealer men under kontroll og med
begrenset tilgjengelighet og åpningstid. F.eks bibliotek, skoler,
sykehus ++
Group – Public: Der hvor en boliggruppe møter offentligheten.
Postkasser, søppelhenting, diverse service, tilgang for brannbiler og
lignende
Group – Private: Sekundære arealer felles for flere husholdninger.
Inngang, trappeoppgang, felles gårdsrom / uteplass osv
Family – Private: Kontrollert av den enkelte husholdning:
Familieaktiviteter – måltider, underholdning, hygiene, vedlikehold
Individual – Private: En eget rom – stedet for individuell
tilbaketrekning
Slide: historical and vernacular examples of the same hierarchi
Show historical and vernacular examples where the transitions from
the public to the private is clearly and considerately articulated. One
move sequentially from the publicly accessible areas to continuously
more private.
10
This knowledge might have been lost in many contemporary urban
housing projects – characterised by high degree of transparency with glass walls which almost dissolve the difference between
private and public – indoor and outdoor. Or it might be that the ideas
of Alexander and Chermayeff – which came to have great influence
on much of the housing in the 70s – no longer have the same
validity.
Slides: Example, privacy and community
Siedlung Halen, Sveits (1962) Atelier 5. 81 units.
Dalen Hageby
Meek borettslag
1970-tallet: User participation
In the 60s open form was expressed through a constructive and
functional flexibility (structuralism), while in 70s the focus was more
on participation in the design and building process.
Slide 60: Cultural shift
Slide 61: From high-rise to low-rise
Slide 62: Direct user participation – instead of adaptation through
‘planned flexibility’. Real power and influence on own residential
situation
Involvement and democracy became important issues in the student
movement by at the end of the 1960s. In several cities, students and
artists occupied urban areas threatened by demolishing and fought
for the preservation and for their right to influence their own
environment – with simple means. This was a protest against the
alienation they regarded as a result of modern city planning. Fight for
self- determination, and for the freedom to choose how to live to
11
control ones own life. Protest against capitalists that made profit on
ordinary peoples housing needs etc.
Examples: Christiania i København. + Berlin. In Trondheim:
Bakklandet and later Svartlamon
Examples: Developments (architect led?) where future residents took
part in the planning and design process
Ralph Erskine: Byker Development (1969-81)
Wikipedia: Its Functionalist Romantic styling with textured, complex
facades, colourful brick, wood and plastic panels, attention to context and
relatively low-rise construction represented a major break with the Brutalist
high-rise architectural orthodoxy of the time.
Municipal Dreams in Housing, Newcastle: The principle of consultation
was fulfilled in two main ways – through a pilot scheme involving 46
households working with architects in the design of their future homes and,
more significantly, by shop-front offices in the middle of redevelopment to
which residents could drop in. (They did – in large numbers – though often
to raise concerns that the architects themselves were powerless to deal with.)
How real and effective this consultation process actually was is open to
question. One critical observer concluded that ‘the real power to decide
what should be done, and when, lay outside the community, in the Civic
Centre’.(2) Perhaps this was inevitable given the constraints of finance and
law and the politics of competing priorities.
A clearer-cut and more objective criticism lies in the failure to fulfil the first
object of the scheme – the preservation of the Byker community. A
population of 12,000 in 1968 was reduced to around 4400 in 1979. Of new
homes, only about half went to locals. Years of planning blight, long delays
in construction, a slow pace of demolition and the sheer disruption of
redevelopment had forced around 5000 households out of the area.
12
The build quality was poor and major refurbishment has been necessary.
This has been costly (the more so now given the estate’s listed status) and
ongoing.
Most significantly, the community has changed. This is not principally the
result of some malign social engineering in the scheme itself. Much more it
results from social and economic shifts that have damaged working-class
communities – and social housing in particular – across the country.
As traditional local industries – notably the shipbuilding staple of Tyneside
– declined in the 1980s, unemployment on the estate reached 30 per cent. It
remained three times the national average (at almost 12 per cent) in the early
2000s. Unsurprisingly, levels of deprivation and complaints of antisocial
behaviour rose accordingly.
So it’s a mixed picture. There is certainly much to celebrate in Byker – the
vision which inspired it, the daring and decency of its overall design, even a
continuing record of community involvement, flawed though it has been
The failings and shortfalls are undeniable too. Some of these may have
been avoidable but reflect an eternal reality of investment never quite
matching aspiration. Others seem to have resulted from intractable social
dynamics – though, in this case, we shouldn’t forget the political choices
which helped forge these apparent inevitabilities.
Selegrend 1, Bergen (1974)
(Tinggården 1, Vandkunsten (1978))
The naked city (Asger Jorn / Guy Debord)
Sosialistisk / systemkritisk innfallsvinkel: De som er mest direkte
berørt av planleggingen har verken makt eller midler (tools) til å
påvirke omgivelsene etter sine behov og ønsker. Et byområde er
13
geografisk-økonomisk enhet, men gir også et bilde av de som bor
der: ”psycho-geography”. ”The naked city”: 19 fragmenter av Paris
sin byplan (Jardin de luxemborg, Gare de lyon, les halles etc) klippet
ut og forbundet med røde piler. Resultatet av denne fragmenteringen
er det de kaller for et ”psycho-geographical” kart over byen som en
form for sosial kropp(sosialt fenomen?) med subjektive
følelsesmessige verdier og unike atmosfærer.
Både en kritikk av tradisjonell kartlegging av byens funksjoner og en
undersøkelse av sammenhengen mellom ulike urbane elementer –
ved å sette dem sammen på en ny måte.
C. Alexander (1977): ”Pattern language”
Alexander har en veldig rasjonell tilnærming til arkitektur og bygde
omgivelser, og inngår sånn sett tydelig i modernismens fagtradisjon.
Men han regnes også som en representant for strukturalismen.
Han foreslår et system av mønstre, en orden, som strukturerer
fysiske omgivelser på samme måte som vi finner det i naturen, i
levende strukturer. Og han er opptatt av prosesser: Han
sammenligner og finner inspirasjon i biologiske prosesser når han
beskriver kulturelle og sosiale prosesser som former menneskelige
omgivelser og bygninger.
Målet er å utvikle omgivelser der mennesker og menneskelig
målestokk er utgangspunktet, og som gir rom for menneskelige
behov og vekstmuligheter.
Pattern language – mønsterspråk - er basert på en hypotese om at
mennesker har en universell evne til å kommunisere gjennom
omgivelser som er parallell til deres kommunisere gjennom talespråk.
Et sett av mønstre blir til et mønsterspråk når et mønster leder videre
til nye mønster.
Han er blant annet kritisk til den måten boliger og omgivelser
produseres på (industrielt), som han mener motarbeider den levende
14
prosessen som er en forutsetning for å skape menneskelige
omgivelser. Også kritiske til den funksjonsdelte
Byen i en tekst som heter ”the city is not a tree” – argumenterer for at
den levende byen må ha en struktur som muliggjør overlappende
nettverk av funksjoner.
I ”pattern language” foreslår han en rekke mønstre for fysiske
omgivelser – helt fra bynivå og ned til det enkelte rom. Det er ikke
ment som et statisk system, hver kultur, hver kontekst skaper sine
mønstre og mønstrene må utvikles av menneskene som skal bruke
dem.
15