Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
I am Josep Maria Montaner,
I am a Doctor of Architecture and university professor of composition,
or architectural theory
of Barcelona's Architectural School
Universitat Politectnica de Catalunya (UPC),
and my intervention comes because I was the president of the jury
of the projects of architecture students
for a music school in the Stadtpark of Vienna.
The architect, the engineer, the landscaper
are transforming and creating spaces for the life of the society,
therefore, their maximum objective or intention
is to improve the quality of housing, of public space, of public equipment,
of the sanitary buildings, of the work places, etc.
That's why there is a tight relationship with society.
And the relationship with society also talks about
a relationship with politics,
with what society means as a conflictive place, a place of interests,
of tension, of different types os visions, and thus,
having a democratic society in a larger or lower extent,
in which the architect has a very responsible role.
He must act with the greater ethics or honesty.
In this sense, upon the many books I've written,
and some I'm preparing, as a next appearance,
there is a book from the Gustavo Gili editorial house,
that will come out in September if everything goes as planned,
written with Zaida Mux’ that is called "Architecture and Politics".
It is called "Proposals for Alternative Worlds"
in which we develop the history of this relationship of architecture with society and politics,
as well as which are the characteristics that would define the contemporary society,
the global society: its conflicts, its alternatives,
and also which have been the best alternative examples that have been raised.
How can the architectural and urban project be measured
in relation to the complex contemporary society.
In this sense, even if it is an obvious idea,
it is remarkable how the complexity of the process has accelerated,
and how it has been deepened in the last few decades.
Masters from Le Corbusier to Coderch, for example,
projected practically equal as Palladio or Viollet le Duc
Only few schemes were made, everything was manual.
In 30-40 years, however, the process of architecture has changed completely,
not only with the use of computers,
but in function of the enormous complexity of the architectonical project:
of the requirements, of the blueprints,
of the technical conditions, of the hygiene standards, etc,
of everything a project has to fulfill.
Even a minor project, not even a project of great complexity.
Relationship with society also plays a role here,
how does the project take into account the place where it takes part,
the social memory, the patrimony, and above all,
the people who are going to use it.
Sometimes it is possible to register, map,
interview, know, the people who are going to use a public place,
housing, a public building,
but sometimes it is very difficult.
One must do a certain supposition of who is going to be the user .
In any case, the good projects are those that are architectonical systems,
that are situated adequately in their context, that improve it,
that contribute qualities nourished
from the qualities the context already has, but enhance them.
In the architectonical process this very important.
Off course, there is not only one way, one process, there are a lot.
In this sense we can say that the processes
of project and creation along history don't disappear, they accumulate.
Certainly, the more adequate ones are the ones who accept in a better way the complexity,
the transformation, the evolution, that is what our society requires,
but that doesn't mean that classical criteria of functionality,
beauty or economy, etc, aren't completely present.
In relation to this, it is true that nowadays we don't have great theories,
maybe the moment of great theories, or great critical projects were the 60s or 70s.
Today we have a more disperse situation,
but it is true that there are a lot of resources, more than ever.
Possibly the complexity has increased,
in general society and the process of the architectonical project,
but also the tools have increased.
We have a lot of tools, more every day.
We must use them: methodological, of computer,
of calculus, of surveys, of mapping, etcÉ
of team work, of multidisciplinary work.
We have to use them well.
In this sense we have resources of the 50s and 60s,
like the cluster or Mc building, different types of shapes,
as well as classical resources of the 70s like typology.
Even more contemporary resources like pleats, fractals,
more complex geometry shapes, or one of the theories,
of the tools that we have seen more recurrent in the las two decades
in the architectural theory that are the diagrams.
There is not one solution.
Not the most realistically positions,
or the more minimalistic ones,
nor the organic ones,
or the ones using diagrams, or typologies, or fractal geometries.
It depends more on the scale, the location, the project,
and depends, above all, of the relationship,
of the capacity of evolution that the project can enter
into the maximum possible data information, or processes,
and as richer as the project process gets, the better the result.
This is, maybe, a characteristic difficult to assume because,
mostly in universities or society itself tend to ask for formulas,
recipes, solutions, guaranties of success.
This assessment of history, for me, is useful until the decade of the 60s-70s.
Afterwards, from the society of consumption,
from the 60s-70s to the present time,
it is more difficult to assess what it is that's going to remain.
For example: of the architecture of the global society,
for the global class, the shopping malls,
the headquarters of the big companies, of the closed neighborhoods,
from all of this I have a difficulty projecting
that it is going to be valued in the future
because there is an evolution in history that has a common sense of knowledge,
of growth, of accumulation of knowledge, but this tendency,
for various reasons, declinesÉ
it is difficult to tell when, but we can say it declines
with the consumption society and this decline,
this loss of qualities is consolidated with the global society,
with the architectural 'stars',
with the squandering with operations that have nothing to do with the context.
We're entering new times in which is clear that
the technologies of information and communication, the ecological problems,
the objective of sustainability,
of the fact of making a more human architecture and urbanism,
more related to the context, to society,
are going to be essential premises.
Again, however, this is not a guarantee.
A sustainable architecture, a sustainable organism is not going in only one direction.
There are several manners of interpretation:
from the social point of view, of the energy saving, of the contextÉ
So, I think that there are certain coordinates that will mark what the future might be.
The case we're talking about was, I think,
an interesting proposal, a bold proposal,
because it was to propose a music school in a park,
a very representative park in the memory of the city of Vienna,
therefore this demanded a special type of sensitivity because of the location,
because of the context, for the vegetation, for the memory, for the topography.
But I think that there were pieces, from my point of view
in the proposal that was right, that from my point of view gave the hint:
the idea of a pavilion in the park.
A pavilion can be understood in many ways,
but it was understood that it didn't have to be a potent building,
a great container, a mass situated on the park, because it would be a distortion,
but it had to be a pavilion, what a pavilion in the park means:
historically the pavilion is related to the park,
a pavilion of a picturesque park, a music pavilion.
I think that the proposal is well thought,
this idea of pavilion that means something that is lighter,
symbiotic with the context, that could almost dilute within the park.
The process we followed was to establish certain attitudes,
certain positions, and from my point of view,
the result expresses the positions given, at least the more qualified ones.
There were other ways of situating, that were also amongst the finalist's work:
marking a certain perimeter, etc, situating as a certain type of pavilion,
that was interesting, this measure of location towards the limit as a pavilion,
of which there were several proposals.
I say they were very accurate.
Two positions were chosen that were more radical
as to how to situate in this particular context,
with a program of how it was: a music school.
I think both of them are good.
Logically I preferred the idea of pavilion in the park, consequently the solution:
this solution of diluting the building in various platforms
and that the music school and the music classrooms would turn
into elements of the park itself,
it is an idea I sympathize more with.
I think it is more bold as an architectural shape point of view.
There is an objection, nevertheless.
It is a type of proposal that because of its strategy, is more generic.
It is a type of strategy that could be used in any park.
It could be used in any environment of the sort, with small variations.
The other solution, that is more urban, more objectual,
it was between the typologies of the limit.
There were ones with a more arm-like shapes, of a plaza, etc,
but there were ones that were very urban.
The building was set in the limit, with a certain urban power:
in the corner, right next to the bridge, with front to the avenue.
Taking away from the park that that could be more urban. This was the other position.
There were a lot of projects in this line.
It is well that one of the winners was the one who better resolved this corner of the park,
to turn the park into a corner as an extraordinary occasion in an urban element.
I think that the result is adequate,
I think that it explains very well the diversity of positions.
There were other adequate ones that had the shape of the bridge, of wall,
that could also be interesting, but the emphasis was set in this two.