Politics and architecture...?

Arkitekturby København - Københavns Kommunes Arkitekturpolitik 2009 Copenhagen City of architecture - Copenhagen Municipality architecture politic 2009

Debat organised by DAC and cphX
Speakers Bo Asmus Kjeldgaard, Teknik- og Miljøforvaltning borgmester, Ulrik Winge from Center for Bydesign, Ulla Tofte from Golden Days, Martin Keiding, chief redactor at Arkitektur DK, Simon Harboe from Hovedstadens forskønnelse and Rasmus Rune from 2+1 idébureau.

illustration - source : Publication Arkitekturby København, Center for Bydesign, Teknik- og Miljøforvaltning, 2009

In December 2009 was published the new architecture politic for the city of Copenhagen. It is the result of a long research and work process but still the politicians and people in charge from the Technical and Environmental Group are eager to hear what people have to say about it and what could be pointed out as aspect to work on for the future.

Bo Asmus Kjeldgaard and Ulrik Winge started by presenting the general aspects of the architecture politic. In the General Plan from 1954 was stated that the development of Copenhagen was coming to its end: no more will, no more could, no more should be done or built. This has proved to be a mistake. In 2001, the first architecture politic was a reaction to a city in need of attracting citizens and inhabitants in order to develop itself. Now the city is under such a development that it is necessary to evaluate the needs and lifestyle of those inhabitants in order to keep the good and work on the bad spaces.

Another point is that Copenhagen aims to become a CO2 neutral city, the first CO2 neutral capital in the world, by 2025. Ambitious plan! But to achieve sustainability in such a way and time needs a support and guidelines which should be provided by this architectrue politic. But Bo Asmus estimates that Copenhagen wouldn't find to much of an issue in the sustainable part.

On the contrary the health and care are subjects for complaining. Therefore the architecture politic is reflecting a lot on the city's rooms, supporting thereby the city for the people living in it and working on the human scale. This point is somehow related to Jan Gehl's work and Bo Asmus uses the architect's latest publication (By for mennesker - City for people) in order to define this aspect: 1. sustainable behaviour, 2. accessibility, 3. safety and 4. mixity and diversity.

Finally Bo Asmus expresses the desire to talk about more than city and architecture, but also about qualities. Those are the conditions sine qua non for good urban life.

Ulrik Winge then reminded us the frame that is established with the architectural politic. Because it is a frame, giving guidelines and purposes for the design of the city space. It should be a tool for communication between parties. It sets objectives for four aspects:

1. the IDENTITY or speciality of Copenhagen : what is special about the city? What is to be kept or to be developped?
2. the ARCHITECTURE of Copenhagen : in order to become the world's environmental metropole in 2025, the architecture of the city should enhance environmental-friendly using behaviour, diversity and identification of the people to their city and city part and it should work on every scale and level.
3. the URBAN SPACE in Copenhagen : by setting focus on the city life, then the spaces and finally the buildings (and not the other way around) the city should be more behaviour inviting -not forcing- and a new expectation set on the clever examination of borders -from public to private for instance.
4. the PROCESSES : it is important to know how to get to the results and to inlighten the projects and demands from every side and with help of every concerned discipline.

The four following speakers were invited in order to boost and spice up the debat. Ulla Tofte underlined that Copenhagen was made first of all of Københavner, the inhabitants : they are the core of the city and should be given more opportunities and tools in order to get involved into the city's shaping. If the city should be for its people then it should be made by the people, just as history shows it in great projects such as Brumleby, Kartoffelrækkerne, Christiania or other projects brought onto the municipality by the citizens!

Martin Keiding expressed his perception of Copenhagen's identity being the light vs the tranquil darkness -or tusmørke- and the background architecture. This last part is represented by the typical carré typology of red bricks and big windows or by old warehouse or factory buildings, being a heritage to accept and integrate in the contemporary city.

Simon Harboe was worried about an architecture politic planned for a recreative city, a city for young students, sports and outdoor people, creative freaks and mothers on "maternity vacation", drinking café latte and sitting on benches in the parks. Where is the everyday man, the businessman, the hard working citizen, the tired person doing the grossary before getting home, the traffic jam, the road work and so? And also, are we going to do any statement or correction on Ørestad?

Rasmus Rune was worried about an architecture politic where the word multidisciplinarity doesn't appear in the process thinking, even though the plan shows to be quite multidisciplinary. He insists on the fact that good architecture needs more than good architects today. The city space is so complexe nowadays that other disciplines have to be integrated in the thinking and conceiving processes, as well as the citizens. In order to allow innovation, the citizens need to be concerned with the project from the very beginning of it. That need a clearer paragraph in the architecture politic.

Afterwards, the debat took place between speakers and the public. Several questions were brought on about Ørestad. Is it a flop or not? Where are the faults? What can we learn from them?

Another point was the difference between plan and reality when it comes to life, diversity and economical accessibility in a new city part. Even if visions and objectives can be established, how is the municipality or the politicians to control it? There is an economic reality of standing and market that results in a waterfront occupied by the most well-off citizens. The same situation happens in many renovated city parts: the gentrification spreads. Nothing can be done unless enhancing the opportunity for commercial activities and social diversity -by heights and sizes legislated by local plans.

Questions about connections were arised also. What about biking bridges and connexions obstructing the houseboat traffic and security ? What about connections of the new city parts such as Sluseholmen -which still is waiting for a bridge to link it effectively to the city center? What about social network in terms of schools and institutions for disabled or others, that would support diversity in a neighbourhood and traffic exchanges between neighbourhoods?

And the funny questions: how much responsability should be given to citizens -Københavnerne- who are known to be complaining about anything? Wouldn't it slow down some processes -even though their veto has saved the city from some questionable projects, such as the high houses at Krøyers Plads or the Foster skyskraper close by Tivoli?

Finally as conclusion, it was said that Copenhagen could be proud of such an initiative: not many cities actually know and express what they want and where they are moving to, in terms of architecture and urban spaces. Many could really use an architectural politic! Stockholm has been on visit to Copenhagen in order to study the backstage of the architecture politic initiative and the forces behing CopenhagenX initiative. They would like to start such ones too in their homeland. Also I would hope Brussels could have a look to and maybe somehow unite around such an initiative...

That's all for now, folks!

See also the report and comments on http://www.cphx.dk/#/428550/

Showing people on the architecture photographies, or not ?

Arkitekturfotografiets fremtid - The future of architecture photography
an investigation and debat on its past, present and future
Opening to the exhibition A second Opinion at DAC
in collaboration with cphX and Copenhagen photo festival
Read more about speakers on cphx.dk

Well of course, the subject is deeper, more complexe and has passed that superficial question long ago. Nevertherless the debat is about life and use of our architectural creations expressed by a media -more or less artistical, creative or profit and publicity minded- and finally published. The circle is closed: expressing and showing life for the everyday users of the building.

What defines life and what defines if the building functions? The aesthetics of it, the use and deterioration of it, the energical or economical audit, the resemblance to a 3D image made before any permit was given, the expression of some tortured architect mind looking for a meaning in his profession...The opinion might change radically depending on who is asked! But the building is part of an urban space, part of the citizens' everyday life, so it HAS to bring an extra value somehow. This condition usually is considered fulfilled if the building or site "lives".
Here comes next quetsion...

How to show life in architecture and urban spaces? How to communicate it? By the play of shadow and light on the materials, by waiting for rush hour to take your pictures, by setting every detail and controlling every appearing object and subject of the pictures (refering to the American photographer Cruz), by suggesting some forms and contrasts in a blurry picture (refering to Japanese photographer), by showing the mess in an appartment or by showing its pristine design with a design chair in the corner. Should architecture be exposed as a product or as an other element of the photography? Should the photographer's work be like a promoter branding and selling this product or an eye aknowledging art and harmony behind facts? Can he be both? Should he be a cameleon to his client's desideratas (being the architect or the magazine editor)?

The presentations and debat brought us to a consideration: everyone wants something new and would like to reveal its work differently. The architect looks for a critical eye enabling him to evoluate in his own field. The photographer has to be that eye and has soemthing to say in a certain way defined by his vision or opinion. The editor would like to report both visions in order to give the reader and citizen an objective base for its understanding and opinion-making of what is happening in his city. But that means someone has to take responsibility for his work: the architect by accepting critic, the photographer by standing up to his vision and the editor by investing in the right material and photographs.

Here comes the tricky part: "it's his fault that I am unable to do so". The architect needs to get clients, thus to sell and show how good he is with plastics, aesthetics and form making. He also needs to reassure himself and his ego on what ge is doing. The photographer needs clients so he does what he is asked and delivers images that aren't always arcording to his view. The editor needs to run his business too: he needs money if he should hire the photographers and is a bit short so he just asks the architect to give him some nice pictures and that's it. The reader says "Wow!" or "What?"...

In the end, I think it is up to all parts to challenge himself with his own discipline in order to show the public that architecture is an art of plasticity but also a social art, an art enhancing or preventing life, an art of high technical apsects, to show the public that photographers aren't just observers but have a history to tell about that same architecture and its urban context (well natural context also but here we were talking much about Copenhagen), to show the public that editors aren't just on the architects side, all together in an hermetic sect, but revealing architectural facts as a good reporter would do.
Good examples of collaboration between architects, photographers and editors has been seen in France and Switzerland with the firms Lacaton Vassal and Herzog & de Meuron.

That was also the conclusion of the debat and the opening to the exhibition...Enjoy it!

Learning from Amsterdam 2

Kasper Egeberg about Eva de Klerk and the event Learning from Amsterdam

http://www.cphx.dk/#/403300/

Design and architecture at Pakhus48

Forårsevent - Designzone Pakhus48
Invited speakers Ole Gustavsen and Alfredo Häberli

Pakhus48 is situated in Frihavnen, in the north harbour of Copenhagen. It lies in a rough industrial-looking context with immediate views on the waters of Øresundet. Pakhus48 shelters design firms such as Montana, Luce Plan, Fritz Hansen, Kvadrat, Jørgensen, Vola. They stand for some of the finest interior designs and solutions and have been collaborating with great names from the designer world in order to produce and promote esthetic lines and functional products.The Spring Event I attended yesterday was as fine and glamourous as the products exposed there. But most of all, I had the chance to assist presentations by Ole Gustavsen, architect from Snöhetta and Alfredo Häberli, Swiss designer. They represent different scales of the design world but with the same attention for use, clear logic and high quality.

Ole showed us some of the architecture projects Snöhetta did/is doing in the Muslim world. It was amazingly interesting : the excitment but also the challenge it must be to produce a shelter for a community, citizens of a culture where heat and shade, climate, religion, topography, traditions and habits are so different from what we are used to in Europe. By the way, it seems that Scandinavian architects are quite often acting in the southern architectural world and are quite good at it - often those buildings are landmarks to the country and references to the architectural world. Take for instance, Jørn Utzon's National assembly in Kowait city, Henning Larsen's work in Saudi Arabia, Snöhetta's library of Alexandria.

Huge projects. Huge work. Impressive presentation skills. I would give anything to get into that team...

Alfredo started by expressing that he felt as a student to present his work after those projects of several hundred thousands square meters. He showed us his work and inspirations in a very humble and humoristic way. Humor, th key to great design? Well, as long as the final product shows line cleverness, material sensibility, quality awareness and good understanding of the use we make of our environment. That is at least what Alfredo reveals. Fascinating and great.

The rest of the evening was just agreable: beautiful lines, forms, colours, simple and clean solutions...A joy to the eye and the hand. The whole thing in wonderful warehouse settings. In some way it had the same atmosphere as NDS in Amsterdam - the difference is that here we are exhibiting the production of artistic and creative disciplines.

Overlooking the visual or the paradigm of designers

Overlooking the visual - Demystifying the art of design
a book from Kathryn Moore, professor at the Birgmingham Institute of Art and Design

Jakob Kamp (head of Danish Landscape architects association and co-founder of 1:1 landskab) introduced Kathryn's conference and book as the expression of the link between teaching, theory and practice in landscape architecture. But furthermore, Kathryn's book concerns anyone working with design process and creative disciplines.

It is about expressing in words what people from the profession use to express with drawings and to develop by sketching. With those words Jakob expressed the hope of a better understanding of what we are doing as designers and also, and mainly, the hope of getting people "out there" to understand "our role in the society".

This first statement is quite interesting regarding the split of understanding growing between architects - or designers to use the general noun Kathryn uses - and the users of our productions. It seems that since the modernism designers have been acting in the name of a better world or living qualities, in the name of users that did not understand them and that probably they did not understand neither. Pathetic, isn't it? Especially after the speach of Eva De Klerk (cf. comment on her conference on the 04.05.10 at DAC) that got that far as claiming that users don't actually need all the fancy drawing and designs architects and planners want to make...

But getting back on todays matter, Kathryn develops: this book and the questions it arises are of a philosophical matter: philosophical questions regarding all kinds of design and investigating the meaning of design. In order to do so, she looks into the understanding of design and designers.

The first gap appears between scientific disciplines, accurate, rational, where thinking and decision making requires a certain knowledge. On the contrary, the designer or artist moves in a much less accurate field of expertise, more visual, where answers are found by doing, doing and re-doing, sketching, building, tearing down and building again. Because of that process, it appears to be a field where feelings matters more, if not most, no prerequisits are expected in order to do qualified work, no knowledge to appreciate it. Here is the first lack of understanding or even misunderstanding which awakes a lot of questionning on the scientific side concerning the justification of the designer's work, the time and money spent on it and on the teaching of such a profession.

She carries on with particuliar attention to some keys or elements which can help the understanding process. These seem to come from within, from the designers themselves who should express and define their profession. Kathryn talks about the quality of design and of experiences in a designed space, the focus reset on ideas and design through writting, the use and importance of materiality, how perception and language will help us in defining our field of expertise. All those elements should contribute to create an awarness about the visual and spatial aspects of our profession and how we use them in our processes and projects.

The topic is most interesting and probably touches one of the most historical weakness of the creative discipline. I would be curious to read more about it and find out how far she goes or how close she gets to an answer...

Food for thought.

foto - source: www.arch.virginia.edu

Learning from Amsterdam

Learning from Amsterdam - a debat on creative city development
Speaker Eva De Klerk, project booster

Eva explained the main aspects of her experience in the Development of NDSM as a cultural and artistic cluster, a starting point for the redevelopment of the old -and historical - industrial harbour site, north of the Ij.

A kind of trend existed already among artists and people, in need of a production space for their craft, to squat old warehouses, silos etc. From 1993 and on, the city of Amsterdam had a vision about redevelopping the waterfront. The old buildings were torn down and new fancy areas with high-tech buildings and upper class housings popped/pops up. This leads to a time of reflexion on how to (re)develop a city and renovate it. Opposition movements take action against the loss of great infrastructures, which are both images of a past history, identity to some people/users and good basis for functional renewal.

Eva De Klerk refers to the manifest De stad als casco = "The city as framework"

In that context, NDSM is the aiming place of several artists gathered under the name of Kinetisch Noord, for whom Eva stands as head representant. She explained all the ideas and principles they went trough when entering the competition for a 5 years occupation of the site - which turned out to a 10 years after a feasability plan.

Mainly it is about investing the users money and interests into the city and the project so that the return is more direct, the commitment and responsability are stronger, initiatives are facilitated. Thereby the project is "doable" with less means - cheaper for the state - and sustainable - based on an existing infrastructure. The lot is managed and organised by the collectivity, by the users, for the users. The city part is (re)built from what they have with their own means and money.

This method is not a planned one. It is the hard way of bottom-up, activated by the existence of a need and users willing to do something to answer their need. No fancy drawings or planning as the well known method top-down, used by planners and developpers.

Very inspiring conference...is all I have to add.

foto - source: www.cphx.dk