The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) will open a new national architecture centre, RIBA North, in Liverpool this August. The centre will house an exhibition gallery, a conference and event space, a cafe and a shop, and aims to build upon the Waterfront location’s status as a lively cultural destination.
The centre is sited within the newly redeveloped Mann Island, for which Broadway Malyan won a RIBA North West award in 2015. The prominent waterfront site sits in close proximity to the Three Graces, the New Museum of Liverpool, Liverpool One and the attractions of Albert Dock, and is consequently already the recipient of high foot traffic and public interest. The centre aims to “offer perspectives on the built environment to architecture and design enthusiasts, families, students and professionals.”
At the core of the new centre is an exhibition gallery that will host historic RIBA collections, “telling hundreds of years of the UK’s extraordinary architectural history.” The collections boast the most extensive archive of architectural drawings, prints and photographs in the UK. Talks and tours will also be hosted within the centre, and a conference and event space will offer meeting points for members in the region.
The opening exhibition highlights the reasoning behind RIBA’s choice of Liverpool as the host for the new centre. Entitled ‘Liverpool(e): Mover, Shaker, Architecture Risk Taker,’ the exhibition will celebrate Liverpool’s “long, often maverick, history of architectural ambition, its willingness to take risks and be open to transformation.” The exhibition will also show unbuilt proposals for the city, featuring extensive multimedia from the RIBA Collections, some of which has been previously unseen by the public.
Nook Residence is a private home located in Mansonville, Canada. Completed in 2015, it was designed by MU Architecture. Nook Residence by MU Architecture: “Located in a quiet area of the Eastern Townships in Quebec, the Nook Residence sits in continuity with the landscape in which it is part. Turning its back to the street, it offers a virtually blind facade that encourages discovery and piques curiosity. Strategically located openings..
From the architect. Bridge was a temporary site-specific installation, being part of the Playground Kanal city festival. This festival focuses on the canal zone in Brussels and tries through a series of activities to transform this border line, both socially and spatially, into a binding element. The organisation initially invited Gijs Van Vaerenbergh for the design of a scenography for the festival talking place at the B-post building, situated on the axis of the North railway station and the site of Tour & Taxis. However, they proposed the construction a temporary pedestrian bridge, physically embodying the ambitions of the festival, namely creating a connection between both sides of the canal. This intervention took place on the exact same location where for many years procedures have been running to construct a permanent bridge, but without results because of the complexity of the administrative and political context.
The temporary bridge of Gijs Van Vaerenbergh can be put in relation to earlier projects, experimenting with the unconventional use of building cranes. For ‘Bridge’ the artist duo stripes the typical cranes of their functional usage and place them horizontal over the canal. A connection is made between the North station and Picard Street, and between the festival centre and other lively spots in the city. Right on the epicentre in-between the city of Brussels and its harbour.
Montréal’s CCA (Canadian Centre for Architecture), the international museum and research center which was founded by Phyllis Lambert in 1979 and is currently directed by Mirko Zardini, has launched a new iteration of its website. The organisation’s new online presence has been conceived as an active editorial project which aims for more than dissemination of information alone; rather, it will take positions and—being organised around several themes such as “The Planet is the Client,” “Origins of the Digital” and “Technology Sometimes Falls Short”—will reflect the CCA’s ongoing research interests.
This interview with Zardini has been conducted by Steffen Boddeker (currently Director of Communications at Columbia University Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation – GSAPP), who has worked with the CCA as a communications and online consultant overseeing its web presence since 2006.
MZ: In the contemporary situation it is very clear that all institutions—universities, museums, libraries—have to be rethought – not only in relation to their geographic context, as it has happened until now, but on a much larger international scale. Libraries are going in this direction and some of them are developing very interesting strategies to provide content at a worldwide scale. An institution like CCA also needs to go in this direction: whatever we do is a way to produce a new discourse, new content, new material for a larger discussion.
For us, an exhibition is never an objective in itself, a publication is never an objective in itself. Then what is our objective? To build a new discourse. We are facing a situation that is very similar to the one of the first decades in the twentieth century, when modern architecture interpreted the problems of that moment and suggested different ways to look at the urban conditions, the architecture, the housing. Architects addressed the issues raised by the new industrial society in a different way, and there was a revolution of values and attitudes.
Today we are facing a similar moment of changing values, different ways of working, social transformation, and environmental problems, and we have to build a new platform for architecture in order to address these challenges. Our objective as an institution is to build this discourse and, of course, we use traditional tools including the exhibition, publication, building the collection to reflect these interests, and developing certain researches. But considering the new technological transformation we are facing, there is the opportunity to also develop the discourse in another place, which is the “Second Building.”
SB:Museums expansions and additions are ubiquitous, but you have no desire to expand the CCA’s physical footprint in Montreal. Instead, when you speak of adding a second building, it is an expansion in the digital realm. How do the two interact?
The second building is an announcement of what we do and the possibility to develop this conversation in a much larger network than the one defined by the institution’s geographic location in Montréal, Canada. It is an extension of a publication strategy, but clearly it also offers the possibility of a larger conversation in the future. This point was made by museum directors Sir Nicholas Serota (Tate) and Neil MacGregor (at the time, the British Museum) in a conversation some years ago, in which they suggested a broadcasting role for institutions, considering the museum as publisher. I think that this is very true, but I feel that what is needed is not simply broadcasting: it is a question of building a different kind of digital space.
We are building this second building for the CCA, and I have to stress that it is a matter of constructing a building that is different from the first. This process will provide an internal conflict, a friction because one of the risks of the institution is to stabilize itself around a permanent idea. And the constant friction between the online and the physical will inevitably allow things to go on. Clearly they have a lot of things in common, but they are different. The physical CCA is a kind of laboratory or factory or small industry where we produce certain things. The e-publications we developed, the website, the social media presence are all elements of this second building that is under construction at CCA.
You mentioned that the audience for this second building is of course worldwide. What about the characteristics of this audience – who are you targeting with the discourse it will generate?
We are an architectural institution, so our international audience is mainly related to the field of architecture and is looking to us for an architectural discourse. And when I say architecture, I include urban design, planning, cities, photography, landscape architecture, geography – everything that relates in some way to the idea of the physical environment. And in our research we are also stressing multi-disciplinary approaches to that. We are trying to develop research that takes advantage of this type of second building, so that a researcher has the possibility of working with us online and we can develop relationships with curators to build a network that is both physical and active in the second building. So the digital becomes not only a broadcasting or publishing platform, but also a way of producing content through the geographically dispersed network of people collaborating with CCA.
Let’s speak more specifically about the publishing aspect, the actual content. What are the CCA’s thematic interests and how do you want to shape the discourse you described?
During my ten years at CCA we have explored some issues that we consider to be at the base of a new platform for architecture, and we tried to do this in a critical way. Today there is a general tendency to support new causes, but the problem is that an architecture of good intention may be okay – but it is not enough. If we look at new problems in the same way, with the same tools and the same cultural frame that we have been using in the last 50 years, we will not be able to produce interesting solutions. It is like the famous eyes of Le Corbusier – architects have to look at these problems in a different way. It is necessary to transform the architectural thinking and practice because tools are not neutral. If we we address certain important issues with the same old tools, we will probably not find an interesting solution. We have to rethink the way we frame problems, but also anticipate emerging problems and use different tools to approach them.
All the research components of the CCA have been driven in this direction. To make a big political statement is important, and the CCA has a very clear position. As an institution today we have an ethical responsibility in respect to the problems we are facing, and the institution has to take certain political positions: in favor of some things, and not in favor of others. One cannot be neutral in a discussion about social injustice, one cannot be neutral in terms of environmental consumptions – one cannot be neutral in respect to a lot of things. Such statements then have to be followed by a cultural revolution in the architectural way of looking at problems: to develop new tools, new attitudes, and new kinds of research. That was the reason behind our recent exhibition, The Other Architect. We believe that this need is not new, and architects of the 1950s, ‘60s, and ‘70s were able to produce new tools that allowed them to look at the problems of their time in different ways. So in a certain way the CCA is trying to frame contemporary problems in a different way, to have a critical attitude about how architects work, and to show the inherent contradictions. Do we have the solution? No. But we think the only way to try to find solutions is by building a new kind of platform.
It seems to me that one of the major distinctions between CCA and other institutions is that the website isn’t just informing online visitors about what’s happening at the building, but is based on ideas – the website is a thing in itself. There is of course a lot of overlap with some of the research and activity happening inside the CCA, which also results in exhibitions or books or programs, but some of these ideas and initiatives materialize on the website independently of the other physical outputs.
Yes, the website is a way for us to present some of these critical issues we want to see discussed, to be shared, to be confronted, and to be enriched by different contributions. These topics could be related to environmental issues or health, the prevalence of the visual in our cultural experience of the physical environment, the idea of planning and participation, the role of technology in our society and its limits, and the power of tools. The website is a place where some of these reflections and discussions will appear. Our new website is organized in three parts, and the primary one—which we consider a publication platform—is where we present these kinds of reflections and hope that it will generate a larger dialogue. The traditional component of communication of the institution is more controlled and limited on the site – it is addressed by an easily referenced service component and includes a timeline we consider to be a kind of institutional archive where the story of the CCA is told through the things that the institution has done. The third part is a powerful search tool designed not only for the collection, but to also access all the activities of the CCA – to allow people not only to reference the collection and archives of prints and drawings, photography, book, ephemera, but to also discover all of the activities of CCA: exhibitions, publications, conferences, seminars, whatever.
For me, these are the two things that are the most radical about the project: first, that the primary face is an editorial project that represents the institution through ideas, not by information or facts. And second, the approach to the search – which we’ve worked on for many years now, it is a very complex thing. I haven’t seen it realized in other institutions to this degree, where the entire collection and library holdings, plus bookstore items, plus website content are simultaneously queried in one interface. That the results show up together was something we already achieved in the previous iteration, but they were still segregated by type with different advanced functions found in unrelated interfaces. Now we are able to actually mix them and apply filters across the entire set of results from different types of source databases.
Yes, for example the publication component contains materials and contributions from the CCA research, collection or activities alongside contributions from our external network. And you can also discover all of this content in the search, where it is displayed among all the other results. We will add other functionalities as the web continues to evolve in the next years to accommodate different needs and make this even more user-oriented to support both focused research and discovery, and we will also offer the chance to build a personal selection supporting individual research and curatorial projects.
Perhaps we can touch on this idea of “the other” you mentioned earlier in relation to the exhibition, and how this approach allows you to shape the CCA?
At the very end, we always have a problem explaining what the CCA is: it is not really an archive, even if we have archives; it is not really a museum, even if we have components of a museum; it is not really a research center, even if we do a lot of research and are working with a growing network of researchers coming to CCA. So in reality, CCA is a project for a kind of “other” – for another institution. We don’t know exactly in which way we will define this, but we believe that most institutions of today are still operating on nineteenth or twentieth century ideas. And when I speak of institutions I include universities, libraries, and museums. It is now necessary to reinvent this outdated basis, and not only in technical terms – but also in organizational terms. To reinvent the institution’s mission and mandate, its purpose and understanding of the world, and the communities these institutions are serving.
The technological transformations we are facing and the constantly evolving new tools we have are interesting things. The problem I see is that very often these new possibilities are incorporated and used by institutions to re-establish an idea of the institution that already existed: the 20th-century idea of the museum or of the university. I think that The Open University in Great Britain during the 1960s was much more revolutionary than most institutions today, despite the new possibilities offered by social media, online presence, and so on. These new opportunities are used mainly to attract more visitors (when speaking of museums). For the museums they are communication tools to get more people to visit the museum or to have more people look at the collection online. Some institutions are starting to put more and more content online, but I still think it is necessary to radically rethink what the institution is, and to acknowledge that it is crucial to provide critical thinking and research material online if these institutions want to not only reinforce their role, but actually take responsibility for what the current situation demands. This is an intellectual and ethical responsibility that institutions have in respect to our contemporary situation. I am concerned by how often technology is used to serve an old purpose instead of being applied to dismantle the existing institution and rebuild it anew. That is what we are trying to do at CCA.
This conversation took place in New York City on Monday, 9 May 2016.
E Planners: Götz Elektro AG, Altmannsteinstrasse 39, 8181 Höri
Living Area Apartment 1 (Ug + Ec): 148 m2
Living Area Apartment 2 (Og): 127 m2
Living Area Apartment 3 (Dg + Gallery): 140 m2
Study
Site Plan
The medieval township of Regensberg represents a place of unparalleled quality with its unique location, history and urban clarity.
The historic town center consists of the rounded “Oberburg” with the town’s castle dating back to the foundation of the town in 1244 and the adjacent “Unterburg”. With its unique location on the eastern foothills of the Jura Mountains, Regensberg enjoys spectacular views over the surrounding Zurich Under lands up to the Alpines.
House Ledenmann, a two-storey half-timbered building located on the south slope of Unterberg is one of many historical jewels found in Regensberg. The poor state of the house, due to various structural damages and numerous improper repairs, a simple renovation of the house was no longer possible. In close cooperation with the municipality and the townscape protection committee, the final decision was to partially demolish and rebuild the house in its original volume. Two frontal half-timbered facades and a vaulted cellar have been preserved due to their presence on the preservation list. Finally three sculptural, modern multi-family houses were constructed behind the historical face of the building.
The unique volumetric of the three apartments was created between the distinctive facades. The north facade with filigree truss and muntin window, facing the town, is a valuable component of the historic township. The generous south side with an additional floor due to the slope provides a breathtaking view over the Swiss landscape. The contrast between the opposite facades made it possible to develop a dynamic interplay of proportion, light and materiality.
Small, wooden paneled chambers donate a peaceful and safe atmosphere, creating a strong link to the history of the area. Encircling the chambers are large white spaces inviting in the mesmerizing panorama through generous openings. Altering levels and ceiling heights turns the perspective of the rooms into a three-dimensional journey with ever-changing views and light situations.
In the façade, the contrast between new and old is clearly demonstrated. The new façade consisting out of grey spruce wood wraps itself around the new build incorporating the preserved façade and reshaping the original volume. A light guiding fireplace in the attic, a cantilevered bay window and sliding doors incorporate vernacular elements and restructure the outer skin. The semi-transparent wooden sheeting are covered in irregular ornaments, as it still prevails in the rural construction culture. The new façade dissolves into a delicate envelope, providing the exterior and interior with playful collaboration between light and shadows.
Abitazione RM is a private residence located in Gubbio, Italy. It was designed by MENICHETTI+CALDARELLI in 2013. Photos courtesy of MENICHETTI+CALDARELLI
From the architect. The original historical residential building of the farmhouse was irreversibly destroyed by a number of insensitive reconstructions done by the previous owner. We thus made a decision to build in its place a new building that would follow the original plan of the initial structure and allow the other farm buildings on site to continue defining the previous courtyard composition. The barn in the upper part of the courtyard from which only the peripheral wall was left standing, was not restored to the original shape but intentionally left in the existing state and conserved. Inside of this fragment a lightweight built-in garage roof level was constructed, lower than the preserved perimeter wall of the barn and thus completely hidden from the outside views.
The newly built residential part is designed in a 1.2 m module and consists of a glass horizontal minimalist shape floating on a natural stone cladded basement. The facade of the building is made of local stone, structural layers of the roof and the terrace floor of the main living is covered with prefabricated concrete panels. The interior is should be perceived as a frame for the natural landscape around, thus, the design uses simple lines and no strong colors. The ceiling: architectural concrete structured in a uniform grid based on the module of the facade. Walls: exposed concrete, solid wood, glass. Floor: cast industrial floor and solid wood in the kitchen area.
To achieve a maximum glazing area and minimize the facade profiles used are the slimmest on the market. The triple glazing filled with argon, surface plating and reflective sheet guaranteed minimum possible transmission of heat from the interior to the exterior (winter) and vice versa (during the summer), while maintaining the maximum possible transmittance of the visible sunlight spectrum. Heating and cooling is provided via a heat pump.
North Elevation
West Elevation
The villa is an example of where the building made use of the best current technology exiting on the market today in order to achieve an uncompromised architectural project in accordance with the wishes of the client, the architect’s ambitions and despite the climatic conditions of Central Europe.
From the architect. The Honor clubhouse, located near Ram Inthra-At Narong Expressway, is served as reception hall for 12 residences. It is started with intention to keep existing rain trees. Neighborhood gathering front yard is created by locating clubhouse as a back drop behind the trees.
To set clubhouse underneath the umbrella of existing rain trees, one can see panoramic view of park from inside. H beam Steel structure with inserted wood cladding is introduced in order to make the building appear to be floating and light. Wood louver screen acts as an envelope around the inside glass box, creating sun shading device along with delicate shadow.
The screen wraps along the wall and ceiling continuing from outside to inside. The rain trees from outside is reflected into the interior space on the black mirror wall, creating the outside-in space effect. Floating library box inside the space expresses the concept of tree house like. It also acts as intermediate space connecting between lobby and fitness on upper level.
