мар 25

sk28 03 2011_V3_beli bukvi_net

И годинава организираме изложба на најинтересниот градски изложбен простор.Повторно ќе ги употребиме металните панели од градилиштето на нашиот плоштад за да укажеме дека процесот на планирање треба да се отвори и да овозможи натпревар на идеи и слободна авторска мисла.

Ќе бидат изложени проекти на студентите по архитектура. Овие проекти покажуваат дека Скопје има студенти кои размислуваат современо.

Ќе ја презентираме и публикацијата „ПРВА АРХИ БРИГАДА- Најнекомплетна архива“.

Уште нешто важно што ќе претставиме е иницијативата за основање на Архитектонски центар.

Зошто на Скопје му е потребен Архитектонски Центар?

Задачата на еден Архитектонски центар е:

- да го архивира архитектонското минато (преку библиотека со публикации, перманентна изложба за архитектонската историја на градот, архива на видеа, мапи, планови, макети, фотографии итн.),

-да ги регистрира, презентира и анализира тековните настани во архитектурата (преку објавување на активни урбанистички планови, фотографии од актуелни проекти и објавување на архитектонска критика)

-да ги разгледува можните идни архитектонски правци. (преку презентирање на сработени истражувачки проекти за различни аспекти кои го засегаат градот и конкретни визии за градот инциирани од граѓаните или професионалците и дебатирање на одредени теми)

Поради одредени случувања како на пример големата градежна активност за време на османлиската окупација, обновата по катастрофалниот земјотрес во 1963-та, проектот „Скопје 2014“… нашиот град е честа тема на интерес на многу научни истражувачки проекти од  целиот свет. Секојдневно дознаваме за нови статии, публикации, конференции и трудови кои се посветени на нашиот град. Со основање на Архитектонски центар би се овозможила подобра соработка со колегите од надвор и презентирање на овие трудови посветени на Скопје,но најважно од се е што ќе се придонесе и кон унапредување на изградената средина кај нас, вистинско вреднување на добрата архитетура од минатите периоди и отворено планирање на иднината.

Архитектонскиот центар ќе биде место каде ќе се сретнат интересите на професионалците од архитектурата и урбанизмот, градските власти, граѓаните, истражувачите. Резултатот кој се очекува е подобрување на состојбите во архитектонската професија во Македонија и подобрување на квалитетот на живеење во градовите тука. Центарот истовремено ќе служи и како информативна точка за сите граѓани, но и туристите за архитектонските аспекти на градот.

Скопје заслужува и има потреба еден добар Архитектонски центар.

фев 13

‘Preservation’, OMA’s exhibition at the 12th International Venice Architecture Biennale

A collection of critical preservation stories of the 20th and 21st century organized under five themes: the increasing territorial claims of preservation, the arbitrary morality of what is preserved and what is not, notalgia vs. memory, the preservation of the future, and the ‘black hole’ of preservation.

Embedded in huge waves of development, which seem to transform the planet at an ever-accelerating speed, there is another kind of transformation at work: the area of the world declared immutable through various regimes of preservation is growing exponentially. A huge section of our world (about 12%) is now off-limits, submitted to regimes we don’t know, have not thought through, cannot influence. At its moment of surreptitious apotheosis, preservation does not quite know what to do with its new empire.

As the scale and importance of preservation escalates each year, the absence of a theory and the lack of interest invested in this seemingly remote domain becomes dangerous. After thinkers like Ruskin and Viollet-Le-Duc, the arrogance of the modernists made the preservationist look like a futile, irrelevant figure. Postmodernism, in spite of its lip service to the past, did no better. The current moment has almost no idea how to negotiate the coexistence of radical change and radical stasis that is our future.

authentic / restored image © designboom

authentic / restored image © designboom

As we head towards a climax of preservation, ambiguities and contradictions build up:

• Selection criteria are by definition vague and elastic, because they have to embrace as many conditions as the world contains.

• Time cannot be stopped in its tracks, but there is no consideration in the arsenal of preservation of how its effects should be managed, how the ‘preserved’ could stay alive, and yet evolve.

• There is little awareness in preservation of how different cultures have interpreted permanence, or of the variations in material, climate and environment, which in themselves require radically different modes of preservation.

• With its own undeclared ideology, preservation prefers certain authenticities. Others – typically, politically difficult ones – it suppresses, even if they are crucial to understanding history.

• Through preservation’s ever-increasing ambitions, the time lag between new construction and the imperative to preserve has collapsed from two thousand years to almost nothing. From retrospective, preservation will soon become prospective, forced to take decisions for which it is entirely unprepared.

• From a largely cultural concern, preservation has become a political issue, and heritage a right – and like all rights, susceptible to political correctness. Bestowing an aura of authenticity and loving care, preservation can trigger massive surges in development. In many cases, the past becomes the only plan for the future…

• Preservation’s continuing emphasis on the exceptional – that which deserves preservation – creates its own distortion. The exceptional becomes the norm. There are no ideas for preserving the mediocre, the generic.

In a global groundswell of revulsion, one particular genre has escaped the embrace of preservation. Open season has been declared on postwar social architecture. At its zenith, a strong public sector created the conditions in which architecture as a social project could flourish.

image © designboom/ looking back on the years following the second world war, the architects strong role in  the public sector created fertile grounds for architecture as a social project to flourish.

image © designboom/ looking back on the years following the second world war, the architect's strong role in the public sector created fertile grounds for architecture as a social project to flourish.

At its nadir, a public sector, debilitated by the market, destroys it. There is now a global consensus that postwar architecture – and the optimism it embodied about architecture’s ability to organise the social world – was an aesthetic and ideological debacle. Our resignation is expressed in the flamboyant architecture of the market economy, which has its own built-in commercial expiration date.

the more recent cultural climate of the public sector

the more recent cultural climate of the public sector

image © designboom

image © designboom

Modern buildings have somehow escaped the collective body’s embrace of preservation, becoming a generation’s embodiment of an opportunistic financial envelope.

image © designboom/ berlins palast deer republic which was demolished in 2006 despite having a historic and integral part in germanys reunification process.

image © designboom/ berlin's 'palast deer republic' which was demolished in 2006 despite having a historic and integral part in germany's reunification process.

image © designboom/ Our intolerance for the architecture of the Black Hole- ostensibly caused by its failure to creaate livable cities- is in fact fueled by a deep envy towards the formar belief in social experimentation. NOW, if we experiment, we do it on our own, for ourselves. Then, we did it with and for others, the people...

image © designboom/ Our intolerance for the architecture of the 'Black Hole'- ostensibly caused by its failure to creaate livable cities- is in fact fueled by a deep envy towards the formar belief in social experimentation. NOW, if we experiment, we do it on our own, for ourselves. Then, we did it with and for others, the people...

Just like modernization – of which it is part – preservation was a western invention. But with the waning of western power, it is no longer in the West’s hands. We are no longer the ones that define its values.

preservation and modernity are not opposites. preservation was invented as part of a groundswell of modern innovation between the french revolution and the industrial  revolution in england. in a maelstrom of change, it is crucial to decide what will stay the same ...

image © designboom/ preservation and modernity are not opposites. preservation was 'invented' as part of a groundswell of modern innovation between the french revolution and the industrial revolution in england. in a maelstrom of change, it is crucial to decide what will stay the same ...

The world needs a new system mediating between preservation and development. Could there be the equivalent of carbon trading in modernization? Could one modernizing nation ‘pay’ another nation not to change? Could backwardness become a resource, like Costa Rica’s rainforest? Should China save Venice?

The march of preservation necessitates the development of a theory of its opposite: not what to keep, but what to give up, what to erase and abandon. A system of phased demolition, for instance, would drop the unconvincing pretence of permanence for contemporary architecture, built under different economic and material assumptions. It would reveal tabula rasa beneath the thinning crust of our civilization – ready for liberation just as we (in the West) had given up on the idea.

AMO’S CONVENTION CONCERNING THE DEMOLITION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL JUNK >

image © designboom / there is a prolific global  desire to preserve all other genre of architecture. in 1972, a UN convention on the protection  of cultural and natural heritage set out the criteria of heritage selection which we still abide to today.  nearly 12% of the planet is currently marked as preserved, continuing to cordon off greater areas  as off-limits at an alarming fast rate. these areas are declared as so without having actually been  thought through on a transparent level. today, preservation does not quite know what to do  with its new found empire.   in response, AMO developed a theory of its opposite: not what to keep, but what to give up,  what to erase and abandon. it calls forth and aims to distill what exactly, as a society, we should  consider of cultural significance, at the same time paving ground to reveal a liberated slate under  the thinning crust of our civilization.

image © designboom / there is a prolific global desire to preserve all other genre of architecture. in 1972, a UN convention on the protection of cultural and natural heritage set out the criteria of heritage selection which we still abide to today. nearly 12% of the planet is currently marked as 'preserved', continuing to cordon off greater areas as 'off-limits' at an alarming fast rate. these areas are declared as so without having actually been thought through on a transparent level. today, preservation does not quite know what to do with its new found empire. in response, AMO developed a theory of its opposite: not what to keep, but what to give up, what to erase and abandon. it calls forth and aims to distill what exactly, as a society, we should consider of cultural significance, at the same time paving ground to reveal a liberated slate under the thinning crust of our civilization.

image © designboom/ nominated properties shall therefore: represent a lack of human creative genius; be an average example of a type of building,  architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (an) insignificant stage(s) in human history; contain appalling  synthetic phenomena or areas of overdeveloped saturation and aesthetic insignificance close-up of exhibited panel

image © designboom/ 'nominated properties shall therefore: represent a lack of human creative genius; be an average example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (an) insignificant stage(s) in human history; contain appalling synthetic phenomena or areas of overdeveloped saturation and aesthetic insignificance' close-up of exhibited panel

image © designboom / CRONOCAOS: in a hundred years, the reichstag in berlin underwent at least four different incarnations, each memorable, the last and current incarnation - fosters - probably definitive. it contains no trace of the earlier identities... (photograph of exhibted panel)

image © designboom / 'CRONOCAOS: in a hundred years, the reichstag in berlin underwent at least four different incarnations, each memorable, the last and current incarnation - foster's - probably definitive. it contains no trace of the earlier identities...' (photograph of exhibted panel)

There exists two conflicting ideologies when it comes to the subject of preservation: ‘ruin’ vs. ‘restoration’.  Many times, a ‘restoration’ project will gut the building in question, resulting in a sort of farce, where the ‘historical structure’ is an entirely new building in and of itself. bureaucratic envelopes  of preservation in fact promote radical transformations. Their language and codes are too blunt and
primitive to serve their stated aim: to generate a ‘fit’ between what exists and what is ‘renewed’  (but what is in fact very often entirely rebuilt). They produce an entirely new architectural language  of disguised consumerism.

image © designboom / history as fake? history as farce? most of harvards historical buildings have been gutted and entirely made over, many more than once during their lifetimes... (photograph of exhibted panel)

image © designboom / 'history as fake? history as farce? most of harvard's historical buildings have been gutted and entirely made over, many more than once during their 'lifetimes'...' (photograph of exhibted panel)

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

OMA’s preservation projects in the past illustrate that the core aim of ‘preserving’ should be
to negotiate between both the old and the new in an active and engaging manner,
siding with neither ‘ruin’ nor ‘restoration’ but establishing a new architectural configuration altogether.
OMA has conducted extensive studies on a number of urban and cultural frameworks to retrofit
the present time for the coming years.



‘beijing preservation’, 2003
diagram showing possible ‘preservation make-ups’ for beijing
(exhibited post card)
image © designboom

if the point of preservation is to identify and maintain elements that make a city unique, beijing contains
a vast arsenale of relatively new architecture and urban situations that deserve the same consideration as
the old centre and the hutongs, the generic substance of the chinese city most characteristic of beijing’s ‘past’.
rather than a seemingly inevitable focus on the centre – the oldest, the most beautiful, the most historic
part – different models of preservation can be imagined: a wedge could record, systematically and without
aesthetic bias, all the developments that have occurred in an urban system over time; a point grid could act
as a form of sampling, a statistical preservation model capturing every urban condition. instead of a temporal
monolith – a permanent centre and an ever changing periphery – the city will be defined and enriched by phasing:
older and newer will be in permanent dialogue.



‘beijing preservation’, 2003
grid formation
(exhibited post card)
image © designboom


‘mission grand axe,’ OMA
la défense, paris, france
competition, 1991
(photograph of exhibted panel)
image © designboom

‘what happens if all architecture older than 25 years is scraped? an entire territory is liberated
as a strategic reserve. the city can think of itself in terms of creative transformation.’

la défense is a strategic reserve in paris which has acted as a privileged expansion zone during when
the city was going through the transformation of modernization. the first sector now full–and with
europe’s opinion that everything historic should have the right to eternal life–OMA looks at ways to
create ground for new architecture while still preserving the ‘theatre of progress’.

this competition entry proposes to project a grid across the entire area including la défense and
to gradually expose this new system as ‘modern’ buildings meet their successive expiration date.
the design is both conceptual and operational; it will not subject everything in its way to its discipline
but will act as a filter to absorb those entities whose right to survive is not contested.


rendering of apraksin dvor, st. petersburg, russia
2007 competition entry
(exhibited postcard)
image © designboom


consisting of multiple freestanding buildings arranged within a market yard, apraksin dvor represents
a unique urban typology in the historic centre of st. petersburg. OMA takes the uniqueness of the site,
which makes it prime for preservation, and uses it instead for development.

the design proposes to keep 50 per cent of the area in its current state while the other 50 per cent is demolished
and treated as the site for new buildings. the old and the new are organized in to a checkerboard: a co-existence
of two uninterrupted conditions, creating both a relationship of maximum contact and maximum independence
while avoiding the subjective evaluation of the historic merit of each existing individual building. the old and
the new can either be experienced in extreme juxtaposition or as independent parallel experiences,
creating simultaneously an illusion of complete preservation and perpetual newness.



masterplan apraksin dvor, st. petersburg, russia
2007 competition entry
(exhibited postcard)
image © designboom



mass rendering
of apraksin dvor, st. petersburg, russia
2007 competition entry
(exhibited postcard)
image © designboom


‘zollverein kolenwasche’, essen, 2006
(exhibited postcard)
image © designboom

the ruhr, an area undergoing transition after the decay of its major industry, coal mining, elects to preserve
a mining site shut down in the 1980s. the zeche zollverein, designed in the 1920s by students of mies using
industrial architecture as a vehicle of ambition, is granted UNESCO world heritage status in 2001 – prompted
by an OMA masterplan to preserve and reactivate the site. OMA collaborates with UNESCO on installing,
around a tangle of original machinery, a visitors centre and ruhr museum inside the kohlenwasche (coal refinery).
after persuasion, UNESCO agrees to a rebuilding of the crumbling walls on the exterior of the building,
thus prioritizing the authenticity inside. preservation takes place through a variety of tactics, including pure
simulation: a 48-metre free-standing escalator mimicking the site’s sky bridges for transporting coal provides
sympathetic public access to the renovated kohlenwasche.


‘zollverein kolenwasche’, essen, 2006
48 meter free-standing escalator
(exhibited postcard)
image © designboom



‘in 2006, with zeche zollverein’s kolenwasche, we nearly achieved the utopian ambition of doing
‘nothing’: no stripping, no sublimity, no ruin, just nothing… we were very proud.’

(photograph of exhibited panel)
image © designboom



‘in 1995, reluctant to imagine an ‘iconic’ airport (the competition was won with an airport in the form of a bird wing),
we identified in the existing structures of ZRH-enough abandoned or under-used sections to accommodate the entire program;
all we needed to do was to stitch the ‘found’ spaces together with infrastructure in a sequence that accommodated the intended flows…’

image © designboom


‘the found spaces had more complexity and interest than any architect could typically justify for a new airport…’
image © designboom

LINKS:

http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat/9/view/11248/oma-at-venice-architecture-biennale-2010.html

http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat/9/view/11395/rem-koolhaas-cronocaos-preservation-tour.html

http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat/9/view/11424/rem-koolhaas-oma-cronocaos-preservation-tour-part-three.html

http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat/9/view/11428/rem-koolhaas-oma-cronocaos-preservation-tour-part-four.html

http://www.oma.eu/index.php?option=com_projects&view=project&id=1260&Itemid=10

јан 13

zamisli-grad-A3_NEW_landscape_722

Предавања и панел дискусија

Замисли град

Разговор за (отворање на) процесот на планирање на град

четврток // 20.01.2011 // 19:30 // Центар за конференции и студии, Национална и Универзитетска Библиотека „Св. Климент Охридски“- Скопје

»Замисли град« се фокусира на теми кои се важни за урбаниот развој на градот. Поради значителната урбана трансформација на Скопје во последнава декада, делува неопходно да се отвори разговор за процесите на планирање на градот и значењето на архитектурата во него. Затоа поканивме говорници од врвни институции кои ќе ги претстават нивните искуства и согледувања за можностите и потребите од стратешко планирање неопходно за одржлив развој и непречено функционирање на градот.

Со овој разговор ќе се обидеме преку конкретни примери да ги разгледаме можните насоки кои во иднина би го подобриле урбаниот развој на Скопје, кој освен тоа што е секојдневна реалност за неговите жители, е дел и од потесниот и поширокиот контекст на проток на луѓе, капитал информции, знаење… Градот секојдневно се гради, но доколку на таа активност, како условно трајна, не и претходи стратешко планирање, изградените ткива можат да станат сериозна пречка во неговото функционирање. Битката за соодветно место во современите градски текови, може да се избори само ако, меѓу другото, се отвори процесот на планирање.

Целта на настанот е да поттикне доближување на разни фактори во процесот на планирање: урбанисти, архитекти, социолози, образовните институции, локалната власт, инвеститорите и граѓаните. Резултатот што се очекува е формирање на мрежа што ќе работи на реобмислување и отворање на процесот на урбанистичко планирање кон граѓаните и сите засегнати локални фактори, но и кон на интернационалното знаење и искуствата од регионот.

zamisli grad_ENG_NEW_PLAKAT_landscape_92RGB_za net

Lectures and panel discussion

Imagine a city

Discussion on (opening up) the process of city planning

‘Imagine a city’ is focusing on subjects that are important for the urban development of a city. From the background of the radical urban transformation that Skopje has undergone in the last decade, it seems necessary to open up a discussion on the process of urban development and the relevance of architecture in it. Speakers from major Dutch institutions will therefore present there views on the possibilities and necessity of good urban design for the future of the city.

This discussion should try to offer concrete examples for the possible directions which could advance the future development of Macedonia’s capital city. Skopje is everyday reality for its citizens and is also part of a broader context of a flux of people, goods and knowledge. The city is being built daily, but unless this practically irreversible activity is strategically planned then new city tissues could become a serious functional obstacle. The battle of participatory practices in contemporary urban projects can only be successful if the process of urban planning is open. With this event we want to contribute to this openness and we want to help people imagine Skopje as a city where citizens, authorities and professionals are equally active creators of its urban future.

This panel’s goal is to bring together all the different actors in the process of city planning: planners, architects, investors, educational institutions, municipalities, citizens. The result we are hoping for is a network that will interact by rethinking and opening up the urban planning procedures, not just to the local factors but also to the international knowledge and experience of our partners.

zamisli-grad-A3_72_NET-723x1024

Говорници:

Vedran Mimica моментално е директор за настава на Berlage Institute, каде претходно по покана на Херман Херцбергер станува проект координатор. Работи како предавач во посета на многу школи за архитектура во светот. Организатор е на серија изложби и работилници во многу градови во земјите на поранешна Југославија, како придонес во нивниот развој во поствоениот период. Се смета за одличен познавач на процесите на Балканот. Особено се прослави во јавноста како советник на градоначалникот на Тирана при спроведувањето на интернационалниот конкурс.

Активно пишува за архитектурата и архитектонската едукација за списанија како: Domus, Abitare, Hunch, Architectur Aktuell, Architecture-Seoul, Man and Space-Zagreb, AB-Ljubljana, Oris- Zagreb. Учествува во бројни комисии за национални и интернационални натпревари, како и за доделување на награди од областа на архитектурата и урбанизмот.

http://www.nextroom.at/data/media/med_binary/original/1265129693.pdf

http://www.archined.nl/interviews/2007/who-is-vedran-mimica/

http://www.dugirat.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6594&catid=76:gospodarstvo&Itemid=428

http://www.sponsoring.erstebank.at/report/stories/Interview+Vedran+Mimica/en

Ole Bouman е директор на Netherlands Architecture Institute (NAI). Претходно бил главен уредник на списанието Volume (кое го формирале заедно со Rem Koolhaas и Mark Wigley), а редовно пишува за списанија како: De Groene Amsterdammer, The Independent, Artforum, De Gids, Domus, Harvard Design Review, El Croquis, Arquitectura & Viva, и Proiekt Russia. Бил куратор на серија од јавни настани за реконструкција на јавниот домен во градови што биле погодени од катастрофи, како Ramallah, Mexico City, Beirut и Prishtina. Предавал дизајн на Massachusetts Institute of Technology во САД. Коавтор е на енциклопедијата:  The Invisible in Architecture(1994) and Al Manakh (2007),како и на манифестите RealSpace in QuickTimes (1996) и De Strijd om Tijd (2003). Најновата негова публикација е Architecture of Consequence (2009) Активен е и како куратор и на многу изложби.

http://bldgblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/agitation-power-space-interview-with.html

http://www.olebouman.net/archief/en/the-invisible-in-architecture/

http://www.olebouman.net/archief/category/publications/

http://www.olebouman.net/archief/category/volume-editorials/

Модератор:

Kai Vöckler по вокација е урбанист и уметник. Зад себе има богато професионално искуство како планер, архитект и дизајнер, автор и куратор на бројни изложби и професор. Работел на Bauhaus Dessau и на други универзитети. Тој е еден од уредниците на списанието Volume и еден од основачите на Archis Interventions, а и програмски директор за Југоисточна Европа. Последните години активно работи на истражувачки проекти врзани со Балканот. Автор е на книгата: Prishtina is everywhere. Turbo Urbanism: The Aftermath of a Crisis” како и на многу други публикации.

Локален модератор:

Драган Крстевски е претставник од Прва Архи Бригада. Тој е апсолвент на Архитектонски Факултет- Скопје. Завршил Меѓународна матура (International Baccalaureate) во Гимназијата „Јосип Броз Тито“ – Скопје, со матурска тема „Мастер планот на Кензо Танге за центарот на Скопје по земјотресот 1963“. Бил учесник и организатор на повеќе домашни и интернационални работилници и проекти кои се занимаваат со архитектурата, урбанизмот и градот. Пишува  за електронскиот магазин „Репер“,  кој покрива тековни случувања во архитектурата, ликовната уметност, литературата и изведувачките уметности.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Симултан превод на македонски, англиски и албански ќе биде обезбеден.

Разговорот е дел од интернационалната програма Debate on Tour на Холандсиот Институт за Архитектура и програмата Archis SEE network.

-поддржано од ERSTE Foundation и Амбасадата на Кралството Холандија во Скопје, Македонија

Настанот ќе биде видео документиран од страна на Cr8ive8.

imagine a city A3 ENG_72_net

дек 28

Предавања и панел дискусија

Замисли град

Разговор за (отворање на) процесот на планирање на град

Говорници:

Vedran Mimica моментално е директор за настава на Berlage Institute, каде претходно по покана на Херман Херцбергер станува проект координатор. Работи како предавач во посета на многу школи за архитектура во светот. Организатор е на серија изложби и работилници во многу градови во земјите на поранешна Југославија, како придонес во нивниот развој во поствоениот период. Се смета за одличен познавач на процесите на Балканот. Особено се прослави во јавноста како советник на градоначалникот на Тирана при спроведувањето на интернационалниот конкурс.

Активно пишува за архитектурата и архитектонската едукација за списанија како: Domus, Abitare, Hunch, Architectur Aktuell, Architecture-Seoul, Man and Space-Zagreb, AB-Ljubljana, Oris- Zagreb. Учествува во бројни комисии за национални и интернационални натпревари, како и за доделување на награди од областа на архитектурата и урбанизмот.

http://www.nextroom.at/data/media/med_binary/original/1265129693.pdf

http://www.archined.nl/interviews/2007/who-is-vedran-mimica/

http://www.dugirat.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6594&catid=76:gospodarstvo&Itemid=428

http://www.sponsoring.erstebank.at/report/stories/Interview+Vedran+Mimica/en

Ole Bouman е директор на Netherlands Architecture Institute (NAI). Претходно бил главен уредник на списанието Volume (кое го формирале заедно со Rem Koolhaas и Mark Wigley), а редовно пишува за списанија како: De Groene Amsterdammer, The Independent, Artforum, De Gids, Domus, Harvard Design Review, El Croquis, Arquitectura & Viva, and Proiekt Russia. Бил куратор на серија од јавни настани за реконструкција на јавниот домен во градови што биле погодени од катастрофи, како Ramallah, Mexico City, Beirut и Prishtina. Предавал дизајн на Massachusetts Institute of Technology во САД. Коавтор е на енциклопедијата:  The Invisible in Architecture(1994) and Al Manakh (2007),како и на манифестите RealSpace in QuickTimes (1996) and De Strijd om Tijd (2003). Најновата негова публикација е Architecture of Consequence (2009) Активен е и како куратор и на многу изложби.

http://bldgblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/agitation-power-space-interview-with.html

http://www.olebouman.net/archief/en/the-invisible-in-architecture/

http://www.olebouman.net/archief/category/publications/

http://www.olebouman.net/archief/category/volume-editorials/

zamisli grad tizerJPG72

јул 17

Интересот на светската стручна јавност за силувањето на Скопје постојано расте >>

пренесено од Abitare – International Design Magazine >>

image

http://www.abitare.it/featured/skopje-scomparira/

SKOPJE WILL DISAPPEAR

posted by Abitare – 13.07.2010

The pictures by Armin Linke and the essay by Srdjan Jovanovic Weiss revisit the urban plan by Kenzo Tange for the Macedonian capital.

Srdjan Jovanovic Weiss

Architecture International Brigades

Skopje is the capital city of Macedonia, whose official name is still the “Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” [FYROM]. Macedonia is one of many new democratic states in the South East of Europe, which emerged after the break-up of Yugoslavia. After a devastating earthquake in 1963 Skopje was rebuilt largely according to Kenzo Tange’s master plan, which was supported by the United Nations. Today the actual Macedonian government wants to remove all traces of this plan and rewrite the Macedonian capital as a historic city with its roots in antiquity and in the period of Alexander the Great. The futuristic urbanism and architecture in Skopje is now in danger of falling victim to political attempts to fabricate an ideal past.

Why don’t we know more about this new capital city in South East Europe? This place may hold some clues about the experience of rebuilding after a natural disaster as well as it might provide information about Kenzo Tange’s approach to architectural work, his promises and the setbacks of the general reconstruction in this city. I am from the Western Balkans, but Skopje was not a city where I lived. However a year before the earthquake my father started to study architecture there. After the disaster he had to leave with many others, and since then he has a strong emotional attachment to that place. Four and a half decades later I visited Skopje for various artistic projects and initiatives like the “Lost Highway Expedition” in 2006 and “Forum Skopje” in 2009, and on this last occasion I asked Armin Linke to join to document the traces of the reconstruction process, which are still visible.

It is a chilly evening after a very hot day. Four decades after its construction, we are visiting the Main Railway Station designed by Tange. A bulky locomotive, painted in red with white and yellow stripes pulls a passenger train out of the station. The train is short, only three passenger cars attached to the locomotive. The train leaves for the seven-hour trip to Belgrade and rumbles over the tracks. Several bright spotlights glare above the platform of the station. Not all the lights are working. The Swiss railway clocks hang from concrete towers that mark the entrance to the the station. Each clock is showing a different time. Looking at this, we may be thinking that we are in a city that is spanned in multiple time zones. This railway station was built according to the 1966 design by Kenzo Tange and a team of young Japanese architects. Arata Isozaki was among them. Tange received this commission after winning a competition for the master plan for the reconstruction of the city after the devastating earthquake . The United Nations led efforts to reconstruct the capital in close collaboration with then Socialist Yugoslav government and its president for life Josip Broz Tito. Tito welcomed the UN’s funds and renamed Skopje as the “City of Solidarity”, where not only construction material was donated from abroad, but also ideas and planning. In 1964, the Journal of American Planning Association argued that the idea of solidarity towards Skopje was reflected through a “rumor [that] the Yugoslavs would ideally like to see the city rebuilt through the good will of foreign countries. Thus four blocks of a Washington Street might then turn into Lenin Street, in an area where the Soviets had given money, followed by De Gaulle Avenue.” Some less glamorous ideas were also floated “that the oriental character of the city be eliminated, [and] that the gypsies, Albanians, and Turks, be transferred to other parts of the Macedonian Republic.”

The UN competition process made it possible for the master plan to rebuild Skopje to be played out on the international stage. The winning prize was split between two architects/ institutions: Kenzo Tange and the Town Planning Institute from Zagreb. Tange won hearts and minds in the competition because of several key design points in his plan. First, he had a vision of a modern city emanating from an inner core, next he made an informed and efficient layout of infrastructure, and finally he formalized the reconstruction of the city’s memory by placing key buildings in a sequence called “The City Wall”. Once the competition winners were announced, a classic battle over ideas began: a futuristic vision versus harsh realism. These strange collaborators – Kenzo Tange’s office with a Croatian team of experts – then separately produced a series of consecutive plans for the city before they finally came to an agreement in 1966. Despite this complex process, Tange’s ideas dominated the rebuilding of Skopje. Even if this story is forgotten and neglected today, many aspects of Tange’s master plan can still be recognized while wandering through the city. The Main Railway Station is one of these marks. Years of abandonment by the authorities have meant that little has been changed there. Few improvements, and few alterations have been made, which creates a sense of stasis about the place.

But all of this is under threat. The Japanese planned city of Skopje is in danger of being replaced by the current government’s “vision” of the national capital city for 2014. The Macedonian government has a plan to refashion the capital to look as if it directly proceeded from Antiquity4. If this happens, it will damage the open and international character of Skopje that had been rebuilt on the principles of the “City of Solidarity” after the 1963 earthquake. Furthermore, the city has a mixed population. Ethnic Macedonians are dominant, and the city has large Albanian and Roma communities who share the same infrastructure from Tange’s plan. If the intention of this government goes ahead, Skopje will no longer be a city of the future as planned by the Japanese visionaries. There is opposition to this trajectory and to this manipulation of the past. It is strong and intellectual, but fragmented. This creative opposition is in dire need of coordination and support. Activist groups like “The First Architecture Brigade”, “Forum Skopje” and single artists who were inspired by Skopje’s rebuilding past like Yane Calovski, Hristina Ivanoska, Oliver Musovik, Filip Jovanovski and others are all united in their intellectual opposition to the current proposal by the government. Architects Goran Janev and Blaž Križnik wrote smart articles in the public media about what the future of Skopje would be like if it were transformed from an open city to a “Grand National Capital”5. Jasmina Siljanovska, professor at the Skopje University, leads workshops to analyze the transition from Socialism to emerging democracy. While important, these activities remain in general very analytical, and a larger campaign is needed to challenge the powers that be. If the international community of architects and planners, or just the fans of Japanese planning history do not act, we will see the total erasure of a unique example of international planning, as well as the destruction of elements that make visible the values of solidarity and mutual support, which were such crucial elements of the reconstruction.

Skopje will disappear again. The photographs which accompany this text are most likely the last visual record of these spaces before they get converted, replaced, painted over or masked. It was a radical proposal to begin with. It was a top-down proposal that concentrated new infrastructures in a typical 1960s fashion: visible and brutal. The plan shifted and then suggested to rebuild the memory of the destroyed city. Finally, the plan reflected the allocation of funds from the United Nations that made the reconstruction possible. The plan included a series of architectural competitions for cultural buildings located in the central area of the city, which would only be open for Yugoslav architects. And one of these competitions was won by a then young Slovenian office Biro 71. Biro 71 was influenced by Finnish organic architecture and was inspired by natural elements, such as mountains and topographic reliefs. Biro 71 took this organic approach to a whole new level by designing a massive complex of cultural buildings next to the Skopje’s river. The Yugoslav government built only a third of what they envisaged, which today still stands: the Macedonian National Opera and Ballet Theatre. Their Opera building is clad in white stone similar to the Alvar Aalto’s Finlandia building in Helsinki. As a result, the building’s shape is preserved and is aging better than other buildings throughout the city. The project had several setbacks: the original design for 1000 seats had to be cut to 300. The main auditorium suffered from the severe reduction of seats due to budget cuts. Having little time to design the seats, they were built on a slope which followed the complex geometry of the floor. Sitting in one of those seats gives the strange feeling of being on a fast train as it accelerates down a steep hill. Furthermore, it cannot be denied that the Japanese master planning presence left a significant presence in Skopje.

Another example of this is the massive post office built by the Macedonian architect Janko Konstantinov between 1972-89. Constructed in three stages, this building was inspired by the original Japanese approach, then further developed as a national form of architecture. The second important example is the State Hydrometeorological Institute, designed by Kristo Todorovski in 1975. These buildings, and other examples, mainly public institutions, have turned Skopje into an open air kind of museum for the sculptural, rough edged architecture of that time, which was produced under a Socialist political system that is now defunct.

The debate about the future of the city is ongoing and vibrant. However, even in these debates the role of Tange’s reconstruction plan is often seen in negative terms. The main criticism is that this plan was unsuccessful in terms of its legacy. Additionally the plan is seen as a top-down experiment, that did not take into consideration forces coming from below. And so, I disagree that the Japanese plan left no local legacy. To the contrary, Macedonian architects were inspired to build and contribute to their own city and to create their own voice which is now recognized as Macedonian within a larger territorial system of the Western Balkans, aspiring to join the European Union as soon as possible. What to do now? An option that I favor as an outsider to Skopje is to revisit the original bonds of solidarity and to open up the process of redevelopment of the city to an international community of spatial practitioners. Can we find ways of involving a new generation of younger Japanese architects in Macedonia? Offices like Atelier Bow Wow, Tezuka Architects or Junya Ishigamy that could tackle infrastructure from their own experience, working with and within Japanese infrastructure from the 1960s and 1970s? As foreigners to Macedonia, they may have the capacity and experience needed for the task. They will be able to read Kenzo Tange’s vision as their own grandfather of sorts. Equally, the young Japanese architects may as well be able to offer fresh examples of the role of an architect vis-a-vis emerging democracy.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

Во контекст на овој запис ги додаваме и коментарите на архитектите Кристоф Луксингер, професор на Институтот за урбанизам на Техничкиот универзитет во Виена и неговиот колега Ерих Рајт, кои со уште 30-ина дипломци и докторанди на Виенскиот факултет присуствуваа на „Форум Скопје 2010“.

„Скопје е одличен полигон за обучување на идните градски планери, но е тежок за изучување. Прво, станува збор за екстремно интересен град на полето на урбанизмот, во насока на нови планови за развивање, додека за идните планери е многу важно дали ќе ги следат идеите на Кензо Танге, кои доаѓаат од едно друго соѕвездие или ќе пронаоѓаат други методологии. Мој личен аспект е дека на Скопје му е потребен голем публицитет во странство, за она што се случува тука. Потребна му е отворена, јавна дискусија, дебата што би се претворила во дискурс што му е неопходен на еден град“.

За Луксингер, Скопје како еден од градовите кои за него се’ уште се непознати, на еден зачудувачки позитивен начин покажува голем степен на модерна архитектура и се разликува од сето она што досега го видел во другите градови на поранешна Југославија. Неговиот впечаток е дека големите зафати што ги планирал Кензо Танге оставиле печат на градот.

Професорот Рајт, пак, смета дека фрагментарното гледање на Скопје што го направил јапонскиот архитект е добро, бидејќи дава натамошни потреби за развој на урбанизмот. Според Луксингер, очигледно е дека во целата таа сложувалка замислите на Танге ја даваат главната структура на градот. Професорот Рајт се надева дека проектот „Скопје 2014“ ќе остане само мал фрагмент во концептот на Танге.

„Не е главно прашање дали проектот е контра Танге или не, туку како моментално влијае на градот и го менува. Овој план, пред се’, има просторни проблеми, бидејќи уништува постојни простори што носат огромни квалитети. Најтрагичен пример за мене е заградувањето на фронтот на реката Вардар од левата страна и затворањето на просторот пред МНТ, со што се уништува еден објект како што е МНТ, кој е апсолутно пример за најдобра градба од европската модерна архитектура“, констатира професорот Кристоф Луксингер.

Проектот за Скопје има и една друга димензија, емитацијата на стар, одамна изумрен стил, наспроти модерната футуристичка архитектура што денес се планира во светот. За Ерих Рајт отсликувањето на антиквизацијата во сите новоизградени објекти нема никаква порака, светот нема никако да реагира, зашто тоа е нешто што е познато, нешто што се случило и поминало. Тој смета дека преку такво планирање се става во позадина сета позитивна архитектура и идеја што ја има градот, вистинската и модерна архитектура се затскрива зад кулисите на некоја вештачка антиквизација. Таквиот архитектонски израз не ја отсликува демократијата во творењето.

„Оваа архитектура што се предлага со ’Скопје 2014‘ сигурно не е продукт на демократија и на тоа дека народот што живее во Скопје има силна потреба од ваков израз. Мене веднаш ми беше јасно дека тоа е најверојатно процес што почнал од одозгора, иако архитектурата почнува одоздола. Таа е процес за кој секогаш треба јавно мислење, дискусии, дебати за да се дојде до процес што ќе заврши горе. За жал, овој процес е почнат од горе и ќе заврши долу“, вели професорот Рајт и појаснува дека во светот често се случуваат вакви примери каде што архитектурата почнува да се претвора во масовен продукт.

„Од друга страна, пак, ваков тип архитектура се јавува многу често кога владејачкото тело на една држава ја држи целата моќ во свои раце и се поврзува со архитекти и урбанисти што пристапуваат многу дивјачки на професијата. Тоа, според мене, би била најдобра формулација на најлошиот можен вкус во секој смисла во однос на политиката и на оној што е градител на сево ова“, надополнува Рајт.

Архитектите вообичаено велат дека објектите ги одразуваат чувствата и пренесуваат некаква порака. Но, очигледно, тоа не е секогаш така. Предвидената триумфална порта за австриските професори не отсликува ниту чувства ниту, пак, триумф. За нив таа претставува барање некаква слика, потрага по идентитет за кој некој мисли дека е изгубен.

„Таквиот тип барање идентитет преку реплицирање на нешто што се случило во светот, не знам како би можело да функционира. Се става под прашање каков триумф и зошто“, е ставот на Рајт.

За него сево ова што сега се гради во Скопје, секако, ќе остави трага и порака до идните генерации. Тој смета дека овие објекти го носат времето на оваа политичка структура и на денешната структура на население. Но, од друга страна, тој е категоричен дека овие објекти носат порака за една несигурност.

Рајт вели дека колку е поголем коњот толку зад него се гледа празнина, изгубеност и несигурност во планирањето. На самиот раб на влезот на Македонија во ЕУ се забележува дека државава се обидува да пренесе порака до Европа дека и Скопје е европски град, и тоа преку една фасада, предница со која Македонија треба да се претстави. Но, во тој процес има и други земји што чекаат да влезат, како, на пример Турција, која, како што појаснуваат виенските професори, носи еден архитектонски израз кон кој Европа е многу ориентирана денес, а не кон нешто што го веќе имала и го ставила во музеј. Оттаму, не смее да се заборави дека со една таква презентација, идејата што ќе ја пренесува Скопје, ќе стави во заборав дел од сложувалката, која за Европа е незаборавна и многу позитивна, а на нејзино место ќе постави нешто што Европа не ја интересира.

„Значи, нас, како странци, но, пред се’, како професори и студенти по архитектура од еден европски град, овде ни е многу поинтересно кога ја гледаме Старата чаршија, па дури и населбата Шуто Оризари, отколку триумфалната капија“, заклучуваат виенските архитекти Ерих Рајт и Кристоф Луксингер.

пренесено од Утрински – 23.4.2010

http://utrinski.com.mk/?ItemID=ECFBECC62B0A924DB788AA51E88EC6C6


ПРВА АРХИ-БРИГАДА