Seminar on Criticism and Teaching of Architecture Master of Architectural and Urban Project – MAP [au] National University of La Plata
Ayman Safi Zaid
SOMISA, between Alvarez and Otriz About the SOMISA building; its critique by the architect Federico Ortiz, published in Summa magazine, No. 186 April 1983, and the critique to the critique by the architects Mario Alvarez published in Summa magazine, No. 189 July 1983 I think it was a unique quality of professionalism criticizing and replying openly and via the same medium by a critique to the critique, considering the communication tools they had since 34 years. I think the idea of a dialogue of criticism in architecture was a professional way to transmit expressions, to clarify ideas, point to technical details and to share thoughts about styles. Personally, I appreciate such type of dialogue and I think that this is a practice of democracy within architecture development. Such a quality we miss in places from where I come from, concurrently with a complex circumstances affected by a global growing norm of individuality of interests, and of dominancy of capitalists. An architectural project from one side is a product of a limited bilateral relation between the architect both the designer and the builder- and the client, through different phases like trust gaining, design development, until building. From the other side, the realized project become part of the city fabric, and part of the collective views and systems. Although a building is a property of its legal owner, and it’s a product of its designers and builders, but on another level when the project become in operation, it’s then shared, and then belongs to the larger context, affecting and affected at the same time, in the street, the block, the neighborhood, the city, etc. Architecture has functional and order dimensions that are linked to the context. In addition, modern architecture sought to have long lifespan, especially with the modern advancement in structure, materials, and technologies. The work of various architects -and other players- collectively shape and affect the city. From this point of view, it becomes only logical to take responsibility of thinking and rethinking very wisely about each permanent piece added to the city. Thus, I understand the importance of the continuous criticism in different times upon several factors and by various professionals. In the case of professional criticism, it helps to become constructive when it’s public, discussing conceptual and technical aspects, and the feedback becomes part of project story and documentation. The dialog benefits and educate other professionals and clients. In addition, it rises and maintains the public sense of understanding architecture, understanding both the singularity of a project and the pluralism of the city and its society. I had read various texts for this seminar, but finally I chose to write about SOMISA. I understand that this seminar is not about constructing critique of architecture, but I truly could not help not to notice SOMISA singularity when I first visited it. May be because I felt the contrast in expression and context when we were in its basement hall presenting a project about the informal settlements of the republic of Argentina, starting and starring by the famous Villa 31, in the building of Ex-SOMISA, which was at that time -December 2013- the headquarters of the chief of cabinet of ministers.
Page 1 de 5
Seminar on Criticism and Teaching of Architecture Master of Architectural and Urban Project – MAP [au] National University of La Plata
Ayman Safi Zaid
Regarding the critique of SOMISA by Arq. Ortiz I understand that the critique of arch. Ortiz (1983) was made after 6 years of opening SOMISA (1977), which I guess a sufficient time to have the project operating for a while, but didn’t age yet. I also understand that Ortiz critique was facing other views that favored the project; they may saw the project as an architectural enlightenment, or a contribution within a larger international school, opinions of which the critic had wondered. The critic didn’t only criticize SOMISA the building, but he also criticized modern and international architecture through SOMISA, mainly specific conceptual and technological characteristics. In my opinion, the sequence of the critique was good. The critic started by looking at the architectural aspirations dated to 1952, older than SOMISA (opened on 1977), linking them to international movements. He then explained his methodology; listed of standards upon which he discussed the project. He left the project searching for its inspirations within a larger geography on a higher level, then he came back to the project finishing his article by pointing to specific details that he couldn’t let pass. The daring and boldness draw the attention towards an artistic work, but in architecture, that its’ projects are costly, durable and has functions, it’s also the maturity that define an innovative project not to be a product of a temporal moda. The innovation then, become not only the push of the already known boundaries, but the push that ends achieving good results. It’s till today the successful composition of layers and factors that join and intersect to form a good architecture. Factors like but not limited to; the honesty of ideological, cultural and technological expressions; the relation with the spatial and social contexts; the respect and suitability treatment of the physical and climatic characteristics; the wise containment and organization of spaces and functions, and the rest of the points that Ortiz had pointed to1. Today a generic stateless contemporary architecture had already spread all over the world. This architecture is a celebration of materiality, a composition of latest technologies, but it ignores the variation of the human factor. This architecture when it is not well studied and tested before being spread and practiced, when it’s not adapted to the society and the place, nor related to the culture and traditions, it will be a premature and an incomplete work. Architecture should I think be aware of both the users and the place, their history facts and aspirations. Its act of “being aware of” could have different levels of macro and micro reactions, like respecting, considering, affecting, even refusing, or acting in any other way, but not ignoring nor erasing. Here I would like to point that how some regimes are systematically importing architecture –and culture-, not only in scale of singular building, nor only in
1
“(a) The relation of functions: their autonomy, as well as their interdependence [...] (b) the resolution of circulations; [Primary, secondary, accessory] and [horizontal and vertical] […] (c) the use of techniques, resources and procedures related to contemporary technology […] (d) The physical, psychological and sociological conditioning of people, from the most elementary anthropometric questions to the most subtle attitudinal issues and individual and collective behavior of the inhabitants or users of the building. […, and] The result of careful analysis of; (e) the climatological situation, (f) the physical characteristics of the terrain […] (g) the urban situation“ (Ortiz, 1983)
Page 2 de 5
Seminar on Criticism and Teaching of Architecture Master of Architectural and Urban Project – MAP [au] National University of La Plata
Ayman Safi Zaid
the phase of the design, but rather in a significant scale as urban infrastructure, landmarks, and even creating cities full of such artifacts, covering, sometimes erasing native cultures.2 I think Ortiz saying still apply for some works of architecture being built today as exemplary works such as some projects done by various starchitects-; it want to teach us how architecture should be done, should have been made, and/or to lead us to the their orientation of the future. It even sometimes presented as a corrective exemplary practice. Those works often presented as models of good architecture, or may be ideal. However, those types of architecture could be freely and singularly oriented, since it’s not a predictive product for the future, nor a result of natural development. Those works are considered more like visionary prototypes, they are introduced by their makers as flexible as if they can be placed anywhere within any culture containing various types of programs. Then they are directly or indirectly copied by the crowd-architects, may be after slight treatments of adaptation and customization. I think such works, the original ones, are laboratory products; they are combinations of concepts, including mixtures of dominating new concepts that are tested for the first time, that together shape a building. They are celebrated from the moments when virtually visualized, detailed, manufactured, constructed until finished and inaugurated. It’s even got documented, criticized, honored and celebrated. A whole process of public judgement that does not include the phases of; operating, connecting, aging, and reacting. It remain singular experiences -even if repeated elsewhere-, in a bi-literal relation that once had a chance to be realized and went famous. On 1983 Ortiz pointed to the International Style through the effect of Lever House (New York, 1951), its pedestal that Alvarez copied in IBM (Buenos Aires, 1983), and the spread of the technology of the curtain.
2
Image 1 Building of SOMISA in Buenos Aires Source: (Lam 2014)
Image 2 IBM Building in Buenos Aires Source: (MRA+A 2015)
Image 3 West Elevation of Lever House Source: (Lam 2014)
As an urban example, colonial and post-colonial urban planning styles regulating some Arab cities. As an architectural example, shopping mall replacing the authentic market in some Arab Gulf cities.
Page 3 de 5
Seminar on Criticism and Teaching of Architecture Master of Architectural and Urban Project – MAP [au] National University of La Plata
Ayman Safi Zaid
Nowadays, in 2016,contemporary architecture still use both items; the pedestal as the base of a highrise building, a connection to the surrounding context, probably have a more public program with a green terrace, while the rest of the tower above having less-public or/ and more private spaces like offices and residences. For the curtain wall, today also we see how popular this technology is. Thus, we can say that time and generations had decided to accept to hire both items, that were and still in development. The critic can criticize the wrong use of a technology, the irrationality, but not its whole concept.
Regarding the critique of the critique, by Arq. Alvarez I agree with Alvarez on the concept of aesthetics as a matter of individual taste that depends on culture and inherited capital. I add also the knowledge and expertise, and call all those factors of the receiver side. Another side is the invariable characteristics of the work itself, which can be perceived differently by different or same critics in different times. However, I think both popularity of a single taste and pluralism of various tastes, influence the individual taste, but the influence remain unmeasurable. I also think aesthetic should always be a factor used by the professional experienced critics, even if it remains argumentative. If a critique of aesthetic is not explained in relation to a spatial status or a known rule of form or order, then it could be a feeling the critic –the experienced whom we trust- had, but couldn’t express according to the criticism language we currently know or the knowledge we currently understand. As Alvarez says that there is no good architectural solutions, but there are correct constructive solutions. I think both good and correct are terms of idealism, thus both are relative. A good constructive solution suggests that things are more likely to be technical, and needs or problems are only physical. Then a good constructive solution means responding correctly for a specific independent need in a specific time and certain circumstances. I think the articulation and combination of a set of correct harmonious constructive solutions contribute in leading to one model of good architecture. I also think good architecture may include aesthetics, functionality, sustainability, affordability and other criterions that keep branching and developing over time, affected at the same time by other knowledges not limited to the field of architecture. Comparing between solutions, applied and suggested alternatives, is a better method to address if a project is better than another. I think the sources of styles in architecture are the actual or former ideological movements. Architecture is an expression of the circumstances of those ideologies that nations live and test, not a moda that change each period. I agree with Alvarez and think that traditionalism in architecture in present time is a decorative repetition, and it’s a look towards the past. I partially agree with Alvarez regarding "The only style that exists and will exist is one that contemplates along with the requirements the economic and sociological aspects, the materials and the function”3 (N. Pevsner, 1966), as I think it will be continuous developing styles, not a unique ultimate singular universal stable style. The technical challenge in building SOMISA can’t be denied; manufacturing various items of steel specifically for the entire building, produced by the client, in compliance to the rules of the competition. I also agree with Alvarez regarding not to have a generic negative position towards a technology, the curtain wall in this case, instead, to differentiate between its correct and suitable use, and the irrational use, as mentioned before. 3
"El único estilo que existe y existirá es aquel que contempla junto con los requerimientos, los aspectos económicos y sociológicos, los materiales y la función" (N. Pevsner, 1966) - Translated by the investigator.
Page 4 de 5
Seminar on Criticism and Teaching of Architecture Master of Architectural and Urban Project – MAP [au] National University of La Plata
Ayman Safi Zaid
I felt Alvares response was necessary, brief and rational. I liked the methodology in the response he used, the gradation from general concepts until explaining some technical details. I didn’t felt egotism from Alvarez, and I think he didn’t over analyzed the critique. I liked how he cited several parts of various critiques, avoiding directly saying all the ideas he have, and rising the discussion to a level that has more players. Finally, I liked how he explained when necessary some hidden technical details. Finally, I believe there will be always differences between the architect and the critic, the actor and the theoretical critic, not only in architecture. I totally agree with the idea of Alvares that architectural critique is best to be explained through comparison between projects, and I suggest to include when necessary architectural presentations or diagrams, not only literature.
References 1. Lam, Philip. Philip Lam. 02 24, 2014. http://www.philktlam.com/. 2. Moderna Buenos Aires. Moderna Buenos Aires. 12 01, 2015. http://www.modernabuenosaires.org/. 3. MRA+A. MRA+A | Alvarez - Bernabo - Sabatini. 12 01, 2015. http://mraya.com.ar. 4. Ortiz, Federico. "Edificio SOMISA, Buenos Aires." SUMMA, 1983: 40-42.
Page 5 de 5