inadequacy of designers to relate to the layered complexity of the existing contexts in which they (now) work. The empty sheet of paper is, above all, very convenient, it has a comfortable emptiness that does not get in the way of the design of cool architecture. In their book, the editors describe a different attitude – one that focuses on both the context and on ways of designing – rather than a method. They describe a different design practice that fits perfectly with the ‘new’ Dutch architecture that Kirsten Hannema labelled ‘Supernormal’ in A+U 592. She (also) positions this ‘other’ architecture as both the successor and the counterpart of Superdutch architecture. It is no coincidence that this particular issue of A+U presents a large number of recent projects that are all to a great extent ‘dealing with the existing reality’: with reuse and transformation. The fact that the projects Hannema identifies in ‘her’ A+U have been in the pipeline for almost ten years indicates that she did not ‘discover’ anything new, but that a long-standing design practice is (only) now proving to have a definable coherence. The many examples given in Rewriting Architecture often go back even further and show that this ‘new attitude’ has always been present, albeit not in the (imagerich) foreground. It is another part of the practice that holds the spotlight. Somehow, the comparison with OMA/Rem Koolhaas’s recent (absurd/painful/ alienating) ‘discovery’ that there is a whole world to be found outside our metropolises comes to mind. Is this really a ‘new’ insight, or are people (finally) taking off their (intellectual) blinkers? The emphasis on a different design practice is not only explained in interviews and essays that describe the actions, but also by exemplary projects set up by kindred spirits. There is a lot of Belgian input: the book includes interviews with architects de vylder vinck tallieu, 51N4E and Xavier de Geyter. As this is supplemented by projects by and interviews with Lacaton Vassal, Atelier Bow-Wow, Sam Jacob, Assemble and Elemental, the editors have managed to assembled a parade of contemporary (but relevant) trendsetters. The Dutch contribution is limited and consists largely of projects by students of the Amsterdam Academy of Architecture and projects by the practices of Jarrik Ouburg (HOH architects) and Floris Alkemade (under his own name, from his collaboration with Xavier de Geyter and from his time as partner at OMA). Compared to the other projects, the editors’ own examples sometimes seem insignificant and forced. It cannot but be that they want to frame themselves as active proponents of ‘their’ attitude. Vanity sometimes seems to have taken precedence over substantiality. The editors provide the artists, architects and activists with a generous platform to display their sensitivity to places, people and to the complex situations in which they work. Being put into practice does not reduce this to a few slick diagrams; it is explored by searching, listening, together with many others. Complexity is embraced, explored and transformed into design actions. In contrast to the straightforward brick boxes of building blocks and/or the frenetic muscle-flaunting of architectural icons that now dominate the building production, the everyday and modest elegance of the presented projects is radical and provocative in a disarming way. They are seductive, stimulating and challenging. However, a dilemma also presents itself, one that the editors have noticed, too. After all, doesn’t ‘working from inside reality’ also mean that one accepts reality ‘blindly’, at least in the first instance? Where does that leave the critical moment, what ideals are left to nourish the profession? What does modesty achieve? Is the propagated modesty really meant to be positive or is it, given the observed marginalization of architecture, a way of accepting one’s own powerlessness by fine words? Rewriting Architecture does not literally say so, but the editors in fact expose the myth that architects (want to) have the capacity to tilt the world in the right direction, purely by the power of their ingenious design. It recognizes their actual powerlessness not out of resignation, but out of pragmatic idealism. It presents an attitude that, despite this actual powerlessness, does have the tools to bring about change. Unfortunately, the editors do not start from their own strengths and cannot resist the temptation to contrast ‘their’ attitude to one of the immediate past:
it is not the Superdutch attitude. That is fine as a kind of adolescent defiance of the previous generation, but it does not make the argument any stronger. Today, the Superdutch generation mainly designs shopping centres, skyscrapers and sheikhs’ toys. Surely it is clear to all that their claim – that of the self-appointed successors to the radical ideals of the early-twentieth-century avant-garde – is now empty? Making the Superdutch generation the measure of all things, Alkemade et al. are comparing apples with (rotten) pears. Rather than identify a generational conflict, Re writing Architecture describes an architecture with a vocabulary that has always existed, but with which the headlines have not been written in recent decades. Rewriting Architecture shifts the gaze, rearranges priorities and sets a different rather than a new agenda. This other agenda does not aspire to think reflectively/critically about reality and represent it in architecture, but to be a concrete part of it and contribute to it. Like a historical pendulum, the focus of the architecture discourse seems to move away from the universal and generic and back to the local and the specific. No matter how beautiful, noble and ‘necessary’ this ambition perhaps is, it remains unclear how this shifted gaze facilitates the step from ‘intellectual ambition’ to an actually tangible reduction of inequality, to real affordability, to real climate adaptation, as the introductions state. Will homes become cheaper to live in if they are designed with the described attitude in mind? Will they be better insulated or offer more space for urban nature? Will they become zero-onthe-meter more quickly? Even more than an effort to convince its audience that this other attitude is a ‘better’ way to realize these social ambitions, Rewriting Architecture is a sincere appeal to architects to relate to the challenges they work on with an inquisitive, open mind. Rejecting black-and-white thinking, the book advocates a middle course between a ‘compulsive’ avant-gardism that questions everything on the one hand, and a suffocating cuddling of what is already on the other. Both attitudes can, regardless of the architecture, result in an ‘A’ energy rating, be affordable (rather often, they are not) or result in a green roof and some obligatory birdhouses to tick the ‘nature inclusive’ box. Beyond labels and ticked boxes, the editors advocate an active, involved practice in which shades of grey can be discovered and the critical reflection on which shade of grey is the most desirable is determined in the process. Not only the product, but the practice itself has value. ‘Real’ impact on living environments can be expressed in different quantities than the ones we are used to. Not revolution, but evolution. No shock-andawe architecture, but intelligent guerrilla. By working bottom-up, from what Ouburg calls ‘the swamp’ of reality in his introduction, architecture can be more than a cynical commentary from the cultural side lines: it can once again be an active voice in society. loris Alkemade, Michiel van Iersel, Jarrik Ouburg, F Mark Minkjan (eds.), Rewriting Architecture: 10+1 Actions/ Tabula Scripta. Valiz (2020) his article originally appeared in Dutch on the Archined T website on 2 February 2021; see archined.nl/2021/02/ tabula-scripta-een-andere-kijk-op-het-ontwerpvak/
63
