Alexandre Thériot BRUTHER
host institution
partners/sponsors
About: Founded by StĂŠphanie Bru and Alexandre Theriot, Bruther works in the fields of architecture, research, education, urbanism and landscape. Since 2007, Bruther develops national and international projects such as Cultural and Sport Center Saint-Blaise (2014), Helsinki Central Library (2013) and New Generation Research Center (2015). Bruther stands for a specific architecture, adapted to the needs of each project in order to offer maximal living conditions. Adaptability and evolutivity of the building are fundamentals in the office practice.
Alexandre Theriot (BRUTHER) David Wasel Nicolas Bobran Sarah Liz Dietz Hannah Ehre Valerie Franck Magdalena Fritsch Rebecca Heinzler Kilian Juraschitz Berta Keerl Sophia Landsherr Marc LĂźling Jonas Stamm Brigitta Szakal Viktoriya Ivanova
„The architectural device reinforces the weak natural defences of the human body and also gives it a soverign consciousness. The first protection ensures the defense of a vulnerable organism and allows it, in the isolation of its environment, to favor the return on oneself which allows him to apprehend himself and to constitute himself as subjectivity. This device works like an orthesis, a training mechanism intended to isolate the man from his environment.“ Richard Scoffier, Penser l‘architecture comme une orthèse
BÂTIMENT - MACHINE
Fun Palace, Cedric Price, London 1961
the Collective Palace
Sarah Liz Dietz and Hannah Ehre
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5
12
Fun Palace, Cedric Price, Londres, 1961 Cedric Price (1934-2003) Buckingham Palace 2014 Interior Crystal Palace 1854 - 1936 Archigram 1960 - 1974 Buckingham Palace Plan Cedric Price, “Fun Palace Project” Architectural Review (January 1965) - Distribution OMA, Museum/ Galerie in Galeries Lafayette, Paris France, 2012 Cedric Price, “Fun Palace Project” Architectural Review (January 1965) Floor plan of the Bertelsmann Verlag in Gütersloh, 1961 Architectural Order - ten books on architecture vitruvius Cedric Price, “Fun Palace Project” Architectural Review (January 1965) - View on a column Cedric Price, “Fun Palace Project” Architectural Review (January 1965) smlxl, rem koolhaas & bruce mau- the asian city of tomorrow Denmark, Copenhagen - Christiania Designed and marketed by Apple Inc, June 2016 Cedric Price, “Fun Palace Project” Architectural Review (January 1965) - Organisation Cedric Price, “Fun Palace Project” Architectural Review (January 1965) - Features Maison Tropicale, Jean Prouvé, 1950s Time Square - Projection Screen Container gantry crane - shipyard Cedric Price, “Fun Palace Project” Architectural Review (January 1965) - Movable Stairs Cedric Price, “Fun Palace Project” Architectural Review (January 1965) - Detail of the construction Cedric Price, “Fun Palace Project” Architectural Review (January 1965) - Potential Swiss Army Knife / Victorinox - Possibilities
„To come and go... or just look around. No need to look for the entrance - you can enter everywhere -. No doors, no lobby, no queue, no counter : everything is open. To look,take an elevator, a ramp, to go towards anything that looks interesting... To choose what you want to do, or watch someone else doing it. At any time in the day or in the night, winter or summer, it is the same. If it rains, the roof stops the water but not the light...“
13
The Fun Palace was not a building in any conventional sense but was instead a socially interactive machine highly adaptable to the shifting cultural and social conditions of its time and place. It was created by Cedric Price born (1934-2003) and Joan Littlewood. “To come and go… or just look around. No need to look for the entrance- you can enter everywhere. No doors, no lobby, no queue, no counter: everything is open. To look, take an elevator, a ramp, to go towards anything that looks interesting… to choose what you want to do, or watch someone else doing it. At any time in the day or in the night, winter or summer, it is the same. If it rains, the roof stops the water but not the light…” First we thought about the name- Fun Palace- it contains the word “Palace” which stands normally for the traditional representative royal’s residence. In our case it looks much more similar to the Cristal Palace built in 1854. Especially because of its material, glass and steel. Although the style of the architecture remembers of the style of Archigram 1960-1974. In contrast to the plan of the traditional palace where you have one main entrance, the Fun Palace has no strict entry. The pedestrian is free to choose his way in. Suddenly he recognises that there is no defined direction. The only way to get up is through the staircases, escalators and lift bring the visitor up to the different levels. From there you have an overview of the space, which makes you realize the open plan organisation. Unlike the Vitruvian Architectural Order of the columns, which define proportion, Cedric Price measures his distances with time. You just need 30 seconds from one column to the other, like you can see in his sketches. Without a connection to a proportion or time distance we would end in a huge construction like the project of Rem Koolhaas and Bruce Mau or without an urban construction like in Chistiania Denmark Copenhagen, which brings you to two completely different kind of living. Steve Jobs recognised it well, that people need a huge amount of different activities with a clear structure. The Fun Palace works similar. It offers you different fun activities like: to rest in the sun, to go to the restaurant with a view over the city, or just to have daily information through the screen which is located on the top of the building. A very important element in Price’s architecture is the crane, with the ability to move above the building. It allows you to transport the inner fragments of the construction through the palace. The flexibility manifests itself also through the movable stairs, and other features. All in all, you could compare the Fun palace to a simple and functional pocketknife. Through research and these three intense workshop days we came to the conclusion that the Fun Palace would not be the same as in post war England, where the individual thinking was encouraged. In our interpretation of today’s Fun Palace, it is more about the architectural machine as a duplication of architectural fragments and their elements. The people acting in this building function more as a unity to reach common goals.
14
15
Amsterdam Orphanage, Aldo van Eyck, 1960
LE Lieu de possible
Sophia Landsherr and Marc LĂźling
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5
18
Sculpture Pavillion 1965 Maurizio Pezo und Sofia von Ellrichshausen, Running New Babylon Otterlo Circles Individual Spaces Organism Orphanage 1960 Portrait Of Madame Matisse 1905, Expressionismus Orphanage 1960 Door Sill Natural Border Malewitch 1915 Playground Amsterdam Floor Plan Pavillion 1965 Labyrinth Game Community Structure
HOMO LUDENS HOMO FABER
FUNCTIONALISM HAS KILLED CREATIVITY
PONDERATION
INTUITION
SIMPLICITY
19
Aldo van Eyck‘s main idea of designing houses is an humanistic one. Influenced by the international Avantgarde of the 1940s, he strives for a modern futuristic urbanism. His aim was to remodel the community through love, subjectivity, art and fantasy. He tries to raise the society from Homo Faber (working) to Homo Ludens (playing) like the example of Constant Nieuwenhuys‘ New Babylon. The numerous playgrounds he built prove the importance of the play as an element of culture and society. He sense the playground as an non-hierachical place with the possibility of meeting, motion and the exchange of ideas. Human being is the subject and the matter of architecture. Moreover the aim. The architecture of Aldo van Eyck takes distance from Functionalism and Rationalism. The only important structure for him is the one between people, the relationship from a individual to the community and backwards. Translated in architecture: Classical, modern and vernacular traditions and elements are coming together in architecture. Coming together in a place to live and feel free. The buildings are designed in a way of poetry where the circle is the main element. A symbol of existence.
20
21
23
L´école de plein air de Suresnes Eugéne Beaudouin, Marcel Lods, Jean Prouvé, 1935
BATIMENT NATURE
Victoria Ivanova and Brigitta Szakal
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5
26
L´école de plein air de Suresnes Eugéne Beaudouin, Marcel Lods, Jean Prouvé Deconstruction of the classical punctuated facade in oder to satisfaction the requirements Industrial steel and glass as a element of producing a sunlight Bauhaus, Walter Gropius, Dessau 1925/26 A industrial hall as a modell of architectural volume Conowingo Hydroelectric Plant, Maryland, 1930 Structure of the complex L´école de plein air de Suresnes A new experimental kind of classroom L´école de plein air de Suresnes Deconstructing of facade Bauhaus, Walter Gropius, Dessau 1925/26 Facade as a serving element House with one wall, Christian Kerez) Disappearing of the facade A-Art House, Kazuyo Sejima, SANAA Deconstruction of space Minimal Light Installations, Massimo Uberti Okakura Kakuzo, The Book of Tea, 1906 The roof as a determination of spaceMusikpavillion, Frei Otto, Kassel,1955 A light defined space,Teshima art museum, SANAA The form defines uses, L´école de plein air de Suresnes Space defined by use, L´école de plein air de Suresnes Use determens the form Die Eleganz der Gasometer by Hilla Becher The picnic blanket define a room without boarders, unknown photographer A place to show a content The Incidental Space by Chritian Kerez, Venice Bienale 2016 Space at about every spot in the city, The Kitchen Monument by Raumlabor, Venice Bienale 2010 Structure in the nature, Structure of Landscape by Ensamble Studio Space integrated in the nature, Structures of Landscapes by Antón García-Abril Nautral inhabitance of the human, Ogbunike caves, southeastern Nigeria Integrated space inunknown photographer
minimisation of structure
„The reality of a room, for instance, was to be found in the vacant space enclosed by the roof and the walls, not in the roof and walls themselves.“
mobilier/ immobilier
27
The common school in the 1930s couldn‘t suit the medical needs of children with tuberculosis. In Eugene Baudours interpretation of the learning facilities we see elements native to the industrial buildings of that era like the glass facade and high ceilings. This is the result of the minimalisation of the structure done in order to meet the children‘s hygiene requirements, consisting of fresh air and sunlight. As a result to this minimalisation the walls no more have the meaning of boarders and restrictions to the room and the space in general. Therefore one could easily find himself wondering what defines, what is room and furthermore what are the elements that define it. Is it the roof, the form or the amount of light that defines space? The true definition and the sole inception of a space is its use. The use on its own suggests the furniture. Like the picnic blanket, where the use defines a room, not its boarders and the space is represented by the content whether it would be placed in the city or in nature. Space can be also produced with nature or in nature. This in turn leads to the question, if nature is our natural residence and isn’t the integration of space the highest achievement.
28
- Batiment Nature -
29
Alison & Peter Smithson, Hunstanton Secondary School Hunstanton, GB, 1954
rethinking specificity
Jonas Stamm and Kilian Juraschitz
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5
32
Alison & Peter Smithson, Hunstanton Secondary School Hunstanton, GB, 1954 Wassily Kandinsky, Soft roughness, cardboard, tempera, 57.5 x 41.8 cm, 1933, Paris, France Alison & Peter Smithson, Hunstanton Secondary School, Hunstanton, GB, 1954 Church tower as orientation, Oberstdorf around 1900 Alison & Peter Smithson, Hunstanton Secondary School, Hunstanton, GB, 1954 Alison & Peter Smithson, Hunstanton Secondary School, Hunstanton, GB, 1954 Christian Roller & Hans Voß, Schloss Illenau (Castle), topview, Achern, Germany, 1842 Alison & Peter Smithson, Hunstanton Secondary School, Hunstanton, GB, 1954 Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Crown Hall, floorplan, IIT Campus, Chicago, USA, 1956 Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Crown Hall, floorplan, IIT Campus, Chicago, USA, 1956 Alison & Peter Smithson, Hunstanton Secondary School, Hunstanton, GB, 1954 Alison & Peter Smithson, Hunstanton Secondary School, Hunstanton, GB, 1954 Hyacinthe Rigaud, Portrait Louis XIV of France, painting, 1701 Entry of Residenzschloss Dresden Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Crown Hall, floorplan, IIT Campus, Chicago, USA, 1956 Alison & Peter Smithson, Hunstanton Secondary School, Hunstanton, GB, 1954 Student protest, Alexander Sinton High School, Athlone, Kapstadt, South Africa, 1985 Rolling Stones, Cover of Mono Box Set Alison & Peter Smithson, double height lobby as democratic room of school, Hunstanton, GB, 1954 Porsche 912 factory Stuttgart, 1960s Aldo van Eyck, Orphelinat municipal, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1959 Eugéne Beaudouin, Marcel Lods, Jean Prouvé L‘vécole de plein air de Suresnes, Surnes, France, 1935 Alison & Peter Smithson, Hunstanton Secondary School, classroom, Hunstanton, GB, 1954 Jack Lynn & Ivor Smith, Park Hill Estate, Sheffield, England, 1961
33
35
Maison de Verre, Pierre Chareau, 1928
sur scEne
Magdalena von Fritsch and Rebecca Heinzler
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5
38
Maison de Verre, Pierre Chareau, Paris, 1928 - 1931 Hôtel Particulière, Paris 1926 Factory Bernd Becher 1971 Standard of living, Paris, 1930 Working conditions, 1930 Situation in a typical courtyard, 1930 Infulence of natural light vs. artificial light Ventilation flaps, Transfer of technical inventions Technical installation Vertical tubes for electric cabling and interconnection Doctors equipment, 1930 Madame Dalsace in the Maison de Verre, 1930 Bibliotheque of the Maison de Verre, 1930 Piano in the Maison de Verre, 1930 Bell ot the Maison de Verre devided into diffrent levels of use Ground floor plan of a factory Interior view of the office in the Maison der Verre, 1930 Front view of the Maison de Verre at night, 1930 Spotlight of the Maison de Verre, 1930 Space-capsule Situation of the entrance area of the Maison der Verre, 1930 Control buttons of the technical equipment in the Maison der Verre, 1930 „The Stage“ in the Maison de Verre, 1930 Steering wheel in the Maison de Verre, 1930 Théatre
39
The Maison de Verre is a residential building, designed by Pierre Chareau in 1931. The three story townhouse was planned for a gynecologist and his wife in a courtyard of Paris. With it’s great industrial potential the building can be seen as a total machine object, like a bâtiment machine. Before starting our short story about the Maison de Verre we need to ask what is a typical townhouse and what was the standard of living was like in the period of the 30s. In the bourgeois way of life it was common to hide the construction and all the technical elements. In contrast to this lifestyle is the typology of the factory. Factories were organized on a grid and the steel construction was visible. The focus was on the production process, which wouldn’t work that fast without all the visible technical equipment. The extreme contrast of the two typologies never implicated a connection among each other. In this case another important aspect has to be explained: In the early 20s century, factories were situated in the courtyards of Paris. Although these factories form the centre of the housing blocks, the inhabitants had no real connection to them. Through the process of the atlas we want to explain how Pierre Chareau changed the given rules of the typologies and their conditions. He already breaks them to create something extremely new with the use of some specific details of the building technology in factories. The way of using natural light instead of artificial light and the way of using visible technical installations can be recovered in the Maison de Verre. For example the vertical tubes for the electric cabling and interconnection, the control boxes or ventilation systems. Furthermore the created machine of the Maison the Verre wouldn’t work without the clients and their special needs. The doctor and his wife had their demands on the architecture Pierre designed for them. So for example they wanted each level being set aside for a different purpose and the integration of a bibliotheque and a piano. In the end of the row, the picture of the bell expresses how the bourgeois way of living the couple lives comes together with the new technical inventions Pierre Chareau designed. With the new inventions every day life is simplified and the processes are speeded up. On the open planned grid of a factory all these elements come together and create a new typology. The everyday life comes together with the construction. The visible steel columns come in contact with an honest architecture where nothing is hidden. It gets a transformable plan where the walls stands independent by the pillars of steel. Another important aspect is the connection between outside and inside. From the outside you can’t imagine what’s behind the translucent glass brick wall. It’s like an anonym stage in a Chinese shadow play. From the outside it appears dreamlike. The shadows represent things which exist outside of the picture. From the inside you’ve only got some specific views to the outside. Mostly you can’t see what’s behind the facade. Furthermore you can’t say what time it is behind the facade. Pierre Chareau recreates daylight at night with a light source outside. Creates an atmosphere like in a filmset inside. So the windows of bricks become a wall and create an own space like in a space-capsule. In this kind of capsules you loose your whole relationship with time and space. In the end the Maison de Verre becomes a stage which totally lives it’s own life. The inhabitants are staged like actors and the every day life scenes find it’s natural space in the theatre Pierre Chareau created. Innovation was not his aim, but perfection. „There are elements next to each other, which are so strange, that especially the absurdness of this coexistence suddenly provokes an intensification of the visionary force in me.“ -Max Ernst-
40
41
Louis I. Kahn 1901-1974 Pärnu, Estonia Olivetti Underwood Factory, Louis Kahn, 1966 “Architecture is the thoughtful making of space.“
Invading architecture
Berta Keerl and Nicolas Bobran
A1 Olivetti Underwood Factory, Harrisburg, PA, 1966-70, Louis I. Kahn A2 Valentine typewriter by Ettore Sottsass and Perry King, 1969 A3 Olivetti Programma 101 computer, by Mario Bellini, 1965-1971 A4 The Concrete Factory, Sant Just Desvern, Spain, Ricardo Bofill, 1973 A5 Olivetti Underwood Factory, Harrisburg, PA, 1966-70, Louis I. Kahn B1 Olivetti Underwood Factory, Harrisburg, PA, 1966-70, Louis I. Kahn B2 New National Galery, Berlin, Germany, Mies van der Rohe, 1968 B3 Olivetti Underwood Factory, Harrisburg, PA, 1966-70, Louis I. Kahn B4 Market Hall IV, Berlin, Germany, Hermann Blankenstein B5 Olivetti Underwood Factory, Harrisburg, PA, 1966-70, Louis I. Kahn C1 Olivetti Underwood Factory, Harrisburg, PA, 1966-70, Louis I. Kahn C2 Growing structure, Le Corbusier C3 Olivetti Underwood Factory, Harrisburg, PA, 1966-70, Louis I. Kahn C4 Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas, 1900-72, Louis I. Kahn C5 Olivetti Underwood Factory, Harrisburg, PA, 1966-70, Louis I. Kahn D1 The Machine, Olivetti Underwood Factory, Harrisburg, PA, 1966-70, Louis I. Kahn D2 Collage D3 Olivetti Underwood Factory, Harrisburg, PA, 1966-70, Louis I. Kahn D4 All Terrain Armored TransportStar Wars, 1980 D5 Olivetti Underwood Factory, Harrisburg, PA, 1966-70, Louis I. Kahn E1 Olivetti Underwood Factory, Harrisburg, PA, 1966-70, Louis I. Kahn E2 Portikus of the Stoa of Attalos, Athen, 159BC E3 Olivetti Underwood Factory, Harrisburg, PA, 1966-70, Louis I. Kahn E4 Un Chien Andalou, Luis BuĂąuel, 1929 E5 Olivetti Underwood Factory, Harrisburg, PA, 1966-70, Louis I. Kahn
44
Olivetti Underwood Factory Harrisburg, PA, 1966-70, Louis I. Kahn
All Terrain Armored Transport Star Wars, 1980
45
Lous I. Kahn is one of the great architects of the 20th century. He build very powerful and poetic masterpieces. His concepts with different uses often have socialpolitical backgrounds. The Olivetti firm produces from typewriters to computers and phones. Because of this rapidly changing industry the factory design had to be able to absorve time and be flexible in its use. This way Kahn built a factory completly adapted to this idea. A large geometrical open plan, a big roof building an entity and the possibility to reuse the building in any other context were part of the concept. Seeing the building as a “BATIMENT MACHINE“ he incorporates different machinery systems, like the illumination grid structure and the building technology, in the concrete modules creating a great mixture of elements. The factory transforms into an engine building machine. Through the materials and the masterly designed light-choreography he creates spaces of special monumentality and archaic beauty with universal symbolic strenght. In summary he creates a surrealistic superposition of building and machine. Creation of non-sense constructions and the invasion of the machine in the building structure is part of the game. Outstanding the social importance of his architecture, he builts completly new and different buildings. All in all we recognize how Kahn sees architecture not only as an instrument of need satisfaction, but as an instrument of artistic speculation and a thinking about nature, history and the human collective.
46
Machine Desease
47