Around the Table by Edwin Gardner

V14_FINAL.qxd:Opmaak 1

12-12-2007

12:35

Pagina 8

Volume 14

Illustration by BOEM

Around the table

V14_FINAL.qxd:Opmaak 1

12-12-2007

12:35

Pagina 9

Practitioners and Practice A Reality Check

Volume 14

Volume sat down with several specialists in architecture and construction to discuss the state of the art of architecture and options for improvement. Each participant sees a different role and responsibility for architects compared to a few decades ago. There is less consonance of outlook, but these experts all agree on the need for a change in the current building process. Our first guest speaker is architect Matthijs Bouw, founder and director of One Architecture. Bouw’s practice is pragmatic yet engaged. His strategy is to rescue architecture (and the architect) from irrelevancy by creating a margin for intervention and action; he uses this strategy to engage the building process at a very early stage, when major decisions still have to be made. Our second guest, Hugo Priemus, former Dean of the Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management at the TU Delft, champions a more exploratory role for the architect in order to lay bare options and identify possibilities. With years of experience in the field, his argument for new challenges for architects are enmeshed with historical analyses. Not surprisingly, according to building process manager Dik Smits the issue is not so much one of a new practice of architecture or a shift in architectural focus, but the clarification of responsibilities and relations in the current building process. Smits’ argument is quite provocative as he believes it is a matter of making the architect directly responsible for the consequences of his ideas and decisions instead of giving him more responsibility. Volume’s fourth interviewee, cultural economist Arjo Klamer advocates advancing the organization of our economy, in effect creating a new paradigm, a change in our valuation of capital formation in terms of cultural and social capital. This, Klamer argues, would dramatically change the architect’s position in the building process. The ‘urban landscape’ architects from the burgeoning office ZUS, Kristian Koreman and Elma van Boxel, practice unsolicited architecture which includes political dimensions lost since the late 1970s. These Rotterdam-Maaskant Award winners promote the independence of their day-to-day design practice. Allow us to introduce five takes from current reality on the future of architectural practice.

V14_FINAL.qxd:Opmaak 1

12-12-2007

12:35

Pagina 10

Architect – Matthijs Bouw The architect must play the game called architecture on the chessboard that matters, the project developer’s, for example. Matthijs Bouw on risk reduction, investment space and lobbying politicians. Edwin Gardner What is the difference between One Architecture and other architectural firms? Matthijs Bouw We are concerned with the following

question: How can you create space for an architectural practice that is more comprehensive, a practice that enlarges the field of play for architecture? I believe, there are three ways of doing this within architectural practice. The most eye-catching is what you can call the ‘signature practice’. These are architects who have a characteristic handwriting in their designs, and are invited for assignments on the basis of their signature. This gives them more scope to conduct their practice. project developer Deventer Hospital

formulate a high quality urban plan fast while still giving space to the developers to do their thing. Our urban proposal leaves the old hospital building intact, except for the demolition of a wing that had been added later. The old brick building, consisting of a courtyard with wings, dates from the 1930s. As such, they are in harmony with the rest of the residential neighborhood. We planned a repetition of this typology on the site to accommodate the new housing program. The site was subsequently auctioned with a zoning plan and a visual quality plan in place. The zoning plan describes the building envelopes in detail, but also gives margins for phasing and housing differentiation. The extensive visual quality plan was drawn up on the basis of historical research. One of the aspects that this touched on was the question of how to handle the ways in which the building volumes are connected. EG To what extent do you do the work of a developer? MB

Whether we have encroached upon the developer’s

Traditionally New

project developer

Total yield traditional method

? Total yield new method

Lower yields caused by investment in quality Extra limitation of risks through investing in quality

Diagram by Matthijs Bouw

yield estate owner

Risk development traditional method Risk development new method

yield estate owner

Second, there are the extra-large firms. Thanks to their format, they have all kinds of expertise and can create more operational space. Finally there is consultancy. This architectural practice enlarges its field of play by intervening in the building process at a different moment, namely during the formation of the first ideas and the formulation of a scenario or assignment. The focus in this approach is on the conditions and potential, and in fact you are working on the question of where the demand for architecture comes from. EG How do you enlarge the field of play for architecture?

The Geertruidentuin project in Deventer is a good example of how we work. The old site of the Deventer Hospital had to be developed because the hospital moved to a new location. We then talked to the directors of the Deventer Hospital to develop a plan and a sales strategy for the site in a new way. The concept was to

terrain depends on your perspective. We drew up a plan that a developer would never make. The developer would probably have preferred to demolish all the buildings and then to divide up the site into extremely compact plots and to build 1930s-style villas, because they sell the best. So with our plan the total financial yield of the project was lower by comparison with the approach of a regular project developer. If there was any encroachment, it was in the fact that we solved a good many problems in consultation with the hospital, the neighborhood and the municipality that would normally be the responsibility of a developer. A developer normally buys strategic land. A large number of risks are tied to a purchase of that kind. For example, the zoning plan is not yet what is will have to be (in our case the function was still that of a hospital) and it may be necessary to carry out some demolition work. This can lead to unpleasant surprises like asbestos.

Volume 14

Time (years)

V14_FINAL.qxd:Opmaak 1

12-12-2007

12:35

Pagina 11

The more risks there are, the less a developer will be prepared to pay for a piece of land. Together with the hospital, local residents and the local authority, we soon came to an agreement and plan that met with the approval of all parties. This meant that the change of the zoning plan could be dealt with quickly. Since we had removed many risks, the hospital was able to sell its land for a much higher price. Even though the total yield was lower, the hospital made more money. One could say that part of the value of the site was invested on the site, and part went into the hospital fund. Arjen Oosterman How do you prevent the project developer from still trying to implement his own plans?

In theory they can still do that, as the auction had few conditions. We did lay down, however, that right from day one the other parts of the hospital had to be demolished. Besides the other plan documents, this is a built-in guarantee that developers will implement the plan in accordance with the framework laid down by us, because they have to invest from the start, and drawing up a new plan, and getting this approved, would simply take too much time, with the interest meter running. For a project developer assumes an enormous risk if he decides to alter a zoning plan that has only just been altered. It hardly pays off, precisely because he has initially already had to pay a good deal more for the land. Within the framework that we laid down, however, there is still plenty of freedom for developers. The freedom lies in the housing differentiation, marketing, programming, breakdown into stages, and building sequence.

EG Do you also have examples from your practice in countries where the regulations are not so sharply defined?

We came into contact with the biggest project developer in Georgia; the largest local bank is allied with him, as well as the largest exporting corporation, Borjomi. He commissioned us to make a design for a building complex in the centre of Tbilisi. It was to have a FAR1 of 8. After carrying out studies, our reaction was that it would be completely irresponsible to build with that density on that location. In our view, the maximal FAR was four. We bounced the ball back to the client by telling him that he should develop the different plots of land that he owned in the centre of Tbilisi with a coherent urban development vision, because the city runs the risk of becoming an unattractive area where no one wants to be. This is not in the interests of our clients, because they are in Tbilisi for the long term. On the basis of this criticism, we were commissioned to develop a master plan for a larger area. This unsolicited criticism enabled us to redefine the assignment. Besides, we also went further. In Tiblisi there is an enormous influx of venture capitalists who throw themselves en masse upon real estate. This has led to uncontrolled proliferation in the city. It is a totally irresponsible development without any quality. To chart this development and to make people aware of the imminent plans, we created the New Map of Tiblisi (by analogy with the New Map of the Netherlands) showing all of the plans for new buildings. So it was unsolicited in the hope of activating the local middle management.

Volume 14

Building Manager – Dik Smits A contract does not promise ‘this is what we’ll get’, rather ‘this is what we shall aim for.’ Dik Smits on the responsibility of the architect and his performance as member of a building team. Edwin Gardner Is unsolicited architecture an interesting development? Dik Smits It’s great that architects are working like

this with this segment of the market, but presenting an urban development vision out of the blue to a local authority is a risky business. There’s a 50% chance that you will hardly get paid anything. Such a consultancystyle practice is very dangerous. Architects lack the tools to be able to operate in that field. It’s true that architects have to become more enterprising. They often think that it’s enough to be registered as architects. EG How do you think the building market is functioning at the moment?

The market contains built-in patterns, prejudices. The contractor is convinced that the architect has only one thing in mind: building a monument for himself. It is supposed that the architect has not the slightest interest in whether it is possible at all or how much it will cost. The regulation on architects’ fees [in the Netherlands] as a percentage of the total building costs confirms this picture. This is one side of the coin. The other is that the architect is convinced that, in attempting to maximize profits, the contractor will do everything within his power to torpedo the architect’s design. Moreover, in that case the contractor would let the client share in the resulting benefits of those cuts. If this is how you operate in your profession, you won’t make it. You become the consultant who is busy generating work for himself. The assignment for a consultant should be to make himself redundant as quickly as possible.

EG Why should the architect make himself redundant?

As client, you want advice at the lowest possible cost. At the moment an advice includes the recommendation to obtain a second advice (from the same adviser), you’re involved with the wrong party. Of course I also ask specialists for their advice because some aspects go beyond the capacities of a general building manager. Then I break the problem down into stages. Each stage can mean a change of direction. I will never allow an architect to force a contract on my client in which he lays down the entire process. I’m quite prepared to recognize the interests of the architect during the whole process or to organize the process in a different way. In practice you often see the architect intervene in the process and organize it in such a way that he can secure his own position in the building project. Then you are no longer acting as an entrepreneur. As a good entrepreneur you try to deliver the best product at the lowest cost, but not the lowest price.

EG Is there something wrong with the team spirit in a building team?

The term ‘building team’ isn’t all that it sounds. It is above all an agreement between the client and the contractor. The building team is represented by the

DS 1 Floor Area Ratio indicates the amount of square meters allowed on the site.

12-12-2007

12:35

Pagina 12

well-known triangle: client, contractor and consultants (including the architect). There are contractual relations (and an exchange of information) between the consultants and the client, just as there are between the contractor and the client. But between the contractor and the consultants there is only a flow of information, not a contractual relation. In combination, this triangle delivers the product, namely the building. Within that building team, the client is represented by the architect, so the latter is in fact his own consultant at that moment. The underlying idea in the triangle is the division of responsibilities. The client is responsible for the design and the contractor for its implementation. The skill of the consultants is the responsibility of the client, so it is the client who runs the design risks. It often happens, however, that, because he is also a member of the team, joins in team discussions and thinks he has a clear picture of the entire process, the contractor takes

EG So you are in constant dialogue with this group of people throughout the entire process?

Yes, every traditional building meeting brings to light that the wrong decisions are taken with respect to all kinds of components of the building process. This can cause delays. In my arrangement, you take the decisions at the moment that the decision has to be taken in connection with the implementation. Since the decision is taken at the last moment, you know that it is the right decision and there can be no turning back.

EG How can architectural practice benefit from a method like this?

The architect must realize that he has limitations in relation to the assignment. An architect can certainly belong to a particular school, or not want to design gabled roofs, but it is completely up to the market who his partners will be. In the new system that I propose, you have more control of which figures come to sit around the table. So you carry out a selection procedure

Building Team New

Building Team Old

• architect representing client Client

• building manager representing client Client

Between all the parties involved there is a free flow of information, both in building team Old and New. The differences are in the contractual relations between the parties.

= contractual relation

Diagram by Edwin Gardner

V14_FINAL.qxd:Opmaak 1

= party

Consultants architect installations engineer construction engineer gas, water and electricity advisor …

Contractor • • • • •

over the design risks, even though he has had hardly any influence on them. I draw up a different building team agreement for the building projects that I manage. This agreement regulates the relations between all of the parties involved. The client is the one who takes the decisions, unless he chooses to be represented by a building manager. The contractual agreements with the client are the same as in the case of the classic building team. The building team agreement, however, is different; the responsibilities of all of the members of the building team are laid down in contracts between the members of the building team. In addition there is a framework agreement which contains nothing but the determination of the pricing. For instance, by dividing the building project up into several smaller sub-contracting agreements, it becomes possible to drive in the piles before the design has become definitive.

Consultants Contractor architect installations engineer construction engineer gas, water and electricity advisor …

to see whether the people are right for the assignment in question and for each other. This is above all a question of sensitivity, reading between the lines, and grasping how people work. The attractive thing in this new configuration is that the architect need not concern himself with implementation. Everyone in a team like that looks beyond his own responsibility and also feels responsible for problems in the other’s field of expertise. There can be no genuine innovation in building without social innovation.

Volume 14

• • • • •

V14_FINAL.qxd:Opmaak 1

12-12-2007

12:35

Pagina 13

Building Expert – Hugo Priemus ‘If we leave the primary league of architects out of the picture, construction companies, developers and local authorities have a rather touching image of the architect. One is taken more seriously that the other, but on a whole they play a marginal role in the decision-making process of building projects.’ Hugo Priemus on acquiring new positions for the architect between the building industry and public governance. Edwin Gardner What is in your view the role of the architect in the building process? Hugo Priemus A very long time ago, in the 1970s, I was

responsible for teaching spatial design to first-year students of the Faculty of Architecture at Delft University of Technology. One of my hobbyhorses was that a number of stages in the building process are laid down in the regulations on the fees for architects of the Royal Institute of Dutch Architects (BNA, the Dutch equivalent of the AIA or RIBA): the preliminary design, the definitive design, the contract drawings, the building specifications, and the implementation. The Economic Institute for the Building Industry carried out an investigation at the time. This investigation revealed the share of firms of architects in the implementation of all of the projects that had been carried out in one year. I was astonished by the result at the time. EG

What were the results of that investigation?

Architects had roughly a 100% share in the preliminary design and a slightly smaller one in the definitive design. The situation was still fairly good with the contract drawings, but the architects were almost entirely absent from the later stages. A budget: ‘no, we leave that up to others’, final drawings: ‘we have other firms for that’, the organization of a call for tenders – it had all been taken out of their hands. Let alone building inspector. At the time this was used as an extra argument for the setting up of a faculty department of Real Estate & Housing, which was specialized in questions of that kind, but I have always regarded it as a very regrettable loss of ground for the architect. Architects were active in the conceptual stage, but the actual erection of a building had been taken out of the architect’s hands. The situation grew worse in the course of time.

EG Can you give an example of why this is problematic?

I experienced the nadir of this development when I was a member of the ‘Bos en Lommer Plein’ committee of inquiry last year.1 Of course things went very wrong there. Eighteen months after the completion of this building, all of the occupants were hastily evacuated because constructional faults had been discovered. The committee examined all of this in detail and we came to alarming conclusions. One was that there were three architects involved in the project, but that their role was so marginal that, if the case is taken to court, they are completely innocent. The committee questioned some forty people. In the end some written information about the architects was requested, but we did not find it at all interesting to question those architects.

Volume 14

EG Should the architect try to regain the ground that has been lost in building practice?

The architect can certainly aim for a more differentiated practice. All the same, I also think that

some of the architects must regain their role in building practice. For example, when design and implementation are interdependent, they must be in the hands of one person. Furthermore, I think it is important for an architect to perform different roles. I think this is already happening, but I have never seen it documented very well. There used to be the estate agent who could receive payments from both sides. Later we said: ‘Lads, the agent is someone who is brought in either by the seller or by the buyer.’ Per transaction he represents one of the two interests, but he can represent one on one occasion and the other on a different occasion. The architect can play different roles in the same way. EG

What is your view of the matter?

Two stages can be distinguished in the chaotic processes that lead, or not, to the realisation of a piece of built environment. The first stage is everything that you can figure out, devise and think through to arrive at a functional program of requirements. Don’t call it a design at this stage, but rather the raising of the innocent question: What are we going to do here now? This is not determined by the market. For if that was the simple rule of thumb, there would never be any more greenery or water, but just housing, preferably owner-occupied, shops and offices. At certain points there is nothing wrong with that, but it is not always the right answer. It is the responsibility of the authorities to assess what the potential of the area is, what the needs are, and which priorities they want to set. It is not their responsibility to determine exactly what must happen. The functional program must not be determined too hastily. First an investigation has to be carried out of all of the possibilities. If you then finally opt for a particular program, you know which programs you are turning down. Cost and benefit analyses can be conducted and ideological preferences may play a role too, but it must all be prepared properly. A good designer is capable of investigating the potential of such an area at this stage, whether on his own initiative or, for example, commissioned by the public authorities. Urban design and architecture are pretty intertwined in this investigation. Programming, however, is easily associated – at least at Delft University of Technology – with the regional level or a master plan, but it can also be applied at smaller scale levels.

What about the second stage?

In the second stage the program of requirements has already been drawn up, so it is a given. A government has then, for example, laid down everything representing public values. Everything that does not automatically arise from the market is a part of this. For example, a program that answers such questions as: Are we going to build housing there, are we going to implement infrastructural facilities there, will be build shops there, and roughly how many? More than that does not need to be included in the program of requirements. We have a tradition in the Netherlands, and that is no different in many other countries, of drawing up a zoning plan in which we lay down the building lines. The question is whether that is right. Is it a public value that determines that building line? I don’t think so, I think it lies on a different level. There is a tendency to lay down far more than is necessary in the zoning plan, but in doing so we limit the room for manoeuvre of those who come after us. So the phenomenon of the functional program is, in my view, a phenomenon that has not been well thought out and implemented.

12-12-2007

12:35

Pagina 14

EG Do you think this means that the challenge for the architect lies in the field of the project developer?

Yes, the project developer often has the tendency to lay down a lot too and not to think too much of alternatives. So they approach local authorities saying: ‘This is how we planned it, this is how it should be, and you are bound to agree.’ Most local authorities put up a poor fight, and so that is the way it goes.

1 In 2006 cracks appeared in the surface of a new square in Amsterdam above an underground car park and surrounded by housing. This turned out to be the result of errors in the construction, including insufficient reinforcement, possibly due to inadequate supervision of and coordination between the parties.

Cultural Economist – Arjo Klamer ‘Economics is primarily about the attainment of values. Normally you weigh the costs and benefits, and on the basis of that you determine the optimal solution. In the new economy that is coming upon us, production costs make up only a small part of the value of a good; it is increasingly about concepts, ideas and imagination’, Arjo Klamer states. On the revaluation of the role of the architect.

Edwin Gardner What do you regard as the challenge for the architect in the new economy? Arjo Klamer First of all, I would like to draw a distinction

between different forms of capital. The commonest is economic capital, the capital to enable a building to generate economic profits. But that form is always subordinate to two other forms of capital. There is social capital, that is, the capacity to generate social values such as human relations, identity, and cohesion. And then there is what is perhaps the most relevant form: cultural capital, or the ability to inspire. We are growing more aware of how crucial cultural capital is. It has a lot to do with what people consider important and what people experience. If something that you experience accords with what you consider important, then it’s inspiring. If you consider beauty important, such as beautiful surroundings, then in Venice you are overwhelmed by the effect of it all, and that is inspiring. In that respect I would like to issue a challenge to architects. It boils down to the fact that cultural capital is important, is growing more important, and that people expect more of it. This is connected with prosperity and the fact that we are spoilt. Sometimes architects respond to that, but often they don’t. When they do not, people get disappointed; newly built city environments are not always what we hope for or what we expect. It is all about finding the link between value and experience. EG

your plans also need to meet economic criteria: they have to be economically feasible. That is the prudent side. But the seduction concerns the social and especially the cultural dimension. But I would like to introduce a change in this process. The architect’s job is not finished once the building has been completed. A building is given a life. An economic value is produced, but a social and a cultural value are produced too. This should be a responsibility of the community, and thus the builders and architects should share some of that responsibility too. Architects are partly responsible for the development of cultural capital. Arjen Oosterman This touches on the problem of the architect with the double commission (the actual client who places the commission and society), and perhaps even triple, because the architect also has to work on his own portfolio. How do you see that?

Yes, a remarkable characteristic of architecture is that it not only private, but usually has is public as well. When a company commissions a building, the building is private, yet its presence is public as everyone can see it and enjoy the architecture. Getting attention is crucial for the functioning of architecture. I like to use the metaphor of conversation: the architect wants what he makes to be a topic of conversation. By that I mean that people relate to it, take notice of it, and that other architecture relates to it. Mies van der Rohe and Frank Lloyd Wright are examples of people whose work remains a topic of conversation, to which other architects relate, about which people write, to which people refer.

AO The role of the architect in the building process today is essentially different from that of the ‘master builder’. More and more is being decided by other building partners. We suppose that the idea of unsolicitedness is becoming interesting because it involves a domain that is not a part of traditional architectural practice.

Hence my proposal. I’m currently working on a monitor to rate social and cultural capital in building. A project serves several goals: it does not only generate economic values but also is expected to contribute to social and cultural capital. When a developer, or whoever is responsible for the project, sets certain goals on the latter two, my monitor registers whether he meets those goals. If, for example, the goal is that local residents feel better about their environment because of the project, the monitor measures to what extent that has been the result. You can assess a project like that and see what effect it has in all kinds of dimensions. Afterwards it has to be accounted for and a decision has to be made on whether the project has been successful or not. Part of the fee can be made conditional on whether the proposed aims have been achieved. This proposal has far-reaching consequences for the way in which architects work. If the distinctiveness of the architecture is set as one of the goals, the architect becomes vitally important for the client and will have to be treated with care and respect.

How can the architect respond better to this?

If you make plans, an important part is, of course, to present and visualise them. Play has an important role here. The challenge is to present them in such a way that people are enchanted, seduced, and want to go along with your proposal. Then you have won your assignment and you go ahead and make it. Of course,

AO What exactly is the problem analysis in that case?

Well, the problem is the discrepancy between good intentions and results. Now we settle the financial account, and we have become very good at that. But we are beginners when it comes to the criteria that really count. We work too anecdotally. In order to

Volume 14

V14_FINAL.qxd:Opmaak 1

12-12-2007

12:35

Pagina 15

change this, you have to start at the conceptual level. You have to begin with the awareness that you must contribute not only to economic capital, but also to social and cultural capital. The next step is to pin those values down and to ensure that people can be held accountable for them.

to make comparisons, to compare what they find important with what they experience. That difference is very important. If you are asked: ‘How important do you find architectural quality?’ and you give it a 9 (out of 10), and if you answer the question of ‘How do you rate that building?’ with a 7, then it says something very different from someone who gives that building a 7 too, but does not consider architectural quality important at all and has given it a 5. If you do this over time, you obtain a certain picture of the development. The interesting thing about this monitor is that this development can be charted in two ways. It may happen, and that may be one of your goals,

EG In terms of economic capital, the facts are harder than those connected with social and cultural capital, aren’t they?

This is a big problem: not being able to calculate it, though that’s precisely what is at stake. In fact, we are seduced by everything that we can measure in economic terms, and thus often go too far in that direction. I always tell the story of the drunk who is looking for his keys

Valorization: Valorization is defined as an improvement in stakeholder appreciation. For instance, someone who starts to appreciate the value of ‘good architecture’ more after a local building project is finished has valorized good architecture.

Cultural/Social Monitor

+ -

EXPERIENCE

IMPORTANCE

Diagram by Edwin Gardner

+ -

EXPERIENCE/IMPORTANCE Assessments: + Ask stakeholders to compare what they find important with what they experience. EXPERIENCE This provides a qualitative judgment with which one can compare a project's aims and results. This mechanism can hold parties financially accountable for realizing, or failing to realize, cultural and social capital as defined by the contract's ‘aims’.

AIM A

RESULT A’

AIM B

RESULT B’

AIM C

RESULT C’ economic

Volume 14 15

CONTRACT

underneath a lamp post. I bump into him and ask: ‘What are you looking for?’ ‘Well, I’ve forgotten my keys.’ ‘But why are you looking for them here, then?’ ‘Because the light is shining here.’ That’s what we do, too: we look where the light shines because we happen to be able to measure it there, but that doesn’t mean that the answer is there. So let’s shine some light on the things that really matter. And that starts by developing such a cultural monitor. It starts with what a project aims to achieve. Then you determine who the important stakeholders are. If it’s a question of architectural pretensions, then fellow architects are the stakeholders. The next step is to ask people for assessments. You have to do that at different moments, so you can monitor changes. You ask people

IMPORTANCE

capital

% STAKEHOLDERS

+ -

cultural and social captial

FEE STAKEHOLDERS Every aim has stakeholders. Thus if an aim is ‘architectural excellence’, fellow architects are the stakeholders. If the aim is ‘social cohesion’, local residents are the stakeholders.

that residents become aware of the importance of good architecture. So they rate importance with a 5 at first, but once it’s been built they give it an 8. Then you’ve done a good job. The economic term for that is valorisation, the enhancement of certain values. You should also try to influence the experience people have. It all depends on opinions, but if you put that question regularly to sufficiently large groups, it helps to reduce the instability of the answers. AO The process of allowing people a say in building and housing projects, a development of the 1970s, only led to formal changes in the building process. Does your proposal run the same risk? AK It is about the theme of property – whose is it? Normally we distinguish between private property – I pay

V14_FINAL.qxd:Opmaak 1

12-12-2007

12:35

Pagina 16

Volume 14

for the building so itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mine â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and public property, which the state pays for. But the situation is somewhat different in the case of architecture. It has public aspects, but also private ones, because not everyone shares it or has an interest in it. So I advance the concept of a common good as an alternative concept. A common good is a good that a limited number of people share with one another, and that may be a building. It may be that I have paid for the building, but that does not mean it is entirely mine. Others are taking part in the building, too, as passers-by as people who develop some interest in it, speak about it. In a sense I share the building with other people, whether I want that or not. The question is then how you realize the common character of a building, how you have other people take an interest in it. If an architect designs to the taste of people, the design may become too easy, too obvious. It will not stir emotions and may not stimulate conversation about it. He may find out that the cultural monitor reveals the project as a failure because of that. The design goes down easily, and slips away just as easily. It doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t really have an effect on the relevant people. Good artists and architects know that they have to seek friction. Resistance gives energy and possibly warmth in the end. Friction brings about conversation and that is usually a good thing.