We as Us:
the role of the collaborative architect
We as Us: the role of the collaborative architect
introduction
Chapter 1: Society Hipertext
Chapter 2: Paradigm of the Champanhe
Chapter 3: the projects in the urbe and in the civitas
1.1_Historical context: average modernity 1.2_Historical context: overmodernity
2.1_Open Air Libary 2.2_Da Strip 2.3_Avenida Westblaak 2.4_Passage 56 2.5_Praça del Sol 2.6_Couros 2.7_Avenida Sønder 2.8_Eichbaum
3.1_Formation of collectivities 3.2_Between the manifested function and the latent function 3.3_Dialogue and Space 3.4_Between Material and Matériel 3.5_Ways of sociability and processes of relation
1.3_Structural models of organization
2.9_Other People’s Photographs
Chapter 4: The role of the architect in the collaborative model 4.1_Between architecture and architectural practice 4.2_Positioning models
Conclusion: The collaborative Architect
We as Us: the role of the collaborative architect
The dissertation “We as Us: o papel do arquitecto colaborativo� (the role of the collaborative ar-
chitect) focuses on
collaborative projects, by means of a study comprehended between two
spheres of knowledge: sociology and architecture. This dissertation is divided into three distinct moments. At first, the contemporaneous society is framed, within a period ranging from the industrial revolution to the present day. Society and city are
considered in parallel, so that the transformations occurring in the city can be identified, namely in public space and in reference to the separation between urbe and civitas as city dimensions. It is within this distinction that we want to place the collaborative type project. This way, four models of architectural conception are considered (multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, trans
disciplinary and collaborative), where we defend the latter as being the most suitable. Subsequently, the considered
participation of the society during its conception. These projects are labeled as devices for the re-union of urbe and civitas in the field of study is composed by those public projects that involve, on its genesis, a public space.
multidisciplinary
interdisciplinary
transdisciplinary
collaborative
We as Us: the role of the collaborative architect
Thus ten projects were selected, wherein the society has an active participation on its conception,
in order to obtain a sample of the field of study
Avenida Westblaak
Da strip
Eichbaumoper
Passage 56
Other People’s Photographs
Open-Air Libary
We as Us: the role of the collaborative architect
Secondly the thesis “We as Us: o papel do arquitecto colaborativo� intends to bring to the surface
the features of each of the selected projects.
In order to demonstrate in which sense are the collaborative projects operative in the urbe and the
civitas of the city, an in-depth study is required. As previously mentioned, the study is divided into two distinct areas -
sociology and architecture - in order to help understand the complexity of this type of projects.
However, this separation is non-linear, that is to say, even though it is split between sociology and architecture, neither subject can be considered in their projects as areas with limits and separated in terms of disciplinary knowledge. There is a
relation of dependence between them, making it possible to read, on
the projects, both disciplinary traits but not in a dissociable way.
The study starts with a sociological analysis, centered on the assembly of collectivities among the
society looking to understand what leads to its formation.
Then, the functions that the collectivities intend to fulfill are studied, split between manifest and latent
functions.
Subsequently, the study turns to an architectural analysis centered on the conception process of
the collaborative project. This analysis starts off with the discussion process of the project and the way the latter transforms and operates on the area, establishing a
area.
link between the dialogue and the
Afterwards, the material and function it performs on the development of the project are analyzed,
differentiating it between
material and matèriel.
dialogue in space
dialogue about space
dialogue of space
We as Us: the role of the collaborative architect
At last, the study focuses once again on a sociological analysis, seeking to understand the links
ways of sociability in the masses, in the communions and in the communities, and the processes of relation between the participants and their level of commitment towards the project, which are: the through cooperation, adaptation and assimilation.
masses
communions
communities
adaptation
cooperation
assimilation
We as Us: the role of the collaborative architect
On a third and last moment placing the architect in his traditional positioning, between the “architec-
ture” and the “architectural practice”, the thesis “We as Us: o papel do arquitecto colaborativo” seeks to rethink his role in the selected case studies.
The role of the
“traditional architect” can be characterized by the distinction between
emy Till. The cognitive map aspires to understand the work process according to the control the architect has over the project, throughout its development stages. The development process gives a context to the role the architect performs before the society. Next, the representative schemes of the
collaborative organization are discussed,
sitioning in the collaborative practice, which are: organization through
branching, spine and base.
This way, we intend to understand the various ways of working of each participant, specific to each model. The model of organization through
base
distinguishes itself from the others by the way one of
the participants creates a material platform or device on which the rest of the participants operate. In this sense, the base participant shall create an
appropriation system for the rest. However, he does not
need to establish constant interaction with the other participants nor supervision over the work being developed by them.
The Eichbaumoper project is an example of this model of participant positioning. Raumlaborberlin
assumes the position of the base participant, creating the auditorium and the exterior piece as a support for the population and musicians to operate on. The material works, within this model, as a production element of the project with an added significance when compared to the other models of participant positioning. The material is a social device linking the participants.
produced in order to synthesize the case studies. They constitute approaches to different models of participant po-
the appropriation system created by the base participant loses its meaning and operative faculty. All the participants are required to the development of the project, related through a state of interdependence.
architecture and architectural practice, describing the work process with the help a cognitive map created by Jer-
does not mean a greater importance of the base participant over the rest. Without these,
Although the participants position themselves according to the base participant, such condition
organization through base
spine matches the organization mode where a share of guiding the project (assuming a different status from the others).
The model of organization through
the participants is responsible for
The spine participants develop a link between the other participants leading to their assimilation in the workgroup. Generally speaking, the number of “spine participants” present in one collaborative project is of just one, that is, the workgroup is headed by a single participant. Nonetheless, this can be a multiple group.
Even though it is possible to find similarities between the “spine participants” and the “base partici-
“spine participants” are defined systematic contribution to the project associated with a greater involvement with the remaining participants. In turn, the “base participants” are characterized by an occasional contribution, which originates its distance from the other participants. pants”, they differ in the method and pace of intervention, that is, the by a
organization through spine
The spine participants, as guides for the project, are capable of generating situations, in a certain
way parallel to the project production, yet complementing it. The Strip project is an example of this spine organization system, wherein the work of the artist Jeanne van Heeswijk, responsible for the recovery of a strip of the Westwijk district, lead to the inclusion of two new participants, the Boijmans Van Beuningen Museum and Showroom MAMA, who, in their turn, invited Peter Westenberg to produce a video magazine. It is at this point that the work of the artist Jeanne van Heeswijk generates a side project to her intervention, which complements it but where she does not directly intervene.
branch is defined by a distributive equality of same positioning and status towards the
In its turn, the model of organization through
the participants, where everyone has the
project, which confirms an added sense of unity amongst the workgroup.
In opposition to what is verified in the spine and base models, in the branch model none of the participants works depending on another, that is, it is not necessary for the
development of the project for one or more participants to build a support or a link that unites them. In this sense, the participants have greater freedom in the way they wish to contribute to the project.
Given that the participants all assume the
same positioning
towards the project, the
branch model is characterized by a monitoring of the whole development of the project by the participants. In this
contribution of the participants is not constant over time. An example is the project Passage 56, in which all the participants
sense and based on the case studies, it is possible to say that the occasional, but
organization through spine
organization through branch
We as Us: the role of the collaborative architect involved are present during the three stages of construction of the wooden piece.
After this analysis, we look to understand
laborative projects.
the role of the architect on the col-
The first option confirms the presence of the architect is not paramount for half of the collaborative projects on the selected sample. This group of projects shows that the
collaborative projects are born from a wish, shared by all the participants, to intervene in the area. When the architect finds himself in collaborative projects, it is verified that he can assume any participant position in the branch and spine models, that is, he does not need to take a position
different than that of the remainder of the participants to intervene in the area - although this is his field of knowledge. However, the base model is probably an exception. In the Eichbaumoper project (the only selected project that follows the base model in which the architect is present) it is verified that the architect takes on the role of base participant and lacking other examples, it is not possible to say if he can, or not, adopt another position within the model. In all case studies where the architect is present, it is verified that he relates to the other participants by means of a cooperative link, showing that he doesn’t cancel, in a way, his identity in benefit of the whole. Such condition places the architect close to the participants (namely the population), in the sense that he exercises a social practice in order to relate to them but, at the same time, keeps the distance as his level of commitment to the project doesn’t cancel his
features for the sake of the whole. However, this trait is not exclusively inherent to the architect. Other participants, such as artists or art institutions, also share the same condition, which reveals they can only intervene when keep-
ing their identity. In a certain way, this implies a distancing from the rest of the participants. This condition is only not shared by the population and city halls, which establish a community link between themselves and a cooperative link with the rest of the participants.
The same way the collaborative projects act on the cities on its definition of urbanity - urbe - as well as
of civility - civitas - the architect, working outside the scope of his disciplinary field, transforms not only the area but the relations established with the population as well. Since the collaborative projects are born to solve a social problem linked to an area, the architect, while acting in a manner and relation of cooperation, contributes to a better social cohesion by bringing the population closer. Here lies the full role of the collaborative architect. More than just in a professional way, he, in civility, intervenes within the participants, bringing them closer and mutating the Us (relations with someone else) into We (us), transforming We as Us into the real process and way of relating of the architect. Thus, the architect, in the civitas and in cooperation,
positions and positions himself according to We as Us.