Kv. Snäckan 7

Teachers

Thordis Arrhenius (TA) Mikael Bergquist (MB)

Students

Angelo De Angelis (AA) Jingkai Chen (JC) Karl Graflund (KG) Emmie Olson (EO) Jesper Olson (JO) Ebba Rehn (ER) Aurora Strøm (AS) Alexander Svanfeldt (ASV) Linnea Thörne (LT) Rafael Fernandes Trindade (RT) Simon Wallin Viman (SV) Rachel Wu (RW) Yuhe Xia (YX)

Previous Students

Hedvig Aaro (HA) Sissel Berg Wincent (SW) Daniela Burki (DB) Carin Darsié (CD) Harald Forsmark (HF) Yanshao Gu (YG) Kamil Kowalski (KK) Kim Ulrika Lidman (KL) Juntian Lin (JL) Emma Linde (EL) Robert Magnusson Årebo (RÅ) Heljä Nieminen (HN) Hiroko Nishi (HNI) Rosanna Novo (RN) Naomi Schanne (NS) Katharina Weyde (KW) Jelena Obradovic (JOB) Kv. Snäckan 7 Sheraton Hotel AOS Architects 1971

Kv. Snäckan 8 KPMG Huset Erik Thelaus 1973

Kv. Björnen och Loen 1 Departmentets Hus Nils Tesch / BAU (Additions) 1973 /2012

Kv. Brunkhuvudet 1 Nordiska Handelsbanken Ernst Stenhammar 1920

Kv. Brunkhuvudet 2 Mäster Dyks Hus Axel Kumlien / Coordinator 1872 / 1979

Kv. Skansen 18 Sergel Plaza / Scandic Malmquist och Skoogh 1971

Kv. Orgelpipan 4 Klöven Lennart Tham 1956 ArkDes Archive [arkdes.se/en/library-and-collections]

Digital Museum [https://digitaltmuseum.se]

Stockholm Källan [sok.stadsarkivet.stockholm.se]

Stockholm Stad Archive [sok.stadsarkivet.stockholm.se]

Stockholm City Planning Office [https://bygglov.stockholm/ hitta-ritningar]

KTH Library [https://www.kth.se/biblioteket]

Tidskriften Arkitektur [https://arkitektur.se/arkivet]

RE-MASTER 2020–2021

Studio Re- addresses the notion of change, permanence and resilience through the means of re-storation, re-use and re-pair. The overall methodological and pedagogical strategy is to explore the already present, the already built, the already thought and imagined.

Obsolesces

Focusing on Stockholm’s modern heritage the Re-master studio has surveyed the economies and aesthetics of reuse. Studying buildings that were materialized in the period of the 1960s and 1970s we have speculated on how to reuse a group of large-scale monumental buildings in Stockholm’s city core. The buildings we have explored all have designated historical value and were designed by well-known Swedish architects, yet they are all under intensive pressure to change due to issues of obsolesce, economic speculation and changing ownership. Some of our cases are to be imminently demolished, while others have been (or will be) extensively reconfigured and altered.

The overall aim of the studio has been to re-think how we, as architects, act in relation to our common resources—material, spatial, social as well as aesthetic—in the present situation of climate crisis. We have asked ourselves how issues of architectural sustainability and re-use relate to those of preservation and permeance. We have tried to figure out why re-use both begs for material permeance, and yet asks for architectural transformation and change. Throughout our investigations into re-use the notion of economy of means has been a consistent theme, steering design decisions and program. More often we have asked what is not needed to be done, rather than putting forward a new design proposal. To do less rather than more has been the architectural task this year.

Re-use

The term re-use is evidently closely connected to the emerging environmental crisis of the 1970s, growing out of an increasing anxiety for dwindling natural resources, increased consumption and a changing climate. Initially situated on the fringe of architectural culture—in the field of low-tech, DIY and counter-culture—re-use in many senses challenges and reverses the idea of the architectural project as an answer to a specific program or context. In opposition to designing the new, the already built—with its specific spaces and material properties—ask how to be used and acted up on. Architecture as brick and mortar—or in our case concrete and steel—tends to comes first and the architectural intervention after. Indeed, working with re-use opens up to novel ways of acting as an architect that goes beyond the production of new discreet architectural objects responding to a given program, to issues of alteration and adjustment of what is already at hand. This in turn ask for a re-thinking of the architectural discipline and of architectural education today.

Representation

Crucial for the work in the studio is to reflect, test and most importantly, advance architectural representational tools and technologies—to become aware of the function of the drawing, the model and the image in architectural thinking. We have aimed to critically re-engage with the representational and documentary tools used in architecture—drawing, models, digital and photographic documentation as well as the representational technology of scanning. We have speculated how the drawing in preservation is primarily a tool of survey and analysis, rather than one of projection and forecast. Further, we have explored how digitalization has affected the architectural representation. In the production of visual material we have paid attention to how the render translates between drawing and building, between the image and the architectural project. We have worked with digital manipulation of the analogue such as scale models and photographic images. In terms of this we have also understood and discussed re-use as a form of curatorial practice which through the tools of representation—drawing, modelling and image—curate and shift the materiality of a building by turning waste into