ARCHITECTORICA Architecture and me Maria Diamandieva
Years ago I chose architecture to be my profession and it turned out to be a life-time occupation. Architecture is not to be easily given-up – once you get involved, you stay in the magic. I have been trying to formulate the essence of this magic that pervades the realm of architecture and everything that gets in touch with it. After all this time I start to think that the reason for it is rooted basically in CURIOSITY, the universal human desire to find out truths about everything. To create buildings generally means to provide shelter. This is a complex type of creativity, requiring a diverse range of intellectual abilities, inspiring ceaseless necessities of perfection intents, triggered by the natural human impulses of investigation. HOW something, born by imagination, is to be performed in reality, how a dream is being articulated in stone and glass and becomes material is a mighty generative engine, keeping those daring to sign up in the list of the architects, caught up in the whirlpool of challenge forever. Of course, if one is able to evaluate the substantiality of the matters that architecture engages its disciples with. Dealing with these matters is simultaneously a great responsibility and a real blessing. Because when you start to understand the actual mechanisms not only to find out solutions to materialize dream visions but to read the messages of the city, you start to understand yourself, your roots, the correlation of the past, present and future and in general – the meaning of all that surrounds you. Thus the eternal search of the sublime finds its way, facilitated by the concrete architectural exploration, which makes the architectural adventure so engaging and magnetic. The dedication has different scales and manifestations – it is highly individual. It is not specially a matter of struggle for success. A successful career in architecture is a specific topic, having to do with fame and its prerequisites, as well as a series of additional factors that turns an ordinary architect into a “name” in the profession. If we disregard the material side of the matter (if we can), success in architecture is mainly a matter of satisfaction with achievements. Which could be integrated not only in substantial contract honoraries but in realization of particular elements of the complexity of creativity, which turns the simple building into architecture. Of course, the one should not necessarily exclude the other – most of the great names of prosperity in architecture, today and ever, have been great thinkers and l philosophers. Besides the profound conceptual realizations are not very likely to crystallize without the fundament of extensive design experience, as a necessarily critical mass in a generative process. This way or the other, I do not consider myself to be among the most outstanding names either of my time, or of my country and most certainly am not. The reasons are numerous and quite logical. I am one of the thousands nameless minor architects in the world, this massive group which anyway has created and formed the major appearance of the built environment, where the actual ordinary life of the predominant part of the people takes place. The exceptions of the peaks... The architectural avant garde and the building signs that fascinate or outrage the world are the unique representations of the
mythological substance of creativity and public conscience but they are not the norm. They are the unique, which can exist and be perceived only correlated to the background of the placid normative. What normative means in architecture is also a matter of exegesis – every practicing architect is working according to his or her individuality, with the initial intention to create the incomparable. The banal could be easily equalized with low-budget or with some types of social or political conditions, such as for example, the Socialism regime enforced during a period of more than half a century in the communists countries. The uniformity was its basic creed. Uniformity was not unfamiliar to the early Modernists manifestos too and it was maybe the main reason which allowed its principles to penetrate and be accepted in the socialist architectural education. The buildings, like the people, were not allowed to show off or probably not too much. Huge building estates, consisting of prefabricated panel flats with repetitive design have been constructed all over the countries, like disconsolate reincarnations of their inhabitants. Everything seemed to be the function, whatever it could be, followed by the form. The idea of any kind of joyful deviation was considered blasphemous formalism, which was fiercely rejected and even dangerous for the existence of the author. Although Socialism in my country apart from the inept limitations of its ideology, opened an extensive operational field for several generations of architects, which were engaged to built the country. The main desire of an architect is to built so the enthusiasm was explicable –labor was not only ensured, it was an obligation. We were not allowed to witness the art tendencies in the rest of the world behind the Iron Curtain and we had to follow the rules. So we were normative. Many talented and well educated architects from this period spent all their professional lives with the absolute conviction that this was what architecture was about. The sad thing is that the shadow of rigidity of this mentality is still hanging over the public concept of architecture, no matter how revolutionary frivolous it became, after the democratic changes in the late’80-es. The world is changing and so is architecture. As probably the most complex of arts, so complex that its complexity even doubts its right to be called “art”, architecture is the most sensitive barometer of the social movements, which reflecting the evolution of public attitudes, creates a reality of its own, which affects the life practices of its inhabitants and consumers for decades. The buildings last for centuries, we form our cities and our necessities by them and then imperceptibly and constantly they form us. And that’s what makes the matter of the quality of architecture so important – its permanence and large scale publicity could not be easily neglected. An unsuccessful painting can be easily destroyed. Unsuccessful architecture lasts for centuries. I have always been asking myself what is going on with architecture because this is a major part of the question what is going on with my own life. Not because I am personally of particular value to architecture but because architecture is of particular value to me. The reference point in space which a building is ready to point is an element of the universal reference system of mankind. It leaves a trace and affects the balance of
meanings, no matter how inconspicuous it could be. Architectural design defines a network of various types of connections, mighty bindings in place and time. Designing and building structures for human habitation is an act of great responsibility, which requires much more attention and debate than the one I observe in public space. My doctoral dissertation which became my basic occupation of the last two years gave me the chance not only to observe and analyze the most recent of processes in contemporary architecture and thus answer basic questions that have been bothering me for years as far as architectural creativity is concerned. I am mere than ever now convinced that architecture should be discussed and the architectural discourse should expand to the scale it deserves. Buildings consist 30% of the world’s economy and such a vast sector of human activity does not avail even of a science methodology of its own. It is due to the essential complexity of architecture, its interdisciplinary correlation and non autonomy. Nevertheless, the rapid processes of changes in the beginning of the 21st century in all spheres of life, led to rethinking many of the once unshakable rules of architecture. The invasion of the digital age is offering new possibilities and new threads. The profession of the architect is sometimes proclaimed to gat extinct – if we can include all kind of normative requirements and existing condition of a plot in a parametric soft wear there is not any obstacle to receive digitally the most effective solution for the particular spot. So is the role the architect getting superfluous, substituted by the uncompromising effectiveness of the machine? The unique services which people are ready to pay for may become excrescent in a society mainly dependant on the sober technical solutions. What will happen than with the idea of the “spirit” which makes the difference between architecture and building. The logical processes of socio cultural development are hardly dependant on any debates. But all these major transitions, concerning even the nature of matter and the light speed are so fascinating and inspiring that architectural knowledge has to keep in line with the general pace of progress, otherwise its obsolesce will deem it to oblivion. And as the great lord Foster says, we architects should not take ourselves too seriously but the humanity and the integrity of the architecture should be taken quite seriously as a decisive part of the human cultural memory.
My Houses The houses were at the very beginning of my adventure with architecture – back in 19861990. Computer design was not in practice – at least not for me before 1989. The hand and the imagination were the only tools in the process of creating architectural objects. After more than 20 years now the old blueprints look like remains from the past, when architectural design was much more dependant on the artistic skills of the architect, not so very much on the digital operational knowledge. Every tiny line of the drawings has
been created by my hand. The drawings have the value of a picture – they posses the emotion and the energy of the personal touch. These are projects of small private cottages in several villages close to Sofia and from the distance of time and experience now I reinvent them as a sincere and human illustration of my understanding of life and architecture, with their sincere attitude to the terrain and the surrounding environment, to the Bulgarian building tradition and in accordance with my personal childish fairy-tale mentality by that time. I like the idea of them, the spirit and good will of their naïve forms, their simplicity and lack of pretension – they are my first-borns and their freshness fills me with nostalgia to the past probably as an unattainable future... I have always been ready to design houses, HOMES – I believe that is what architecture basically is meant for. To settle homes, to civilize people and make them feel secure and happy. To create somebody’s house is to be let to live his own life for a while, to step into his role and act as someone else – a magic opportunity to create architectural choreography in reality for a performance that will take decades to be played. I am happy I have ever been trusted to create somebody’s home. I was equally happy by the time I designed them and THAT IS WHY I call them MY HAPPY HOUSES.
Plans
House 1. Bistriza, 1987
House 2. Bistriza, 1988
House 3. Bistriza, 1989
House 4. Ihtiman, 1989
The Two Houses, Shumaco, 1994 Several years later came a slightly more complex task – a combination of two houses in a plot in the outskirts of Sofia. The houses were almost the same, belonged to the families of business partners, on a steep slope in the forest.
Plans
Elevations
Block of Flats, Sofia, Golo Bardo str., 1994
There is not such a building in reality – they never built it but in my design experience it was the first apartment building, the beginning of a consideration process which has never ceased to bother me – the collective form of habitation. There is nothing special in the particular form and the solution as a whole – it only functionality and the requirements of the investor. The idea of the classic is emphasized as much as possible. Nothing unusual, outstanding, trendy but still I deem the flats comfortable to live in. By this time the computer drawing was an innovation – may be was my first digital architectural experience.
The Competition in Trollhattan, 1995 This international competition was announced as an attempt to improve a small quarter of a Swedish town, in an industrial part of the country. It was the gloomiest place I can think of, very close to the SAAB plants and steel industry equipments of the country with a high rate of unemployment and lurid weather. I suppose I was too unprepared to deal with so much hopelessness and with my southern understanding of improvement offered a solution looking for the sun (which obviously was not to be seen much there). Besides, I was the only foreigner among the Swedish teams – I had no chance by that time. But I am happy I had the guts to compete.
The Capital Customs Building, reconstruction 1992-1995 Here comes a project I an especially found of – the renovation of the building of the customs in Sofia. The building has been constructed in 1934, by the design of an Austrian architect. I was commissioned to offer renovation measures for the necessities of a contemporary administrative function almost 60 years later, mainly interior, within a limited budget. I enjoyed the task, because the existing building was an interesting story by itself – having survived the bombarding of the World War 2 in Sofia and the various political transformations of ignorance and neglect.
Front Elevation
Section
Customs Building in Sofia, 1993
I played with colors. By the time, the first years of the Democratic transitions in Bulgaria after the collapse of Communist Regime, people in Bulgaria were not used to bright contrasting colors in public buildings of the authorities. The sight appeared a bit unusual for some of the visitors, bur the client was happy in general and the colors stayed fresh and unchanged for some 10 year afterwards. And here it was – my inside “square� with street lanterns and pavement, covered by the luminous German oberlicht, the symbolic market, where the trade goods are taxed by the state. This was the design concept which I still presume as a suitable approach. Many years later I discovered in Berlin a very similar interior, almost a twin to my customs in Sofia, to my surprise and amusement of the replication.
Berlin
Vitosha National Park Visitor Center, 1995 The building has been commissioned by USAID as an information center at the gate of the mountain. The idea of the visual design was very much postmodern – a playful intertextual A 20-th century narrative, with some hints of Bulgarian vernacular building tradition.
TROLL Restaurants, Sofia, 1996-2000 5 “Troll” restaurants were renovated and designed within a period of 10 years in Sofia. The idea was to establish a brand image of city food places with specific character and atmosphere. The Secession replication was very strong and provocative, either in interior and exterior solution. With the time passing I consider the “Troll” project as an architecture-label-experiment, an examination of the practice of implementation of esthetics of the past in contemporary functions. The sincerity and effectiveness of the approach. Apart from the varying number of admirers and critics, working on the interiors and their actual realization was an inspiring period of creativity with substantial influence on my experience in architecture.
Cast Iron window-frames – “Troll” Slaveikov 6-A
“Troll” blvd. “Vitosha” 17-19, interior sketch
“Troll” pl. “Slaveikov” 6-A, interior and façade studies
“Troll” pl. “Slaveikov” 6-A,
“Troll” Vitosha 17-19
“Troll” Cherni Vrah, 2000
Doors and interiors The studies on doors are carried on in a period between 2000 and 2003. The Secession forms and spirit are obvious. They were designed for private homes as an experiment of implementation of aesthetics, born 100 years ago. The question was: are there values in art with eternal vitality and potential. The clients liked them, because of their sense of aristocratism and unique elegance, which appeals to the general idea of the magic and the unusual.
Fish bowl and mosaic “water� stream.
False window
Interior design and refurbishment “Havana” Restaurant, 27 blvd.”Vitosha”, Sofia, 2003, 940sq.m. floor area
Sections
Swimming Pool “Spartak” reception and bar area, 2004 Interior design
RESIDENTIAL Blocks of Flats 2004-2010 29 Edisson str. , 1474sq.m. 13 flats, office and 3 garages
Elevations Built 2007
Mladost 2, 2546 sq.m. 18 flats, restaurant, underground parking Triangular plot, 4 flats on a typical floor.
Built 2008
19 Manastirska str., 3436sq.m. 30 flats, 3 offices, underground parking
Built 2009
53 Chataldja str., 730 sq.m. 7 flats, garages, underground parking
Built 2010
19-21 Edison str, 2867sq.m. 23 flats, 3 offices, underground parking
2010-
2013
Municipal Dog Shelterfor 400 dogs, Sofia, 2008-2009 566 sq.m. office and clinic building, 812sq.m. shelter
Projects(to be decided) Vacation Complex “Nestinarka�, Tzarevo, Black Sea Shore, 2008 6500 sq.m. & 948 underground area; 81 apartments restaurant, sport facilities, 2 bars, services
Plans
Elevations
Visualizations
Office building, “Knjaz Boris”blvd., Sofia, 2009 2678 sq.m.& 932 sq.m. underground parking
Students housing, “Studentski Grad”, Sofia, 2008-2009
Maria Diamandieva is architect, PhD, with more than 27 years of practice in architectural design. Assistant professor at Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and honorary teacher of architecture and architecture as public media in the National Academy of Arts and the University of Architecture, Construction and Geodesy in Sofia. Author of more than 30 articles and publications, and one book. Editor of several professional editions. Director of the International Academy of Architecture and of the XIV World Triennial of Architecture INTERARCH 2015 in Sofia. Lives in Sofia and Brussels.
2015