FUNK FOLLOWS FUNCTION

The cube houses in Rotterdam, designed by Dutch architect Piet Blom (1934-1999) in 1982, seem to be the epitome of a funky building; the cubes out of which the complex exists, have been turned on their sides with corners pointing to the sky, seemingly avoiding gravity. In reality, the cubes aren’t as funky as they might seem at first glance, though unconventional they are for sure. After World War II and subsequent damage it brought upon the city of Rotterdam, de Blaak was filled with debris of the bombardments. Blom was commissioned for the creation of 300 houses, which he considered a task too big for just one architect. Therefore, he would design the area in such way that no one would recognize it was the work of one designer (Hengeveld & Vader, 2010). Blom was part of the structuralist movement that arose in Europe in the 1960s as a reaction against the functionalist urban design typical of modernism (Jones, 2014).

Image 3: Site plan The origin of structuralism lies with Team X, that came forth out of the Congrès International d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM). This was a platform that enabled discussion on the topics of architecture and criticism. Team X criticized the way modernists rebuilt cities after the Second World War for its purely functional approach and longed for human interaction and being able to identify yourself with your surroundings. One of the founding members was Aldo van Eyck (1918-1999) (Curtis, 1996).

In his philosophy of ‘the aesthetics of number’, he interpreted buildings as a system of cells. The cell was the basis of which the shape could be repeated to create a larger building or village. These repetitions were often based on cubes that could be infinitely added and changed. Each addition was seen as complete and whole on its own, as part of a principle which Van Eyck called labyrinthine clarity. This meant that the diversity and complexity would increase by adding cells, but at the same time, so would the unity and simplicity (Jones, 2014). A student of Van Eyck was Herman Herzberger (1932), who became another large influence for the Dutch structuralist movement. In his mind, the architects’ task is not to come up with a complete solution, but to provide a structure to be filled in by its users.

The structuralists saw architecture as a geometrical structure consisting of small units. By repeating them, the structure was enriched, with all elements in relation to one another, as part of a greater system or structure. In 1973, he published a detailed description of structuralism:

“The fact that we put ‘form’ in a central position with respect to such notions as ‘space’ or ‘architecture’, means in itself no more than a shifting of accent. What we are talking about is in fact another notion of form than that, which premises a formal and unchanging relationship between object and viewer, and maintains this. It is not an outward form wrapped around the object that matters to us, but form in the sense of inbuilt capacity and potential vehicle of significance.

Form can be filled-in with significance, but can also be deprived of it again, depending on the use that’s made of it, through the values we attach to, or add to it, or which we even deprive it of, - all this dependent on the way in which the users and the form react to, and play on each other. The case we want to put is, that it is this capacity to absorb, carry and convey significance that defines what form can bring about in the users - and conversely - what the users can bring about in the form.

What matters is the interaction of form and users, what they convey to each other and bring about in each other, and how they mutually take possession of each other. What we have to aim for, is, to form the material (of the things we make) in such a way that - as well as answering to the function in the narrower sense - it will be suitable for more purposes. And thus, it will be able to play as many roles as possible in the service of the various, individual users, - so that everyone will then be able to react to it for himself, interpreting it in his own way, annexing it to his familiar environment, to which it will then make a contribution.”

(Lüchinger, 1981). Piet Blom was another student of Aldo van Eyck and applied the same structuralist principles to the cube houses in Rotterdam. Though they look strange at first and seem to be a very impractical and experimental form of architecture, they’re really part of a smart system of cells that can be expanded with that same cell on any side. In this case, Blom tilted regular cubes 45 degrees and rested them upon hexagon-shaped pylons. His aim was to create a village within a city. Each house or cell symbolizes a tree and all the houses together represent a forest.//

SOURCES

- Hengeveld, J., & Vader, J.W. (2010). Het Rot- terdam van Piet Blom. Amersfoort, Netherlands: Hengeveld Publicaties. - Jones, D. (2014). Architecture – the Whole Story. London, United Kingdom: Thames & Thudson. - Curtis, W.J.R. (1996). Modern Architecture since 1900. London, United Kingdom: Phaidon Press Limited. - Lüchinger, A. (1981). Structuralism in architec- ture and urban planning. Stuttgart, Germany: Karl Krämer. - Image 1 en 3: ArchDaily. (2014). Gallery of AD Classics: Kubuswoningen / Piet Blom. Retrieved from https://www.archdaily. com/482339/ad-classics-kubuswoningen-pietblom/53163875c07a80f19a00003a-ad-classicskubuswoningen-piet-blom-site-plan - Image 2: Het Nieuwe Instituut. (2019). Rijks- collectie voor Nederlandse Architectuur en Stedenbouw. Retrieved from https://collectie. hetnieuweinstituut.nl/rijkscollectie