The Barcelona Workshop

[20]
The Barcelona Workshop
Andrés Mignucci FAIA
FAIA, Architect, Andres Mignucci Architects; Professor of Architecture, University of Puerto Rico
http://andresmignucci.com/
Abstract
This paper is a report on a design workshop held in Barcelona in April 2008. It was directed by N. John
Habraken and Andrés Mignucci. The workshop explored the concepts of Support-Infill, Levels and Thematic
Design as working methodologies in the design of multifamily housing. The workshop focused on a
combination of theoretical lectures and design exercises as tools for teaching open building methods.
KEYWORDS: Thematic Design, Support-Infill, Levels, Design Exercises, Barcelona.
INTRODUCTION
The Barcelona Workshop1 explored, in an intense compact format, two distinct but interrelated theories. The
first centers on the complimentary concepts of SUPPORT STRUCTURES and INFILL SYSTEMS. The second
deals with the idea of THEMATIC DESIGN as a method for understanding and intervening in complex
environments. The concept of LEVELS serves as a bridge between both and plays an instrumental role in our
understanding of the built environment.
Both, SUPPORT-INFILL and THEMATIC DESIGN, constitute bodies of knowledge where design theory and
methodology are intricately intertwined. Consequently, the workshop was structured as a hybrid fusion, which
combined the lecture format of a seminar course with design exercises and projects typical of the studio format.
The daily four to five hour sessions featured one-hour lectures with review and discussion of design exercises
related to the topics presented in the lectures.
Thirty students of the Masters Program of the Laboratorio de la Vivienda del Siglo XXI enriched the process
with their individual experiences, local knowledge, and diverse cultural backgrounds. With over fifteen
nationalities2 represented, the workshop brought forward not only the natural plurality of thought and
experiences that comes with multicultural exchange, but perhaps more important, a process of discovery as to
what they hold in common – what is shared. It is here, in the realm of ‘shared understanding’ that both
SUPPORT-INFILL and THEMATIC DESIGN find their common ground.
SUPPORT-INFILL
Four fundamental questions lay at the core of housing as a design problem:
1 How do we address the multiplicity of family structures in a given project - from the single person to
an extended family living together?
2 How do we insert the equation of change and transformation as one of the built-in qualities and
capabilities of a housing project? Consequently, how does a dwelling unit transform as time and the
circumstances of a family change?
3 How do we incorporate the user as a bona fide participant in the design process? How do we address
the issue of control beyond the Architect's realm in determining the form of the specific portions of a
design project?
4 How can we integrate industry-manufactured components so they can be manipulated, controlled,
replaced, and transformed in different configurations independent from the primary structure of a
building?
[21]
Upon stating them one immediately realizes that these issues transcend the realm of design engaging a broader
field that ranges from public policy to industrialization and production methods. They point toward three
axioms as key drivers for design:
Housing must be diverse,
Housing must accept change and transformation,
Housing must incorporate the user as part of the decision-making process.
These questions were first posed in N. John Habraken’s seminal book “ Supports: An Alternative to Mass
Housing” (1962)3. Habraken calls for a paradigm shift as to how mass housing is conceived, produced, built and
ultimately occupied. Habraken’s challenge, rather than limiting his arguments to a theoretical critique, was
accompanied by a pragmatic methodology designed to give form to his theories. This methodology is based on
the recognition of two distinct spheres of action and control in a dwelling unit: the act of building and the act of
inhabitation. To a great extent, Support Buildings and Infill Systems developed as concepts correlate to these
two spheres. As a method, Support-Infill has been developed primarily to address issues related to the design of
multi-family housing. In theory, however, it can be applied to any design problem where issues of building and
inhabitation, change and transformation and, levels of design control are present.
Supports, as physical entities, constitute distinct architectonic structures with specific spatial qualities. They
hold the primary building definitions - structure, access and infrastructure systems - inside which independent
dwelling units and layouts can be developed. As such, Supports consist of the physical components which
directly serve and affect all of the building’s inhabitants On the other hand, infill systems are non-structural
physical elements determined and controlled by the user, be it the client-developer, the owner, or the inhabitant.
Infill elements may be combined in a variety of configurations, sizes, and levels of complexity as to reflect the
circumstances, needs, resources and preferences of the individual dweller. Once selected, these interior
elements are assembled in the Support generating a dwelling unit that reflects the lifestyle and personality of the
resident. By accommodating a broad range of unit variations, a Support structure possesses an inherent capacity
to change and transform through time. For Habraken, Support-Infill provided a method with which to restore a
natural order, recognized and observed in the everyday built environment in which people played a primary role
in determining the character of their dwelling.
Primary research on Support-Infill was developed in The Netherlands by SAR (Stichting Architecten
Research)4 with Habraken as Director from 1965 to 19755. In “Variations: the Systematic Design of Supports”
(1974)6, Habraken and his colleagues present a systematic exposition of the design methodology. Habraken’s
theoretical framework has laid a foundation whose influence can be seen in diverse projects such as Ignacio
Paricio’s Casa Barcelona (2001), experimental projects like Next 21 in Osaka Japan (1993) or housing projects
like Baumschlager & Eberle’s Living in Lohbach Housing Project in Hötting-West, Austria (1998).
SAR’s subsequent research into the realm of urban design and urban tissues developed further the idea of the
distinct spheres of control observed in housing into the broader concept of LEVELS.
LEVELS
The built environment is a layered hierarchical structure in which each scale of intervention embodies a specific
sphere of decision-making, control and responsibility. Each of these levels serves as the setting and context for
lower levels to operate. In simple terms, higher environmental levels are independent of lower levels while
lower levels operate according to the opportunities and constraints set up by higher levels. From the large scale
of the territory to the intimate scale of furnishings and objects inside a dwelling unit, all environmental levels
take part of this order.
The term Levels describes the interrelated configurations of physical elements and their decision-making sphere
occurring at different scales in the built environment. Environmental levels include (from higher to lower level:
[22]
Territory
Landscape
City
Urban tissue
Block / public space
Buildings / support structures
Unit / infill
Furnishings
Artefacts / objects
Once we see different levels operating in the built environment we can recognize agreements between the
agents that take part in its production. These agreements may be explicit - as norms, codes, and ordinances, or
they may be implicit – passed down from generation to generation and made alive through culture and tradition.
As such, these agreements form the basis of a shared understanding as to the role each level plays in the built
environment, its hierarchical structure, and the scope and limits of what they control and how this control is
exercised. These agreements become physically manifest as types, patterns and systems of form, which reflect a
shared understanding between people.
THEMATIC DESIGN
When we visit cities we observe the recurring types, patterns, and systems, which give them their distinctive
character. These themes are expressed in physical form not by the repetition of singular design solutions but by
endless sets of variations which at once give individual character to each intervention while maintaining intact
and recognizable the set of ordering principles common to each. The walled city of San Juan, Boston’s Back
Bay, Amsterdam’s Canal District and Barcelona’s Eixample all have in common that they are based in a strong
thematic set of rules and agreements, themes and variations, which allow us to understand the whole through
the physical manifestation of its individual parts. In other terms, it is through the individual variations that we
see and perceive the architectural theme of distinct city fabrics. These cities also have in common that they are
developed over time by different people. They are not the product of a single act or of a single hand. Although
at first glance we may think this as self-evident, the concept of ‘building over time’ is all but lost in today’s
prevailing large-scale master plans, developer-based mono-functional subdivisions, and suburban tract
developments. Variations are therefore not static architectural or urbanistic objects, but the reflection of changes
in people’s aspirations, wealth, cultural values, fashion and taste, and certainly, changes in their personal needs
and circumstances.
Figure 1.1 Photo-collage of the Paseo de Gracia / Aragó / Rambla Catalunya / Consell de Cent block.
Friday April 18
EXERCISE 1: READING BARCELONA
This weekend-long exercise dealt with understanding the built-environment through observation7. Students
were divided into six groups of four to five students each. Each group was assigned a block7 in Cerda’s
Eixample9. Students were asked to ‘read’ each block through notations, sketches, photographs, verbal
descriptions, diagrams and measured drawings. The only rule presented was that any inference, conclusion or
[23]
theory drawn must only be substantiated by what was seen, experienced, and recorded directly in place. In
observing and experiencing their selected blocks, students were asked to look for the following:
• Patterns, Types and Systems of physical organization;
• Entry Zones and Access Systems
• Relationship to Open Space / Definition of Public-Private
• Building Heights and Regulating Lines
• Façade Alignments and Relationship to the street and sidewalk
• Recurring Façade Elements
• Rhythm and Modulation
• Vertical Disposition of Uses
• Parcelling Size and Increment of Property Delimitations
• Signs of Territorial Control
• Material and Tectonic Relationships
The fundamental task was to find signs of shared values, rules, and agreements manifested in physical form.
Also important was the recognition of the dimension of time and change as key to understanding the builtenvironment.
Each block selected had an important iconic piece of architecture that formed part of the block. Some of these
like Gaudi’s La Pedrera, Jujol’s Casa Planells, or the outstanding collection of modernist architecture formed by
Gaudi, Puig I Cadafalch and Domenech I Montaner’s in the ‘Manzana de la Discordia’, formed part of the
‘thematic’ fabric of the block. Here we sought for students to recognize what these outstanding idiosyncratic
buildings shared in common with the quieter, more ‘normal’ buildings that conform the city block.
Other blocks had ‘non-thematic’ elements - civic, public, and cultural buildings such as the 19th century market
Mercat de la Concepció and the modern Sant Antoni Library by RCR Aranda Piagem Vilata Arquitectes. This
posed a number of questions. How do thematic and non-thematic elements co-exist within the block structure?
How do these uses adapt to the form rules established in Cerda’s regulating plan? How does an old nineteencentury fabric incorporate new, modern structures as part of its urban structure?
Figure 1.2 Observation drawing by Raquel Sabará of the entry systems at the Manso - Comte Borrell –
Parlament - Comte d’Urgell block.
[24]
Other blocks had ‘non-thematic’ elements - civic, public, and cultural buildings such as the 19th century market
Mercat de la Concepció and the modern Sant Antoni Library by RCR Aranda Piagem Vilata Arquitectes. This
posed a number of questions. How do thematic and non-thematic elements co-exist within the block structure?
How do these uses adapt to the form rules established in Cerda’s regulating plan? How does an old nineteencentury fabric incorporate new, modern structures as part of its urban structure?
Monday April 21
EXERCISE 2: VARIATIONS 1
Figure 1.3 Variations Exercise by Andrés Mignucci
The following three sets of exercises relate to building skills in multi-family housing working specifically with
the S-I methodology. The design of single-family houses has always been a fertile field for experimentation and
innovation. Multi-family housing as well has seen a number of outstanding design by architects throughout the
world. These, however, are a mere fraction of the mass housing produced worldwide. In parallel, housing
design has fallen short of addressing effectively issues of diversity, change and transformation, and user
participation. To effectively address these issues, designers, developers, policy makers, and, as participants in
the decision making process, users, must be equipped with a methodology that considers these tenets as central
to the housing equation.
[25]
Figure 1.4 Variations by Ursula Troncoso.
A fundamental aspect of this methodology lies in the clear delineation of design responsibility – who operates at
each given level of intervention, what is the scope, the responsibilities and the limits of each of these levels One
of the basic skills involved in the S-I methodology has to do with how we test the capacity of a given support to
hold and facilitate a range of floor plan variations. This is an exercise between two levels of intervention – the
support and the infill levels. This design exercise dealt with understanding the capacity of a support structure to:
1) Integrate / facilitate User Participation at the Infill / Unit Level.
2) Support a range of family compositions and lifestyles.
3) Support growth, change and transformation of the dwelling unit.
The exercise consisted of two explorations:
The first dealt with variations using Zones and Margins in Sectors of varying width. The second concentrated
on Infill Variations in a given Support Structure. Students worked individually. Each student was expected to
prepare two sets of Exercise 2a and two of 2b. Review and discussion themes centered on:
1) Understanding why variations are important: the recognition of the user as a player in the formmaking adventure;
2) The idea of identity within a larger shared structure;
3) The idea of generating variations as a way to test the capacity of a support;
4) Thinking of different lifestyles and priorities that inhabitants may bring with them, rather than
assuming just one given or assumed ‘program’;
5) Incorporating the element of change, time and transformation; and
6) The acquisition of skills: seeing different possibilities in a given situation and exploring them.
[26]
Tuesday April 22
EXERCISE 3: DESIGN OF A SUPPORT
The third exercise dealt with designing a SUPPORT STRUCTURE. The design of Support Structures depends
on an understanding of the concept of Levels and the notion that each level serves as setting for agents to act at
a lower level and is subject to rules and agreements (it is servant / dependent) to higher levels.
Discussion associated with this exercise concentrated on:
• The distinction between architectural systems vs. technical systems and the notion that Supports are not
neutral or merely technically defined forms, but hold specific spatial qualities that potentiate inhabitation.
• Concepts related to jurisdiction and hierarchies of design control.
Consequent with the notion of Levels, this exercise was to serve as setting for exercise #4, which will be
making Variations on someone else’s Support. So, this exercise was about making form decisions and rules of
intervention that will serve as context and setting for someone else to intervene at the infill level.
Wednesday April 23
EXERCISE 4: VARIATIONS 2 (VARIATIONS ON SOMEONE ELSE’S THEME)
This exercise was intended to deal with making variations on someone else’s theme. To a great extent it forms
part of the essence of Thematic Design as both method and discipline. In jazz it relates to the solo of the
individual instrumentalist over the composer’s melodic structure. In classical music it can be heard in the
cadenzas of the pianist performing a Mozart Piano Concerto – structured improvisations over the composer’s
theme. It reflects on the designer’s ability to create unique environments as well as the Support’s capacity to
potentate / facilitate them.
Considering the limited schedule of the workshop we decided to cut this exercise in benefit of an additional day
for the final exercise.
Thursday April 24
FINAL EXERCISE
The final exercise brings the workshop full circle to Barcelona’s Eixample as an urban context in which to
design. The exercise was an opportunity to bring together the observations about place and context produced as
part of the first exercise along with the skills and outlook developed through the individual exercises.
Students were divided into the same six groups who worked in the first exercise. Each group was assigned a
segment in a one of Cerda’s regulating diagrams for the construction of urban blocks in the Eixample. As part
of his 1859 regulating plan for Barcelona, Cerdá prepared clear design rules and guidelines to direct
development and building initiatives in the Eixample.
[27]
Figure 1.5 Geometric Details of Block Plans / Detalles Geométricos de la Planta de las Manzanas by Idelfons
Cerdá, 1859.
Students were to use both Cerdá’s rules as well as the patterns, types, systems, and relationships observed in
exercise 1. The challenge of intervening collectively in the same piece of fabric forced the students to assume
positions regarding their extent of design responsibility within their project and to build a set of rules to serve as
a framework to guide their individual interventions. This was as much a design problem as the actual assigned
project. In the most successful projects, the rules of design control and intervention between designers were
more explicit and clear. It was evident that the agreements between designers rather than limiting design
expression actually enabled and facilitated the design process. Rather than putting the weight and attention on
the specific designs carried by a few talented designers, the discussion centered on the project as an extension of
a shared knowledge base were a common understanding of design methods serves to underpin both individual
and collective work.
Friday April 25
CONCLUSIONS AND BEGINNINGS
Given the short duration of the workshop, discussion and review of the design exercises was more about process
than a specific critique on individual production and design solutions. This distinction is important given the
fact that the workshop was based in sharing and exploring a design methodology. To this extent the workshop
was about planting a seed to be watered and cultivated by individual students according to their particular
experiences and interests. Needless to say, in the context of a multicultural laboratory such as this, each
student’s specific cultural optic enriched each others experience. Form definitions regarding public and private,
dimensional standards, and spatial sequences, among others, reflected the student’s particular backgrounds and
experiences.
[28]
Figure 1.6 Design Exercise 5 – Design of a Support in a Given Context by Ana Paula Nosè Leães, Yumi
Nagata, Fernanda Riotto Fernandez, Dhaian Miranda, Juan Ramírez.
Three basic lessons may be distilled from the Barcelona Workshop experience. First, we should recognize the
potential of the fusion between the theoretical lecture and the design studio format complementing theory and
methodology with hands-on design work in both the exercise and design project context. We can recognize that
this will be a valuable instrument in putting forward a method-based approach to design, particularly as it
relates to housing.
Second, attention has to be paid to the value of direct observation and experience of place as a primary
reference for design. The understanding of the local context, accompanied by the use of precedent, type and
systems analysis are therefore critical tools in the design process. This lies in direct contrast to design education
based strictly on a formal compositional approach or the recently more popular reliance on abstract analogies
and metaphorical references.
Finally, the recognition of the concept of Levels, were there are distinct jurisdictions of design control and
intervention, forces us to come to terms with the idea that the architect is but one of many agents that form part
of the design process. A more encompassing exploration of housing as a design discipline, must examine the
role each level plays in the production of housing - from the scale of the city and the neighborhood to the
intimate detail of user’s appropriation of space. This must be anchored in the understanding that the finality of
housing does not lie in the project’s design or even in its construction, but in the more sublime act of
inhabitation.
Notes
The Barcelona Workshop was directed by N. John Habraken and Andrés Mignucci. It was held from April 18
to 27, 2008 at the ETSAB (Escola Superior Técnica de Arquitectura), Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña in
Barcelona as part of the Master’s Program of the Laboratorio de la Vivienda del Siglo XXI directed by Josep
María Montaner and Zaida Muxi. Luciana Tessio served as assistant and coordinator.
1
[29]
2
Countries represented in the workshop included Brasil (7), Mexico (5), Perú (2), Venezuela (3), Uruguay (1),
Dominican Republic (1), Portugal (1), Italy (3), Bosnia-Herzegovina / Greece (1), Vietnam (1), Colombia (3),
Spain (1), Cataluña (1) plus Argentina (Muxi & Tessio), The Netherlands (Habraken) and Puerto Rico
(Mignucci).
3
Habraken, N. John, Supports: An Alternative to Mass Housing, Urban International Press, London, 2000.
Reprint of the English edition by the Architectural Press, London, 1972.
4
Stichting Architecten Research translates as the Foundation for Architects’ Research.
5
For further reading on Habraken’s early work and the history of SAR see Bosma, Koos, with Dorine van
Hoogstraten and Martijn Vos: Housing for the Millions, John Habraken and the SAR (1960-2000), NAI
Publishers, Rotterdam, 2001, ISBN 90 5662178 5.
6
Habraken, N.John, with J.T.Boekholt, A.P.Thyssen, P.J.M. Dinjens, Variations: The Systematic Design of
Supports, MIT Press, Cambridge, USA and London 1976.
7
This exercise tied with the Master’s Program’s first workshop by Ricardo Flores and Eva Prats “Through The
Canvas: Architecture Inside Dutch Paintings” which deals with the observation of environments portrayed in
Dutch paintings as a point of departure for design exploration.
8
The blocks selected were:
i: Passeig de Gracia / Rosselló / Pau Claris / Provença (with La Pedrera by A. Gaudí and Vinçon)
ii: Passeig de Gracia / Carrer d’Aragó / Rambla Catalunya / Consell des Cent (“La Manzana de la Discordia’
with Casa Amatller by Puig I Cadafalch, Casa Batlló by A. Gaudí and Casa Lleó-Morera by Domenech I
Montaner).
iii: Comte de Borrell / Consell des Cent / Viladomat / Diputació
iv: Manso / Parlament / Comte Borrell / Ronda de Sant Pau (with the Sant Antoni Library by RCR Arquitectes)
v: Avinguda Diagonal / Carrer de Sicilia / Carrer de Napols (with Casa Planells by J.M. Jujol)
vi: Bruc / Valencia / d’Aragó / Girona (with the Mercat de la Concepció).
9
Ildefons Cerdà i Sunyer (1815-1876) was the progressive Catalan civil engineer who designed the 19thcentury "extension" of Barcelona called Eixample (Ensanche in Spanish) in 1859.