Tomorrow

On the 19th of October we were delighted to have one of SAUL's core lecturers Irenée Scalbert enlighten us with a thought provoking lecture entitled “Tomorrow”, the sixth lecture in the Lecture@SAUL series hosted by Merit Bucholz.

Irenée Scalbert is a well-known Architecture critic and historian here in Limerick and further afield. He has lived abroad since SAUL’s beginnings, commuting from London where he studied at the Architectural Association and later taught for many years. He is also a member of the editorial boards of AA files and candide. Recently, Irenée has been lecturing on Urban Planning and Design at the Graduate School of Design at Harvard University.

As Merrit remarked in his introduction, it is great to have the opportunity to expand the discourse of our ever-developing, still new school to a wider context. Notions that have developed from SAUL to a broader discourse in Architecture, bringing about current themes of interest emerging from his seminars in America. It was quite apt that Irenée would speak this evening while our French visitors were in the audience; the students were pleased to listen to the thoughts fellow Frenchman.

            

The opening slide of Logan Airport set the scene for the evening. Irenée began with a discussion about “Junk Space”, a space of closure at the end of the story. A place he calls pre-revolutionary. Places of uncertainty, full of spectacle which lack purpose. He discusses Rem Koolhaus’ article on “Junk Space” and also Michel Houellebecq’s book “The Map and Territory”.

            

This develops to his main theme of the evening. The 1% architecture compares to the 99% architecture. The 1% being that which discomforts him, one of spectacle where the event or the users lack relevance. He compares Jean Nouvel’s Serpintine Pavillion in Hyde Park London to Practice Architecture’s Frank’s Café, on a roof top in Peckham London. Both Cafés are of similar briefs, however the Serpintine Pavillion representing 1% architecture and Frank’s Café representing 99% architecture.  This poses a question that interests him greatly. What is the constituency of architecture today?

            

Moving on he discusses a theme that he feels has dominated architectural discussion for the last 50 years, that of the “Terrain Vague”, abandoned places in a city which become diverted to new creative uses through improvisation. He feels this has run its course and has come to some kind of end. It is now represented by a different model, the paradigm of the garden, a more planned cultivation of pleasure and social peace, based on the provision of human care. He demonstrates many examples of this.

            

He goes on to discuss pre-Raphaelite painting. He believes these are of current interest. At the moment people are trying to look upon nature and nature’s relationship to the built environment in a different way. He discusses whether we should take anthropology as a guide. Anthropologists look at every aspect of life, how people look upon and live in a particular environment. He illustrates this through many interesting references.

            

This develops to a discussion on the renewed interest in the vernacular. He begins by dealing with the origins of the idea of vernacular, with particular interest given to the book “Native Genius in Anonymous Architecture” by Sibyl Monogly-Magy, an architectural historian and critic. In this book she is looking for two things. Firstly for what is fundamental from the human point of view in vernacular architecture, and secondly contemporary examples from the new world. He also gives great attention to Van Eyck, most importantly his slogan “By Us, For Us”.

The great value of vernacular is the architecture is that it is for the 99%. The Architecture that we have seen in the last 20years, iconic architecture or “Starchitecture” is architecture for the 1%.

            

This proceeds into Irenée’s personal views on what the origins of vernacular architecture are. The very idea of geography, and that the earth is a totality, and that “geography is the science of places.” He goes through many books which are of interest to his view. He is fascinated by the theory of the house and discusses the concept of “bricolage”. He discusses how regions are described in physical terms. He discusses non-places and how there is nothing on the surface of the earth which is not in itself a place. Even roads are an experience.

            

He concludes by discussing the planner Ebenezer Howard, and his book “Garden Cities of Tomorrow”, from which he got the title for this lecture. What is of interest to him is the argument between the town and country diagram, reverting back to the garden city. He has particular interest the ambiguity of the hedge. In discussing this he makes reference to SAUL’s IU mapping of hedges done this summer of county Mayo. He describes this as a blue print of the city of some kind. Lastly he discusses what should be the centre of the garden city, describing the earliest meeting house in Hingham, Boston in America, a landmark for the beginning of democracy in America. He believes this is the best example of architecture for the 99% even the 100%. He describes the inside as a model of the city in plan. The stalls like plots of land. He then reverts back to the idea of hedges, boundary makers describing a city.

            

In questions and answers Úna Breathnach H-Ifearnáin in fifth year asked about the improvised and the planned and weather Irenée believed it was a transitory thing, something process orientated. Does he believe this is where we are going? Irenée responded that the architects can play a role as planners and that the fundamental activity of the architect is to plan. He doesn’t believe that a lot will change in practice but that it is up to the architect to promote the value of planning.

Simon Walker inquired about Irenées points on the “Terrain Vague” being over. Does this mean that the economic model, which has failed by the private capitalist model is also over? Does this deny the idea of collective space? There is a seed of the 99% contained in this idea, where does he believe this may go? Irenée believes that this is something that would appear as marginal behaviour, there is a certain kind of passivity associated with the “Terrain Vague” that the collective space can only be where you find it, that is cannot be created actively, this is the part that bothers him. He agrees that because of its marginality it tends to be something peripheral to society. In relation to the garden and the city, he is describing it as more of a metaphor for the city, he is unsure what position the garden itself will have within the city. Right at the core there is the idea of care, care is the foundation of the garden. In the “Terrain Vague” it is the opposite, it is the existence of an absence of care which is the foundations of the “Terrain Vague”, a kind of delight in abandonment. He would welcome a much more activist caring approach.

            

There were also some interesting questions posed by our French visitors.

By Eimear Egan