Descargar PDF - Ediciones ARQ

Lecturas Readings 67672 Pier Vittorio Aureli and MartinoTattara, both graduated from theBerlage Institute in Rotterdam. Inaddition to obtaining fi rst place inthe project for the new administrativeCity in Korea in 2005, was alsoawarded fi rst prize Iakov Chernikovfor young architects in October2006. Pier Vittorio Aureli has beeninvolved in academic work at theArchitectural Association, BerlageInstitute, Columbia University andTU Delft. In 2005, he presentedhis doctoral thesis at Berlage/TUDelft The possibility of an absolutearchitecture which is being preparedfor publication. In March 2007, hehelped organize the exhibition Brussels,a manifesto: towards the capitalof Europe and in May that sameyear he was one of the curators ofthe Third Architecture Biennale ofRotterdam. Currently, both form partof the teaching staff at the BerlageInstitute.3 OFFICE KGDVS (Kersten Geers,David van Severen) founded in2002 is currently headquartered inBrussels. It has obtained fi rst placein several architecture competitions,including the Arquine competitionfor the border cross between Mexicoand the USA, the Wiels Center forContemporary Art in Brussels andthe competition for the new administrativeCity in Korea. Both complementtheir architectural practicewith teaching at Ghent Universityand TU Delft. In May 2007, theywere invited to participate in theThird Architecture Biennale of Rotterdamwith a proposal for Ceuta,the Spanish enclave in Africa.where the only Chilean proposal presented, was prepared in collaborationby Cristián Undurraga and Pablo Allard, and was selected as one ofthe finalists.This initial phase continued with the formulation of a developmentplan in several stages, with new independent tenders for thevarious project areas, whose construction had to start in July 2007 tobe definitely finished by 2030.After a two-day deliberation, the diverse seven-member jury, includingthree locals and four internationals, headed by geographer DavidHarvey, Nader Tehrani, Winy Maas and Arata Isozaki, decided to givea special twist to the original awarding structure (one first place,two runners-up, three third places, and four honorable mentions)and opted for a more comfortable decision by awarding five firstplaces and five honorable mentions.Apparently -confirmed by participants and jury members alike-one of the main reasons that fostered the debate and frustrated anyattempt to designate one sole winner, was proposal DO17888, whichlater on, once chosen as one of the five winners, was revealed asDOGMA/OFFICE.The project under question was the result of the collaborationbetween two young offices located in Rotterdam, comprised of architectsin their early thirties: DOGMA/OFFICE, composed of Pier VittorioAureli and Martino Tattara 2 , and OFFICE KGDVS 3 , belongingto Kersten Geers and David van Severen. Both offices joined theirnames for the purpose of this competition.PR O J E C T / The proposal, A grammar for the city, is based on reducing theproblem to a few factors. In the first place, on identifying the incapacityof the architect to define the way in which the programs vary,the flows are smooth and easy-going and the change that occurs isthe mutability of urban life, which is the essence of the city.“We believe that if only focused on its absolute condition, architecture cantruly (and honestly) evoke, by negative deduction, the unforeseeable complexityof the life that will occur in it” (DOGMA/OFFICE, 2006).Secondly, taking into account that current large-scale urbanizationprojects are in private hands, especially in Asia over the lastfew years, that in their search for profits fail to confer value topublic space as a collective space that shapes city life. “Democracyis not absolute freedom but rather a set of precise rules that guaranteeequality by allowing individual liberties”(DOGMA/OFFICE, Idem).With these principles in mind, what they propose is a city madeup of compounds instead of streets.A series of urban walls, formed by cruciform buildings 158,4 m per eachside and 36 m tall, placed in a 180 m by 180 m grid with a 21,5 m sepa-ration between them, define a sequence of interconnected compoundswithin the city, whose square ground plan has a 3,6 km perimeter. Itsfacades are accessorial and represent a white cut on a backdrop that,at the same time, is its content.These urban walls do not complete the city but only form 30% ofthe required square-meter construction and are the basic architecturalinfrastructure that serve to generate spaces. The resulting compoundsnot only accommodate the collective urban life but also theconsecutive development of new and varied buildings. “Urban wallsand their resulting compounds are not the conclusive form of the city butrather their definite beginning” (DOGMA/OFFICE, Idem).The purpose of the option taken by this habitable framework as aprinciple for the city is to accept the fixed as well as flexible characterof the city; the determining factor of the framework and what isunpredictable of its content is resolved in only one way.The city, completely pedestrian, is connected to the rest of thecountry through highways that reach their periphery, wherelarge parking lots are located, connected to the undergroundpublic transport system that feeds the city internally. These fourmain points will define where the city’s construction will begin,from the periphery towards its center, keeping clear the urbanlimit and the city image.The same authors acknowledge the willfulness of the adopted wallcompoundprinciple but once established, they take on the compromiseto follow up on the logic of this principle.The result is a city with a clear image that takes distance from themere iconography and defines the minimum but categorical designneeded for its subsequent development.The first phase of the competition concluded at the end of 2005.The awards were distributed as described above and in spite of thestrong recommendations on behalf of some of the jury members, themaster plan defined later on, as was predicted, shows no evidenceof having taken into account the DOGMA/OFFICE proposal; on thecontrary, it resembles much more the logic development of anotherwinning proposal.In the second stage in which the winners of the first phase werespecially invited to develop one of the residential areas definedin the Master Plan, DOGMA/OFFICE participated by not repeatingthe same scheme on a smaller scale, but rather by drawing up anew principle.Paradoxically on this occasion, they did not receive any mentionat all, but the second place was assigned to the project prepared byItalian architects Privileggio and Secchi, for a proposal that superficiallyseems to be the logical development of A grammar for the city.