TWO ESSAYS ON THE POSITION AND CONTEXT OF ARCHITECTS
‘The position of the architect have radically changed throughout the last century. It changed from master builder who controlled the entire building process to an architect who is only in control of the designing aspect within this process’.1 When we take a closer look to the consequences of this development we can conclude that architects not only lost their control over the building process, but also lost a lot of their independence. Due to the political and economic condition of our democratic society, they constantly have to justify their ideas and make them understandable for everybody. This brings me to my position on the position and context of architects: ‘Architects are dependent but creative, flexible minds challenged by a society of politics, capital and the ruling of the uninitiated ones.’ In the following two combined essays I will defend this position by recording the challenges the participating architects had to overcome in order to realize, or soon to realize a successful project for the developer, the user, society and last but not least the architects themselves. I will focus on two projects: The Intervention in the Rijksmuseum of Amsterdam by Cruz y Ortiz and the Transformation of an abandoned crane track on the former NDSM (Dutch Shipbuilding Company) site in the north of Amsterdam by Trude Hooykaas. Both projects dealt with the aforementioned challenges but with different ‘winners’ and achievements.
INTERVENTION
Rijksmuseum – Amsterdam – Cruz y Ortiz
In 1999 the Dutch Government unanimously decided to initiate the ambitious renovation of the Rijksmuseum, designed by Cuypers and finished in 1885. The city council of Amsterdam started the search for an architect for the intervention of the central gateway, the design of two additional buildings and the restoration of the original courtyards and several chambers. After the European tender, a jury comprised of government architect Jo Coenen, the director Ronald de Leeuw and others selected the Spanish architects Cruz y Ortiz as main architects and Van Hoogevest Architects for restoration.
The design assignment was formulated as followed: Make the main building of the museum suitable for the 21th century and enlarge the visibility of the entire art collection. Make the museum attractive for a diverse audience ‐youth and new Dutch inhabitants amongst others – and improve the position of the museum within its environment. Reinstate the clarity of Cuypers’ design and finally leave space for a public debate within the design process, especially concerning the question of how to deal with Cuypers’ history. In this essay I will focus mostly on the latter, for this had tremendous effects on the budget, the timetable, but foremost the undermining of the position of the architects.2
The design of Cruz y Ortiz was respectful of the past, its architectural language was clear and modest and the new spatial organization of the visitors was efficient and ‘simple’. As the images below show, the two courtyards were reinstated as public space. Simultaneously this invention reconnects the central gateway with the building and becomes the base of the organization into and within the museum.
Source: Lecture Capita Selecta: Position and Context, Antonio Ortiz, 27th of March 2008, TU Delft
When the design was published, the last part of the design assignment became crucial for the progress of the project and lethal for the design. The people of Amsterdam did not appreciate the new use of the gateway because it was not in sync with the history of the museum and ‘it did not leave enough space for pedestrians and cyclist to pass through’. They united themselves, obviously with support of the Amsterdam Union of Cyclists, in a Committee called ‘Red de onderdoorgang’, which tendentiously means ‘Save the pass way’ because the pass way was never in jeopardy.3
Over the course of the years a struggle took place between advocates and adversaries; architect and developer against locals, uninitiated ones. A struggle of which the City of Amsterdam was the instigator and acted as mediator. Cruz y Ortiz could never have imagined that their design was going to be reconsidered and, in the end, even partially rejected. The Committee presented their alternative plan with entrances on either side at the beginning of the gateway. Even though Cruz y Ortiz, after carefully studying this plan, came to the conclusion that the internal logistics of the museum were not resolved, the visitors were not ‘handled’ correctly and the routing was not unambiguous anymore, the City of Amsterdam agreed upon a permanent and unhampered pass way for pedestrians and cyclists and the Rijksmuseum was told to come up with several alternatives.4 The Rijksmuseum decided to leave the original plan for what it was and turned to Cruz y Ortiz for the alteration of the design. Cruz y Ortiz were ‘surprised’ of this outcome: ‘It is obvious that the Rijksmuseum was forced by the City of Amsterdam to take this decision…….. I never heard a single real argument against our plan.’ 5 But because of their interests in the project and their relationship with the direction of the Rijksmuseum, Cruz y Ortiz decided to give in to their request and changed their design.
The series of events presented here are illustrative of my aforementioned position on the position and context of architects. Cruz y Ortiz, together with Van Hoogevest Architects, did tremendous research on Cuypers original design of color, material, composition and, most importantly in this case, the organization. They developed a design based on this research in combination with their own ideas of modern museum architecture, only to experience the bureaucracy and power of politics, capital and the uninitiated ones. In retrospect it were the latter that caused a chain of events that no architect could bring to a halt. When the design was introduced to the people, the expected happened. They only focused on their own interest; their passing through the gateway. Although their arguments seemed to have a historical connotation, they did not. In the original design of Cruz y Ortiz the gateway was maintained and one might even say accentuated, due to the fact that it would have been the visitors’ way into the museum as well. But when the people join forces in a democracy, their voices have to be heard. So the City of Amsterdam took their critics into consideration and the restoration of the Rijksmuseum suffered great delays and the costs kept growing. This is actually the moment when the people of Amsterdam had already won. The fact that democracy is a naturally slow institute, only effected the Rijksmuseum and thereby the architects. When reading between the lines, in newsletter and newspapers (see endnotes), it seems that the Rijksmuseum had nowhere to go but to give in to the people, largely caused by the financial consequences of the ongoing disagreement.
What could Cruz y Ortiz do in a situation like this one? When confronted with the alternative plan of the Committee, they took on a understandably critical but fair attitude. They scrutinized the design and pointed out its shortcoming; and there were, due to the mere fact that the Committee did not consisted of professionals. The next decisive moment was one of acceptance. When the Rijksmuseum decided to alter the design, Cruz y Ortiz had to decide whether to distance themselves from the project or to change their design. It came to no surprise that Cruz y Ortiz kept working on the Rijksmuseum, because the amount of time and money already spend, but mainly due to the desire to successfully finish the restoration and intervention. Cruz y Ortiz changed their design and located four tourniquet‐entrances between the gateway and the two courtyards and left the gatewayy untouched.. Presently, tthe restoratiion of the Riijksmuseum is well on it s way and sccheduled to be finnished arou nd 2013, m any years laater than orriginally plannned thoughh. Most partts of the restoratiion are finishhed and the basements uunder the coourtyards aree made.
During t he lecture off the Capita Selecta seriees at the TU Delft, the onnly trace of t heir original design is one of t he two animmations mad e in an earli er stage. Th ey have acc epted the chhanges and ‘finished’ the projeect successf ully. This connfirms my afforementionned statemennt; Architectts, Cruz y Orttiz in this case, aree creative, fllexible mind s and they aare able to ddesign withinn ever‐changging parameeters. But indepen dent they arre not. They heavily rely on politics, capital and tthe uninitiatted ones. Bu t I would like to cconsider theem as challeenges to be overcome i n order to successfully sustain the creative design pprocess and tto realize a s uccessful prooject, for thee developer, the user, so ciety and lasst but not least thee architect thhemselves.
