Posted: November 21st, 2009 | Author: admin | Filed under: fun, trips and notes | No Comments »
of Europe
First, I have to explains a few things in order for this not to be taken the wrong way
1. the impressions below are based on a complete two-day period spent in Brussels but this has always been enough for me to make my mind about other cities that I compare it to (except for Berlin)
2. the weather was great: some 15-18˚C while it was 10˚C below that in Sofia
3. I did not have any architectural landmarks on my list, meaning that I went there without doing my homework but without any expectations either
4. I had no car but the city has a subway and bicycles, so this did not matter
5. and there was something else that was important to point out but…
well – Brussels sucks! that’s it
initial impressions:
dirty,
unwelcoming,
no trees on the sidewalks,
overpopulated,
the subway stinks,
the beggars around the streets,
Arabs and ninjas everywhere (nothing strange about it, but what’s really interesting is that black people do not impress me as much as the hijabs)…
the popular Manneken Pis (a statue of a little boy peeing) which the city is famous for (nobody knows why) is indecently small and standing remotely in the crossing of two world-famous streets. the chances of passing by it without noticing it, if you had never heard of how very popular it was, are tremendous…
the Manneken Pis:
and if you thought is was big enough, here is a picture of the group for scale
I will pass on the old part of Brussels (when didn’t I…) and I will show you just a couple of shots, enough to officially pay respect to the architectural heritage of the city: this is the central square of tourist hysteria:
while we were walking around, I was thinking that the choice of an European capital city is actually great; maybe I wished it would have been Geneva or Berlin, or even Prague, or Wien but the unfortunate truth is that it fits Brussels perfectly to be the capital city of Europe simply because it has a little bit of everything, being positioned right between the French romantic provincialism and German perfectionism; the fact that I do not fancy the smells, the crowds and the misery does not mean that they don’t exist…
in order not to picture Brussels as a place full of crowds, shops and beggars, here are some shots of the remarkable Atomium building, left after the 1958 Expo. The Expo itself had many additional buildings which were worthy of architectural attention but, unfortunately, this is the only one that survived the 50 years that separate my visit from those times:
post-war times of hope…
the atomium itself (designed by Andre Waterkeyn) is a steel structure resembling the crystal lattice of iron zoomed in 165 billion times; a symbol of using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes… well, it was in 1958 after all.
the building (if you can call it that) has been renovated and transformed into a museum a few years ago but, but as a whole, only the coatings have been replaced while the basic structure, the one from 1958, has remained the same:
room for thought: there were no computers in 1958 neither for calculating, nor for drawing up this thing…
from the highest ball
the restaurant at the top
there are escalators in the tunnels now
while there were only stairs back then
the feel is almost as if in a Lem’s novel… the left accelerator is under the critical minimum, navigator Pirx… and the only difference is that you see Brussels through hatches instead of open space.
I don’t know when and where in these last 50 years the belief in science and technology gave way to provincial consumerism; maybe this is what takes place everywhere but somehow it seems too obvious in Brussels;
The EU Headquarters building in the rain
right next to this interior (a “stolen” shot through the window on a Sunday)
is this
if, for some reason, you have to stop by Brussels and you cannot avoid it, don’t miss trying this
and
their famous beers as well as
and as for avoiding the capital – I strongly recommend it; the following pictures were taken in a small town called Lowen or Leuven, some 20 kilometers from Brussels; a new business center area along a railway line next to the town’s central train station:
there is something Dutch about the design of the entire area, not just the buildings: it is wide and clean 🙂
the square in front of the train station turned out to be magical place after they lit up the street lighting
and this is the magic wand
the icing on the cake is between the square and the new business center:
the building attracted our attention ever since we got off the train but it truly shone when it got dark
I often find that my total impression from a place can be completely altered after I find a single jewel such as this one
🙂
a shout-out to all the colleagues which shared this trip with me and made the experience much more interesting than Belgium could offer!
and my honest and profound thanks to those who organized the trip 🙂
Posted: November 15th, 2009 | Author: admin | Filed under: architecture, cityscapers' work | No Comments »
Is there space for a small house in the claustrophobic urban environment?! Is there a user group for a small house in the middle of the city square?! How do you create an environment instead of taking it away?… There are many other similar issues that question the possibility of creating a small, urban, modular house that adds social value to the overly built-up organism. Most questions, however, have more than one answer to them.
The architectural competition Prefab20/20 creates such a challenge. The solutions are represented by 200 projects, and the right ones are brought down to 23. 🙂
The winners are MOBIUS ARCHITECTS from Poland and their Ecomobi house.
Ecomobi is here to freshen and bring live to the city roofs.
The winning project is a textbook-perfect house. A tight little house where everything is just right: one function is replaced by another, shutters go up, stairs move, children play. The materials used are light, there’s a lot of isolation and even a private garden. The modular system is another bonus that makes it possible for this tiny box to house many happy families. The comfort of the total generalization of space is questionable. There’s no option for separation of different functions.
The question that comes up naturally concerns the issue whether the strict observation of established rules and norms is the only thing necessary for the creation of a city house. The light modular construction is long known for its advantages and disadvantages. The challenge doesn’t lay in the creation of a new system or the invention of the perfect function but in the incorporation of such projects in the city, in finding the right places and the right target group as well in the way both the city and its people can win from project of this kind.
So, down the chosen ones’ staircase we go, looking for the HOUSE.
The second place is awarded to a participant from Canada: Blackwell Architecture. Their project is nice, dynamic and steers away from the traditional boxy look ;). They’ve put some thought in the variety of functions and even the possibility for family growth :). But before you make the decision to purchase this house you have to consider the availability of a free plot to place your jewel and provide for the necessary existential conditions.
That’s the third place: a floating house from England, the work of Daniel Preusse, Bo Joon, and Mathew Fajkus. Inspired by their native environment, they offer a “travelling” home. An interesting concept that suits the urban environment. It also offers the possibility for a changing look as both main facades are made of many glass fish tanks. Some of them are facing the interior and serve as shelves, and the rest of them are filled with soil and local plants. It’s kind of sad that this nice yacht will stay anchored at the marina for such a long time.
The rest of the projects distinguished by the jury as Honorable Mentions or Shortlisted Entries, can be divided in a few major groups.
There is a marked tendency for the new house to dwell on the roofs of all types of buildings. The question… how is this going to happen remains: do we mechanically build upon the roof of the building or do we improve on it and turn it into a fully functional living space. All these projects provide their solutions and view on the situation. All of them manage to landscape, clean, and recycle the urban organism to a certain degree.
However, my judgment is subjective 🙂
It is strange that among all of the other project, there is only one house that offers a minimal step and development of the comprehensive function at least one level above the traditional social urban space. We’ve also been interested in such a solution for a long time 😉 , but we decided that it was way too traditional and would eventually occur to others as well. It is curious when it is the right time to stop looking and choose the winning idea!? Otherwise, the very Urban tree house offers traditional conveniences, develops the idea of space separation and, at the same time, division of the daily dwelling, work, and rest which improves the quality of life because the house is meant for constant occupation and is not a caravan or a bungalow for the holidays.
The strong point of some of the solutions is the desire to fly the new house into the urban environment, giving it additional function, different from the residential one. How to make the house disappear or be perceived as something that fits the spot.
The Canadian concept for a house within the hedge is especially fascinating. It could fit the environment, it is isolated, and creates enough intimacy for its inhabitants; it is adequate for all types of climates.
Other searches explore the parking options and do we need parking places or could we build on open parking lots. Impossible is nothing, but the question whether this is a sensible solution remains!
In the century of new technology, solutions for the “robotized home” type are inevitable. All kinds of mechanisms extend the house, adding space and changing the places of different areas to create comfort. All of them are quite original but they lack setting, or at least they are not presented as part of one. That makes their suitability for existing in a severely burdened city questionable. What is the new and good that they bring to the city and its inhabitants because, above all, architects must create fully functional and comfortable living spaces.
As it happens with questions, some untraditional and slightly absurd…even illogical answers come up.
Spontaneous houses, singing houses, light, beauty… this is the end 🙂
Besides keeping a close eye on the international architectural work, our interest in the competition is very personal… we/Cityscape architects/ also took part. That’s why I give you Prifit as a postscript: our solution to the non-traditional concept of a small house in urban environment… many of us consider the possibility of owning something similar.
For more information, visit this site.
