Presentation from the 02|2019 issue of A&B
In 2014, Belgian studio Wim Goes Architectuur created Refuge II. The shelter for the last months of life for a terminally ill patient is more than just an architectural project. It's a project about building social connections and reflecting on what lasts and what passes. Here it is clear that in the cycle of life, architecture is only for a moment.
Refuge II was built to disappear. Temporariness was written into its walls, floor and roof, which were erected not by a professional construction team, but by family, friends, acquaintances and friends of acquaintances of the principal. Today, the small building in the Belgian countryside is gone. But the memory of working together, friendships and rebuilt bonds remain.
It began in the spring of 2014. A client suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (an incurable disease of the nervous system that causes gradual muscle atrophy) approached the studio run by Wim Goes with the task of redesigning his home with the needs he would face as his disease progressed. The idea was to ensure full mobility in the interior and maximum comfort during the various stages of the disease. A fast-moving disease systematically limiting dexterity required that the design and construction work proceed quickly. The high cost of adapting the house and the long construction time decided to change the concept. The team from Wim Goes Architectuur suggested erecting a temporary structure in place of the shed adjacent to the house. They also suggested an unconventional working method.
The construction process of Refuge II - the photos show the various people involved in the construction;
you can see work, rest, shared meals and the prevailing atmosphere at all stages of the project
Photo: © Wim Goes Architectuur
Wim Goes says the idea was born out of his interest in the concept of inverted perspective. "The client said: "I have a problem. The problem is that I'm still alive and I want to live, but friends and family are dealing with the fact that I'm dying. They always focus on illness and death." This was very important to me. I was able to understand the situation, because if there is hope for survival, there is a future." Here , however, that future was not there. "I wondered how I could react as an architect to deal with this situation," he - he explains. Thus, the concept of ritual emerged in thinking about Refuge II. Goes emphasizes that ritual is always shown in action, where different people are united by attention focused on something beyond. In the hopeless situation Goes faced, the prospect that the future offered was joint work and very specific, achievable goals.
Family, friends and acquaintances were involved in the construction process. Thearchitects themselves were also building. It started with them. They encouraged more people with their work. The construction site came alive on weekends. Eight to twelve people worked each time. Those who could and wanted to come, encouraged by the patient's family and friends. In total, more than a hundred people. Lack of experience was not an obstacle - everyone received the appropriate training. The result was a social project that, in the architects' view, became a celebration of life. There was joint work, goals to achieve on a given day, shared meals, coffee, tea, beer, wine, laughter. And the principal was part of this ritual. Construction.
Refuge II
Photo credit: Philippe Dujardin
Thedesign and materials were as simple as possible. By design, they were meant to be close to everyone. "I used materials that I thought could be related to their childhood," says Goes. - Because we play together on the beach or in the hay, we know the smell of straw, we know the touch of earth, of mud. That's why I tried to work with friends and family, non-professionals, to make this professional world of architecture and construction accessible through something they remember from their childhood." Nature became a unifying element, a common denominator that facilitated understanding. Perhaps even a common language.
Construction work was underway in the summer of 2014, and by autumn the building was ready for occupancy. Construction inevitably had its counterbalance in the form of demolition. Temporariness was an integral part of the project. Goes says emphatically, "The ideawas not to build something to last a hundred or a thousand years, and such ambition sometimes accompanies architecture, but to build in temporality." And he gives the example of a farmer who, at the beginning of construction, brings in the straw that is used to make the wall insulation, then comes back for it when the project is nearing completion. Eventually, almost everything was taken away. Eighty-three percent of the construction materials-straw and loam-were to be spread on the field as fertilizer; glass, metal and wood were used with an eye toward recycling; technical equipment was to be returned to the sponsors. "In a sense, what we built, we gave back to nature. Like life." - Goes concludes.
dining room
Photo credit: Philippe Dujardin
Refuge II was small. It's a less than seventy-foot straight, oblong space in which the various rooms - dining room, bedroom, bathroom - in an amphitheater arrangement were separated by fabric curtains. The only masonry walls are those that formed the boundary of the shed at the very beginning, and the only permanent interference is the three window openings punched into the masonry - the only permanent trace left in the body of the house. A trace that tells us that something was here. That someone lived here.
Thestrength of this project lies in its simplicity. It was not about great architecture - neither literally nor figuratively was it such, this building is rather non-architectural - but a great project on a human scale. A project firmly rooted in society. A project whose core will be "universal hope, helping each other, commitment, friendship that transcends boundaries." Making meaning, setting purpose. "I was really amazed at how the people involved in this project have changed," says Goes. Some who lived outside the country returned to Belgium and now live here because they made new friends. It's fantastic to see that such things are a byproduct of building in a different way."
bathroom and bedroom
photo: Philippe Dujardin
Refuge II was created in a very specific context. It was the result of a specific found situation, but that doesn't mean that it can't be taken as a model for use in another place, in other circumstances. At the same time - is this concept new? Not really. The idea of building together, especially in the name of a higher purpose, has been present in architecture for hundreds of years. Also, the category of temporariness is not new in architecture, just look at exhibition pavilions - at major world exhibitions or intimate projects. Temporary residential architecture is also not unheard of - for what are squalor quarters or refugee camps? (Although they often turn out to be something that lasts). Recycling building materials in an era of eco and sustainability is standard rather than extravagant.
Yet this project is unusual. Perhaps because we have a narrative that begins and ends. That there is a tragic hero. That there is a philosophical plane to look at from different perspectives. Shelter, because that's what the name of the building would be in Polish, showed the world in miniature. Life that passes and architecture that doesn't last at all. A shelter from nature (because protection from the cold, sun, rain), but also a shelter that is part of nature, an extension of nature (because of the materials and the assumption of their return to nature). However, there is an element that distinguishes this project from traditional reality - planning. Under normal circumstances, demolition occurs as a result of decay, self-decay, wear and tear. We don't build with demolition in mind, but to make the structure last as long as possible. Although the result will be the same, the intention is the opposite.
projection
© Wim Goes Architectuur
Refuge II shows well how architecture is intertwined with life, our everyday life, and how it shapes it. Wim Goes Architectuur emphasizes the project's connection to the cycle of nature - spring is planning, summer is construction, fall is moving, winter is demolition. The responsiveness of architecture to the cycle of nature is also one of the topics that CENTRAL is particularly interested in. This relationship is particularly evident in their Cabrio House project, which is a study of a "chronobiological house." Chronobiology is the science that deals with the study of cyclical phenomena in living organisms that occur under the influence of external factors, such as the seasons. Both studios explore the subject independently, although CENTRAL certainly pays more attention to theoretical reflection on this phenomenon.
Architecture is often a backdrop for life; in the case of Refuge II, it has become a tool for change. But doesn't the dramatic and beautiful story of architecture and nature, life and death, moment and change that grew out of this project exaggerate the real role of the building that was created? When construction was underway, there was bustle, sweat, fun and a common goal. After a few months there was silence, the patient moved into his new home, where he slowly died. How long did the effect initiated by the architect's reverse perspective thinking last? Did the bonds formed or rebuilt turn out to be lasting? We will never know. But we do know one thing - that this building stimulates reflection on the role of architecture far beyond function and aesthetics.
Although the building is no longer there, it continues in the form of visual and textual documentation. It is a positive example of democratic, socially engaged and strongly rooted in nature design, which was recognized with the top prize of "The Architectural Review" Pop-up Awards 2017. The project was also presented at the Venice Architecture Biennale in 2016.
