Archived material from the 02/2006 issue of A&B
We present an interview with Anne Lacaton, a French architect from Lacaton Vassal Architects, which won the prestigious Mies van der Rohe Prize, 2003, for its design for the adaptation of the Palais de Tokyo.
Barbara Stec: The design office of Lacaton Vassal Architects occupies an increasingly high and unique position in the world of architecture today, and the simplicity and naturalness of its realizations verge on extravagance. This special feature of your design was well reflected in the film shown at a conference in Krakow last March 11 at the Center for Japanese Art and Technology "Manggha" as part of the series "What is architecture".
Anne Lacaton: The film presented here was made for the ARTE television program, so for a wide audience, and I think it fulfills its purpose well. It tells the story of the creation of a certain project in a very simple way, without focusing on technique. The film explains how an architect works, how he tries to find an idea in which there would be an answer to the questions posed, but also how he tries to arrive at his own personal idea. This means that he has to be very open-minded and sensitive to everything that would make a building good to live in, good to live in. Architecture is also an art, so the architect has to give the building something that is part of his person.
Barbara: To the question "What is architecture?" you answered that you were more interested in the question of the meaning of architecture and its social reception. The answer is also contained in your way of designing, in which it is so important to talk to the future user - full of openness to his needs and respect. During the lecture I got the impression that working with the client is a pleasure for you. Architects expect the client to be a rich intellectual. For you, on the other hand, a developer is someone who brings life to a building. "Life" is a word that often appears in contemporary architectural criticism. There are attempts to create architecture as an organism, it is not uncommon in the process of shaping the form to reach back to biology, using the term "flesh and skin of architecture" to emphasize the fascination with life from the linguistic side. And in the projects of your office, life is not a creative idea or metaphor, but simply the life of a person in a building. The high quality of architecture means that "inhabitation" can be celebrated. This understanding of life in architecture is, for all its simplicity, very convincing, because it is.... real.
Anne: Yes, that's true, we work a lot on this issue. You shouldn't think that if an architect tries to respond to the client's expectations in a very specific way, then by the same token he must limit himself. I think it is possible to clearly express one's idea and implement it consistently, while at the same time being very interested in the lives of the people who will live or work in the building. These are not contradictions. Sometimes you just should understand that architecture has its own special language, which may not always be understood by investors. Therefore, you need to be able to communicate, to talk to people, to make legible what you want to do and what you want to achieve through it.
I think that in all the projects we have done so far, our idea is very evident, and that at the same time all the realizations are very open to transformation. They are designed from the beginning in such a way that the life inside can later change them, modify them, mask them. It's true that a certain building is built first, but then people bring their personal things into it. For us, the rather important thing is to answer the question of at what point one must stop, when the architect has already done his work and from when one must leave room for others to continue it. Architecture is not a finished, untouchable work. We try to design our forms in such a way that they have many "openings," so that ways of using them are not completely determined when the building is finished. This was the case at the Palais de Tokyo in Paris, where we came to the conclusion that the walls should not be finished and painted white, for example, because the artists will arrange them themselves later, each in their own way, depending on what they are looking for as a frame or background for the works on display. Similarly, in the case of a house - you know what happens when residents bring in their furniture, cabinets, tables.... But there is no wrong user.
Palais de Tokyo, Paris; projet: Lacaton Vassal Architects, 2001;
Collaboration: Florian de Pous, Jalil Amor, Mathieu Laporte, Emmanuelle Delage, David Pradel
Photo credit: David Pradel
Barbara: This is often related to the variability sought today as a condition for the life of architecture. Kurt Forster emphasized that architecture must be left to its changes, because being something that is alive, it must change. Such an idea evokes many philosophies, adapted for the needs of modern architecture, but in your projects I don't see an illustration of philosophy - here variability naturally belongs to the project, it is not an imposed idea, but results from it "lightly" and according to the need. I think it is related to the Lacaton Vassal office's most important original thinking about high quality of life, namely luxury.
Anne: The most important thing is the space and freedom you can give to someone. The freedom to live in a place, to move around, to do your job, to live together with your family, etc. The use of architecture is not fixed and unchangeable for everyone, nor once and for all defined.
Barbara: The interiors of your buildings are sometimes provocative and very strong, they introduce an intense mood, if only by the unusual treatment of the basic elements of the building, such as walls, floors, ceilings. The vaulted ceiling in the café of the Center for Architecture in Vienna enchants.... The floor in the Palais de Tokyo, painted in colorful large flowers.... how it changes the space!
Anne: The Architecture Center is a special place because there is a cafe deep inside, so it was important to create a backdrop for it. However, I think the most important thing is the kitchen, because the most important thing in a café or restaurant is what you eat. One should never be mistaken about the purpose, the hierarchy of things that determine the size of an activity. In this case, we intended to give value only to the poetic, decorative and, of course, to create a space to work in the kitchen, which should be well designed. In contrast, the floor of the Palais de Tokyo makes the place more personal, but without attaching the client too much to the interior. On the contrary, it gives some greenery, pleasure, exoticism.
Palais de Tokyo, Paris; design: Lacaton Vassal Architects, 2001;
Collaboration: Florian de Pous, Jalil Amor, Mathieu Laporte, Emmanuelle Delage, David Pradel
Photo: David Pradel
Another example is the building of the University of Arts and Humanities in Grenoble, where the facades are co-created by vibrant, exotic flowers. These are plants that do not grow in that place, in the natural Alpine climate, and come from a region where it is always warm, where there is no snow or frost. This project was, of course, first of all to be very functional, because the building has to accommodate many students, to have many rooms, different spaces. Our goal was also to make some spaces extremely pleasant. We thought, for example, that the hall according to the program was too small, that for one and a half thousand people a large space was needed so that people could meet freely. We had to find a good solution for the structure itself. We thought of a regular structure made of concrete and at the same time very transparent. This, in turn, was related to providing sun protection, because it is known that a very transparent building can be extremely pleasant, but also very unpleasant - during hot weather. So we designed external electric sun protection, giving great comfort to those working inside, and then, since this is a university building where the humanities are taught, it seemed to us that we needed to add something with the power of poetic imagery. But not the high-tech image you often see in university buildings. That's where the idea of flowers came to mind, since the campus is located among mountains. We ourselves come from the Bordeaux region, where there is flat terrain and the sea, so it seemed particularly pleasant to see flowers in a landscape of rocks, often covered with snow and glaciers.
University of Arts and Humanities, Grenoble, pro: Lacaton Vassal Architects, 1995-2001;
Collaboration: Emmanuelle Delage, Sylvain Menaud, Mathieu Laporte
Photo credit: Philippe Ruault
Barbara: The effect in the interior of the reading room is delightful - a glass partition filled with plants creates an additional natural barrier against the intense sun.
Anne: I treated this project similarly to the first one, where we had a fairly low budget. But such a budget is a certain opportunity, because it motivates exploration. I think you can then discard prejudices, change your thinking about how to build, about materials, about the nature of the space. So it was all very interesting, although I don't know if the issue of "life" was noticed, because in fact our first project was assigned to the category, generally speaking, "poor architecture". Well, this surprised us at first, because we immediately found ourselves in a certain drawer.
But on this occasion, step by step, we began to think about the issue of luxury, so important in architecture after all. When we looked closely at the Latapie house in Floriac, at its evolution, at how freely people feel inside, at how life goes on inside, we saw that this is luxury. For us, it doesn't lie in terms of values and meanings centered around "being well-to-do," but in having something that you really wanted, but that you didn't even imagine as attainable. Working with a small budget can be quite interesting. We are beginning to notice that when it comes to the houses we design, it's not worth talking about money, but to look carefully at the end result. Whether it's expensive or cheap - it's actually all the same to us.
Some time ago we were invited to a competition to design a luxury hotel in Lugano, Switzerland. The organizers of the competition decided that they were interested in architects who can act according to real economic logic. This was a confirmation of our ideas. When we started the design of this hotel, we told ourselves that there was no reason to focus on anything other than how to build, and this would allow the building to "embrace" hotel luxury. For us, this luxury did not mean very expensive materials, fine marbles, elaborate and unique furniture, black faucets in toilets, which can be found in five-star hotels. We decided that we wanted to give clients staying in Lugano rooms that are really very beautiful. We wanted to showcase and emphasize the view of the lake and the mountains. So these were the issues we worked on first and foremost, and the money we had (and we had a lot of it) was used to solve the problematic issues. In such a very luxurious hotel, all the rooms are very expensive, so it is not good for the cheaper ones to be different from the more expensive ones. We felt that they should be designed in such a way that they are all of a comparably high standard. We do not use the division between more expensive and cheaper architecture.
An analogous situation occurs with housing, where the division between social housing and residences is often clearly emphasized. But in fact, we are constantly moving around the same topic - housing construction. So there is no reason why good architecture should not be created in the case of social or exclusive housing. Of course, when there is more money - it is easier. But in both cases, the same focus on the quality of the space to be designed remains. I consider this very important, because then it turns out that the question of budget is secondary.
Latapie house in Floirac (Bordeaux, France), design: Lacaton Vassal Architects, 1993; collaboration: Sylvain Menaud
photo: David Pradel
Barbara: In this approach to design, one can see an effort not to create barriers between richer and poorer clients, but to be guided by respect and even sympathy towards each investor. More often than not, architects get discouraged and frustrated by the low budget allocated to a project and prefer to work with a wealthy principal, as this gives them the opportunity to realize their original ideas. It can be seen that you offer a different, original way of thinking, devoid of prejudice and pomposity - and you are being recognized for this - as demonstrated by receiving the prestigious Mies van der Rohe Prize in 2003 for the redevelopment of the Palais de Tokyo.
Anne: It is true that we are not capricious. But even we ourselves manage not to create barriers between clients, it is created by society and reality itself. It is obvious that if someone has more money, he will buy a better, more interesting plot than someone who has less money. However, our view of design is not idealistic or utopian. But we would like, in a way, to erase somewhat the differences created by social conditions and design without favoring rich clients. There is a lot of work to be done here, and architects have long been no longer in the service of the ruling elite, but in the service of people and their personal lives. We care about something different than architects used to.
hotel in Lugano (Switzerland), projet: Lacaton Vassal Architects, 1999;
Collaboration: Emmanuelle Delage, Mathieu Laporte, Farouk Oudor, David Pradel
© Lacaton Vassal Architects
Barbara: Is this view of architecture, without pretension or snobbery, related to your "African period"?
Anne: Certainly, for us, living in Africa is an experience of the basic things that make up the concept of comfort. Philippe lived there for a longer time and built a house that we consider the most luxurious.
Barbara: It was a house in the middle of a vast clearing, with a central, near-circular plan, with curtain walls that could be rolled up to "incorporate" the clearing into the house. So is luxury hidden in accessibility to nature, or in the authentication of nature in architecture? How would you define your relationship to nature? Looking at your spaces, full of air and light, I had the impression that the real richness is hidden in the "breathing" of the building, the stratified walls, the contact with nature. I also saw the relationship to nature in your decision to leave one of the squares in Bordeaux unchanged, despite the intentions of politicians. Your office demonstrated the value of the existing square. Does such a desire to protect the existing lawn, where children play, reflect the architect's modesty?
Anne: No, and I would like to emphasize that this is not a position of modesty, but a position of recognition that the act of building is not always constructing something. First of all, an architect must consider the existing situation and the questions that are posed to him. Sometimes the answer may be to change nothing, sometimes - to add to it. One has to look at things that already exist with care, because they are often not discussed enough and what is good and what is ugly about them is not considered. One needs to take a broader view of the issue of transformation. And, perhaps, greater respect for nature would mean stopping the continuation of rapid urban development....
Nature is also about air quality. Clouds. Because, note, the model is not a house among trees. If everyone wanted to live like that, nature would quickly cease to exist. I think you can find a very interesting relationship with nature in the city as well. In our project for a large residential complex, low density was of great importance. It was smaller than in an area with small houses, squeezed between each other. We had a wide space all around and used it as a very strong value of nature.
However, the problem of nature is very complex. It makes one make an effort to notice the air, the sun, the light, the clouds.... Because to be in nature is not only to live surrounded by greenery, in an environment with lush vegetation. One should also be able to see the city as a landscape. I think that the built environment and the natural environment should not be contrasted. Ghoæ nevertheless, we also bear responsibility for urban development.
House in Lège - Cap Ferret, projet: Lacaton Vassal Architects, 1998;
Collaboration: Emmanuelle Delage, Sylvain Menaud, Laurie Bagget, Christophe Hutin, Pierre Yves Portiert
Photo credit: David Pradel
Barbara: You suggest seeing the "nature of things" that is in the existing environment?
Anne: Looking is the primary thing we start a project with. Anyway, I think you can also look at a place from a distance without ever having been there. One can precisely look at a place through various means, through relationships with people, through film, through storytelling (one should not forget that an architect always intervenes in a situation that already exists). Such observation makes it possible to determine where the design problem is and brings out elements that already exist and that become supports for the emerging design. At the Palais de Tokyo, for example, the solution was in place, it was necessary to add only ten percent to a sufficiently interesting rest and not to claim: "I will demolish eighty percent to build another ninety." Similarly, in the house on the Atlantic in Lège - Cap Ferret, where the landscape is eighty percent of the project. So only the minimum had to be done. Nature also makes us realize how we should "tap into it," i.e., whether we are willing and able to imagine that in fifty or a hundred years it will be possible to dismantle our building and restore the site to what it was before, before our action. This seems quite important to us.
Barbara: Thank you very much for the interview.
