Simple Architecture With A Second Level

By Caroline Smith

Previously I have discussed the process of Deconstructivism exemplified by Peter Eisenman’s Memorial to the Murdered Jews in Berlin.  Last week I examined the way in which architecture could be the backdrop of a subject or an event in order to grab attention, thus adding a second level of complexity to the situation. This method could also be reversed so that the process of Deconstructivism, once again for architecture, depends completely on the subject as a backdrop. Now, with moving landscapes, the subject, which might be the landscape, inhabitants or vehicles that interact with the space, is the next level of complexity. This can be shown in a number of ways; by forcing a panoramic view, by responding to landscapes as they are, and by responding to the people, cars, etcetera that move through it.

            Le Corbusier best exemplifies the concept of using panoramic views as an element of architecture in the Beistegui Apartment, designed in 1929, where he leaves only a select point of view of the surrounding. The long, simple walls shape your view into a panoramic, drawing your eyes up to the cityscape in the distance so that architecture exists in its most basic form, while the subject of the landscape adds complexity to the space. The emotions evoked by this process are important because one can feel at peace in solitude while still integrated with the whole city.

 Another example of this I saw recently outside of Vicenza is Carlo Scarpa’s Brion’s Cemetery. The low back wall is simple and plain, drawing attention to a panoramic view of the beautiful mountains in the distance. The cemetery is a very quiet, personal place to reflect, aided by the beautiful views in the background, so once again; you may feel connected to what is surrounding the architecture.

            Many studies have been conducted in architecture in the past decade on the movement through landscapes and interactions with architecture. For example, Venturi studies how we perceive things from the car, since so many Americans spend a great deal of time in the car, in his book Learning from Las Vegas. These studies have alluded to new kinds of architecture that react to the movement of people and cars around and through it. Zaha Hadid and Roberto Burle Marx show evidence of this response to “the subject”, but the most efficient response I have found is Max Wan’s proposal for the Leidsche Rhein Master Plan. Similar to the emotions created in the Brion’s Cemetery and the Beistegui Apartment, Wan’s design allows the person’s experience to be his greatest priority. It provides safer, more comfortable pedestrian circulation around a city, while a partial underground highway would exist for cars only. This separation is a simple way to take the subject into account, allowing the movement of the people and cars to become the second level of complexity.

The Highline in New York designed by Diller Scofidio and Renfro sums up the way in which architecture can use the process Deconstructivism while allowing movement and landscape to add intricacy to a structure.  The bridge itself frames a panoramic view of the city forcing perspective and evoking connections between the city and its inhabitants similar to the first two projects. The purpose of the highline itself as a green space and a way for pedestrians apart from the street is a direct response to “the subject” of the city like Max Wan’s Master Plan proposal. It is important to know that we are always moving through landscapes and landscapes are always changing when designing architecture. In this way you can design something simple that will evoke great emotions and have a much deeper meaning when connected conceptually to what is around it.