An Interview with the founders of PROGRAM: Initiative for art + architecture collaboration

Carson Chan and Fotini Lazaridou-Hatzigoga founded PROGRAM in 2006 as a forum to explore and test the boundaries of architecture through collaborations with other fields. As a non-profit project space, PROGRAM offers a platform for artists, architects, researchers and others to explore ideas of space through exhibitions, performances, workshops, lectures and various other events. Along with the gallery, workspace is available for rent in an open office for people looking for a shared creative environment to conduct their work. This includes individual desks as well as a shared reading and conference room. A residency program further enriches the community and the collaborative spirit of PROGRAM. Through these collaborations the intent is to challenge the traditional notions of architectural representation and broaden our concept of what architecture and space can be. I had the pleasure of sitting down with Carson and Fotini to talk about PROGRAM, their other interests and their thoughts on current trends in architecture and design.

How long has PROGRAM been established?

Fotini: Almost three years now.

Carson: We have had about 18 shows, 19 shows.

What is your background and where did the idea for Program come from?

Fotini: I have a professional degree in architecture from Greece where I’m from. I moved to Boston to go to grad school – we did a masters program together at Harvard – the Masters in Design Studies in the History and Theory of Architecture. I stayed in the States for another couple of years – first working in an architecture office and then I worked on a documentary film project. Since then we have been wanting to engage in architecture in a different way [from traditional practice]. We worked in architectural firms after graduating, but soon realized that we wanted to do other things; to think about questions of space and experience of space – things we were thinking about in grad school but we couldn’t really do working in architecture offices.

Fotini: I was in Boston at a big firm doing construction documents. I learned a lot but it was not that exciting. Then we decided very quickly to open a space and try to pursue this interest through exhibitions, workshops, lectures and different kinds of activities. Carson was in Berlin already, and I moved to Berlin as well. We were very lucky to find this really great space.

Carson: I grew up in Toronto and then went to school, grad and undergrad, in the States. I then moved [to Berlin] and worked in an architecture firm – Barkow Leibinger. From there I started working at the Neue National Gallery, they have an architecture curating department and I helped work on three shows. I then did some freelance curating. Fotini came to visit while I was doing a show at the gallery 0047, and we came up with this idea to start our own thing.

Fotini: That’s also another thing that influenced what we wanted to do here – the fact we were looking at other exhibitions of architecture. Usually it’s a presentation of a building, a drawing or a model, that most people can not really engage with if they don’t have an education in architecture. And even then it is usually not that interesting. So we decided that what we wanted to do is try to find another way to share architecture, mainly through the experience one can have visiting an installation, and what you can learn through that in a more embodied way.

Carson: Architects have a hard time expressing themselves, because it takes so many years and so much money to build a building – if you chose to build buildings, as an architect. City planners have a doubly hard time expressing their ideas physically, because you come up with a plan and by the time its implemented it is completely different than what you initially wanted. There are so many contingent factors.

Fotini: Because we started this soon after graduating, PROGRAM has been a learning process. And this experimental aspect of many of the things that we do is just because we want to try things out – or have other people try out things and then see what we get and learn from it.

To read the whole interview please click here.

So you have always been more interested in the curating art and architecture rather than practicing design?

Carson: Well, not before I started doing it. I made exhibitions in college, art exhibitions and things like that. But exploring exhibition making as a discipline or as a way to ask architectural questions, not so much until we actually started.

Are most of the people who show their work here architects or people who are interested in the built environment?

Fotini: We’ve worked with architects, but its mainly artists we are working  with. Very often we try to do collaborations between architects and artists, or people from different disciplines. The previous show for example was a collaboration between an artist/architect and a choreographer. We are interested in working with different disciplines and seeing what are the different methods and ways of seeing and being, what we can share, what we can learn from eachother.

Do you help bring those people together or do you let people approach you?

Fotini: It varies, sometimes it was an idea coming from us – what would happen if we bring together an artist and a fashion designer and give them the space for a month and see happens – and sometimes, its people that approach us with a proposal. We have been very open to different ways of working. Every month and a half [there is a new exhibition].

Who funds the overall organization or individual exhibits?

Fotini: The whole space is run with this idea of having the workspace here, where we rent out desks to different creative people – architects, artists, graphic designers, journalists – but anyone who can work off a desk. That helps cover the running costs of the space – when we are full. The idea is that it is a workspace on a temporary basis – some people have been here for two years already – but most stay in the space [for a shorter time]. Like Michael Hoepfner, he is an artist and is showing this piece in an exhibition that opens next week. He wanted a desk space for a month. What’s nice is that it is this practical way of running the space but it also creates this community of creative people. They come and go but there is a lot of sharing and collaborations that come up just because we share the space. That is how the space is funded, and then for each exhibition we try to find funding – its usually through embassies and sometimes through private sponsors. We don’t have continuous funding so every month we have to knock on doors.

What about Berlin made this possible? You both went to Harvard so did you consider Boston or other locations?

Fotini: It just fell in our lap. However, I think it wouldn’t easily happen in other places. It happened here because Carson was already here and was going to move back to Europe anyway. Also, Berlin has cheap rent. We were also really lucky to find this space – it was empty for 10 years before we moved in. Finally, the movement of people through the city helps make a space like this possible. For example, renting the workspaces and also the people that we work with for the exhibitions are often international artists. This is something that can happen in Berlin because, at this moment, the city is attracting so many creative individuals.

How do you advertise? How do artists find PROGRAM?

Fotini: Well now, its mostly through the website. We advertise each show with postcards and through email. Because of what we do, because we have this special focus, many people in the city started to know about the space. Mostly, we advertise through word of mouth combined with the Internet. We are not a gallery so we don’t have to operate with a commercial logic – that means we can just support and pursue the things that we really like. There are a lot of people in Berlin who are interested in different kinds of collaborations with PROGRAM.

How do you see it growing in the next 2 to 10 years?

Fotini: 10 years is too long a time… We have established our position in the past three years and this is giving us now the opportunity to work on a different level. PROGRAM also has a residency program – an artist, architect, or theorist, comes to Berlin and works on a project for up to three months. An integral aspect of PROGRAM is that there is always someone living in the back of this space and contributing to the space’s daily life. They often present their work in an artist talk, a screening in relation to their work, or sometimes exhibit in the gallery. We have also been organizing lectures and events – things that we want to focus more on in the future.

Carson: We are here [in this location] for at least three more years.

Fotini: We have always seen this as a platform and there are many things that this thing can encompass – different activities, workshops but also research projects and I think the more we grow the more we would like to include these.

Carson: PROGRAM is not just a gallery. We see the residency, the office, whatever kinds of activities and lectures we do, as an integral part of the exhibition program. They are all, as Fotini has said already, to question architecture and its boundaries and how other media, other disciplines can inform architects about architecture. We’re also interested in questioning architecture exhibitions in general.

Fotini: Like not showing architecture through its traditional representations…

Carson: If you go to an art exhibition you see the actual art. Often when you see architecture exhibitions you see representations of architecture – a picture of a building, or a plan, or a section. Plans and sections, technical drawings, are almost meaningless to anyone that is not an architect. Even for architects, they only show you the dimensions of a space, which is interesting only to a certain degree. In our current installation, by Andy Graydon, you get to hear what MOMA sounds like. Even if that is a oblique was to think about spatial representation, it starts to open up ways of operating that goes beyond the physical dimensions of space. Sound is something that, I think, most people that exhibit architecture never actually think about as a mode of representation. Architecture exhibitions have become somehow like a PR engine. You make a new building and you exhibit pictures of it in a gallery. This shows you what it looks like but not all that much more.

I think its really interesting talking about collaborations between artists and architects. I mean getting the guy who is studying Neuroscience together with an architect – I don’t know what they are proposing – but I think it is an interesting concept – the question of what could happen out of these juxtapositions of different expertise.

Carson: We have worked with choreographers and musicians, fashion designers. The idea is to experiment, to allow ourselves the risk to make mistakes. We have worked with students and we are going to work with students more.

So you run the space, but is this your full time job or do you also design, and make art, and pursue other interests?

Fotini: We do other things too. This is ‘full time’ in terms of time but it’s not a paid job. I’m working on various research projects, and as far as design goes, I make websites and graphics. I’ve been also working on different art projects – usually with video.

Carson: I write about art and architecture and curate other exhibitions. Not necessarily about architecture.

So you use this as an office space for the things you do on the side?

Carson: I don’t think anything is actually on the side. Everything is all at the same time.

Have you noticed the impact of the current economic crisis on the city of Berlin and it’s art and design scene? Has it effected PROGRAM at all?

Fotini: In a way, Berlin has been a place has been able to be what it is because of all these different crisis.

Carson: [Berlin] was never rich to begin with.

Fotini: That is what brings many people here and what allows them to live and create here. In that sense, I think it is kind of resistant to the current economic changes in the world. Of course the crisis is still here. There were people working in architectural offices that have lost their jobs or projects.

Carson: There a critical mass of creative people in Berlin that didn’t come here necessarily to make money but rather to spend very little money. And they are still here and were here to begin with. I don’t know, in terms of the design scene and how it affects us… it’s an abstract question… whenever we think about what to do here it’s always in a very myopic way of seeing our own interests and what we want to do as opposed to larger design questions in general – or larger exhibition questions in general.

Do you ever focus on the city at large as part of your interests?

Fotini: Yeah, we have actually been trying to do more of that. We launched a web-based urban project more than a year ago where we have invited the people living in Berlin to contribute a map of their daily routes through the city. Through the website they can upload a map of their route along with a short description of the things that they see along the way, and what they experience. It came from this idea of trying to focus on this very banal and everyday ritual, which is actually much more real for people who live in Berlin than the route between, say, Alexanderplatz and Brandenburger Tor, through landmarks, which is what tourists usually see when they visit the city. The idea is to create an online archive of the maps and then be able to offer them as alternative routes to tourists wanting to experience the city through the everyday routine of its inhabitants – instead of going from one landmark to another. It is interesting to see where these routes cross, where they go.

Carson: It can be the twice a year visit to the dentist, if it is a route that is somehow memorable for your experience of Berlin. This would be, for travelers experiencing these routes, a much more interesting way to see the city, to experience the lived Berlin rather than just seeing the monuments, which Berliners don’t necessarily have relationships with.

Fotini: Last year I worked on a project in collaboration with an artist – Elaine Ho – where we looked at the spaces between individuals and publics through a daily series of experiments, interventions and discourses. Some of these events took place here, some were in public spaces throughout the city.

Have you used this as a forum to instigate change or is just purely research based? Does it have any social agenda?

Fotini: We don’t really have an explicit agenda but hopefully some of what we do is creating change in small ways, by opening up some questions in people’s minds, in the ways they think about space or the ways they experience it. We had a reading group that explored questions of community and cohabitation. We’re quite happy with engaging in ideas as a material.

What do you see as a current trend in architecture? Is there a defined movement like modernism, post-modernism, deconstruction, perhaps sustainability has become the movement of the day?

Carson: Right now, I don’t see a general movement that everyone is really into. Architects talk about sustainability and green architecture but I don’t think it’s looked at with the same sustained academic rigor granted to deconstruction, postmodernism or modernism. It’s almost more of a responsibility than an actual desire, an actual interest.

So you don’t think there are those people for sustainability? What about people like Glenn Murcutt, who designs and talks about keeping a small footprint on the land and building in harmony with nature?

Carson: Yeah, but as I said, I think that ‘green’ is seen by architects as a responsibility rather than as a genuine interest. The way that architects throw around their LEED qualifications makes sustainable practices seem like a form of validation than a real questioning of building practices and traditions. In terms of design, I don’t know if there is any specific trend or language or anything in the atmosphere that is guiding everyone.

It’s not simply about making buildings look [a certain way], it’s about developing a sensitivity towards the environment. I think Glenn Murcutt is a good example of this attitude. He seems conscious of the environment: the climate, how the sun is moving, becomes a design tool and helps determine whether or not, say, need windows are needed. Le Corbusier’s Villa Shodan, in India, has few glass enclosures because it never gets cold enough to require them. He’s designed a brise soleil and the way the walls work, the rain never actually gets inside. This is a clear example of how the weather and local specificities of the place affected the architectural design. The curtain wall, for tall buildings, is kind of the de facto thing; everything has to be climatized. Sustainability, these days, is often about finding an ‘environmentally friendly’ alternative. We get buildings that are cooled with lake water rather than energy-draining cooling units, but the discourse rarely questions the affects this has on the fundamental design and conceptual tectonics of architecture.

Visit the www.programonline.de for information on upcoming events, lectures, concerts, etc.

a2a_linkname=document.title;a2a_linkurl=location.href;

Building A Future: Mapping, Molding and Measuring Educational Success Through Architecture

by Kristi de Bonville and Lucas Gray

A scale model of the neighborhood east of Berlin’s iconic TV tower was recently conceived by the Year 1 class at Berlin Kids International School (BKIS). Doused in vibrant colors and with new buildings sprouting from the children’s imagination, this model represents the dreams of our future architects, designers, and politicians. The Junior Architects Project conceived by Jessica Waldera, founder of Kleine Baumeister in collaboration with the AEDES Junior Campus Workshop was a unique opportunity for 6 and 7 year olds to engage their built environment. The ultimate goal was to build a 3D model of the school and it’s surroundings; in the process they achieved much more. This was truly a cross curricular project, where the children applied math skills, had geography lessons, discovered the science of mixing colors, and learned valuable lessons in team work.

The Architecture Forum AEDES is uniquely focused on exposing architecture and urban design through the local and global community. This international association, who runs a gallery and holds workshops for university students, generously donated their facilities and supplies for the children to engage in the creative rethinking of their school’s neighborhood.

This project was the culmination of a larger “building” theme at school, where the children at BKIS had been learning about iconic structures around the world, including Berlin, and the elements of architectural design. Equipped with basic knowledge of construction materials, structure and building features, they were eager to apply their junior architectural skills. This exploration into the world of design began with the children analyzing various chairs around the school and discussing their peculiarities and purpose. Using these observational techniques, they embarked on a local scavenger hunt where they photographed their environment, sketched buildings, counted windows, measured car lengths, read street names, took note of colors, shapes and sizes, and democratically decided how to spend 3€ on a sweet treat for 9 people.

Next the students were given maps of the city, the country and the continent, which they intently and industriously examined. With the help of their teachers and a street index, they found their homes on a large map of Berlin and marked it with a pin and ribbon measuring the distance to BKIS. Surrounding this chart, which is now a permanent fixture in the classroom, are drawings of the students’ homes and their own visionary portrayals indicating their route to and from school. This taught not only map reading skills but also gave the children an understanding of context in relation to the urban environment.

This led up to 3 intensive days at the AEDES campus, where the children were able to explore the current exhibit and make use of the studio space. Working mostly at stations and in small groups, the tasks were laid out in a fashion that allowed the children to work freely and at their own pace. On one large table was an enlarged scale map of the area surrounding Berlin Kids International School. Here each child used tracing paper to contour an existing building they wanted to model. They took this outline, cut it out and pinned it to a piece of polystyrene which they then took to the hot wire cutter – the most exciting part of the process. At this station, which was the only one constantly monitored by an adult, the children used the tool to carve out their building, sometimes doing it twice in order to more accurately represent the scale of their structure.

The next step was coloring their replicas. Some children used pictures that they had taken earlier in the week to guide them in painting a semi accurate representation but most of them just adorned their models in a color they thought to be appropriate with the attitude that “anyone can leave a building white, only we can make it colorful”. As adults and educators, we had to step back and suspend our conventional preconceptions, allowing the children to be masters of their design.

Finally, paper roads were painted, polystyrene trees were planted and water fountains were given life on the model. The climax of the week was a vernissage of sorts in which reporters, parents and peers were present to bask in the children’s vision of our future metropolis. The students presented the result of their hard work – including the older classes who created a newspaper of the project, documenting interviews they conducted as well as stories and poems inspired by architecture and the city. The finished model will now be permanently displayed at BKIS.

Normally children do not find themselves in a workspace containing pristine white walls, high ceilings and designer chairs, so all tolled their conduct in such circumstances was very commendable. They worked with professionalism, pride and proficiency, and despite longer than normal work days, were cheerful and energetic as always. It was amazing to watch the children concentrate so hard when given the responsibility to use the wire cutter or discuss how best to represent their neighborhood.

The significance of a project like this should not be underestimated. The children were able to apply what they learn in the classroom to something very real. They understood why they need to measure or count, why communicating ideas is so valuable and how vital team work is. Moreover, they were able to apply their own special skills and expertise, that do not necessarily emerge in the classroom. The theory of multiple intelligence is truly applied in an activity like this and highlights the advantage of project-based learning in schools. It also gave the students an opportunity to express their creative sides and comment on the state of our built environment. Often architects and elected officials get it into their heads that they know what the best vision for a city is. When offered the opportunity this class of first graders completely re-imagined the city in which they live and gave it a vibrancy lacking in so many cities today.

a2a_linkname=document.title;a2a_linkurl=location.href;

Low Tech Design Emerges in Berlin

by Lucas Gray
This Article was written for MySpace Design Magazine

With so much focus on high tech solutions these days its refreshing to see some elegantly simple designs utilizing low tech approaches. Germany is commonly known for its precise engineering and technological advances in the building industry. Contemporary architecture throughout the country utilizes high-tech solutions to satisfy issues of structure, envelope, materiality and address sustainability. Computer manipulated louvers, rotating sun screens and advanced materials are common among the contemporary buildings in Berlin. However, technology doesn’t always lead to great design. In a city renowned for its economic hardships going hand in hand with a thriving art scene, budget constraints can lead to true innovation and creative design solutions. Berlin’s reputation stems from the fact it is affordable to live here giving artists the freedom to live a bohemian lifestyle and pursue their creative endeavors.

This inspirational environment has spilled over to the fields of architecture and design as. Two projects in particular demonstrate the creative power of design utilizing low-tech solutions. The Chapel of Reconciliation utilizes rammed earth – one of the world’s oldest building materials and techniques – while the Camper store creatively makes use of something as simple as the shoe box.

Camper, the Barcelona based shoe company is known for creating high quality coverings for our feet. Beautifully simple in design and using high quality materials has lead to a world renowned reputation. Their store designs have always followed suit – utilizing simple and common materials in new and creative ways. Each store is distinctively different while maintaining a close connection to the brand identity. By keeping the interiors simple it places the shoes front and center as the focal point for all customers – letting the product do the talking while the store becomes a complimentary backdrop.

“Camper shoes have always been shoes that are distinguished by their comfort, their technology, their respect for tradition… and at the same time, the imagination of their design.” In the Berlin store, located on Neue Schönhauser Straße in Mitte, the designers originally developed a concept for a temporary retail space called “Walk in Progress”. They stripped the space down to the bones, white washed the walls while keeping the old wood floor. A simple wooden plank is angled down the center of the space supported by stacks of the iconic Camper shoe boxes, making a bench. Each wall has a similar dark wooden table about a meter deep showcasing the range of styles of shoes – mens to the left, womens to the right. Again these tables are supported by stacked shoe boxes. This concept has the packaging of the product becoming an integral part of the architecture of the store – a structural element of the displays.

The walls have slowly morphed from a clean white surface to a collage of signatures and messages left in red marker by the thousands of shoppers over the past few years. Using the brand’s primary color is another simple and playful design idea that gives the customers a voice in the brand’s architecture. This idea opens a dialogue between the brand, the store and the customers. The concept has become so loved that the temporary tag has been removed and this design remains as the permanent store.

- – -

The Chapel of Reconciliation was a politically sensitive project, replacing a large brick church that was destroyed in 1985 because it stood in the zone between the walls. The sensitive resolution is a small elegant chapel built of wood and rammed earth. It doesn’t have any insulation and relies on daylight to illuminate the chapel. The plan consists of two ovals one inside the other creating a layered building. This concept is reinforced by the use of natural materials. The outer wall consists of vertical wood planks spanning from the cantilevered roof to the floor slab. Spaced about 6 inches apart they form a unifying facade as well as become a screen that gently reveals the heart of the church inside. There is nothing thermally enclosing the gap between planks which also reinforces a connection between the congregation and the surrounding community and environment. Air freely flows in and out and sunlight casts strong shadows across that streak across the floor and sharply bend up the heavy walls inside.

The inner oval has a slightly shifted axis that aligns with the plan of the previous church. The heavy rammed earth walls also include fragments of the original bricks in the soil mixture. This creates a literal and symbolic connection between the new structure and the historic context of the site. The original altar has also been recovered and reinstalled in an alcove within the rammed earth walls where it originally stood in the previous building. This prayer room relies on a single skylight to illuminate the space. Lighting conditions change as the weather, climate and seasons make their rounds again connecting spirituality with natural forces. There is nothing fancy about this building. It is incredibly simple yet profound in its materiality, symbolism and meaning to its congregation.

Complexity in architecture too often takes precedent over clear concepts and simple execution of creative designs solutions. These projects aren’t breaking any ground when it comes to technological innovation. Yet they are both simple to the point of being remarkable. The Camper store playfully utilizes an iconic part of purchasing shoes and morphs it into an integral part of the interior design. The Chapel of Reconciliation on the other hand looks into the past for an ancient technology and gives it a rebirth in todays high tech design world. Both are incredible creative and offers a new approach to contemporary architecture.

The Reichstag

Berlin, Germany – designed by Foster + Partners
By Lucas Gray

A monument of Germany’s past has been given a new life in the redesigned Reichstag. First opened in 1894 the Reichstag was built to house the parliament of the German Empire. It stood as a symbol of democracy for close to forty years until communist arsonists severely damaged the structure in 1933. Throughout World War II and up until the reunification of Germany in the late 1980s it sat as an empty shell – a symbol of a nation that had been torn apart by war and politics. It was here that the official reunification ceremony was held as it sits along the former border between East and West Berlin. When Germany’s government was moved to Berlin from Bonn in the early 1990s the Reichstag was returned to prominence and once again became the home of Parliament and the symbol of German Democracy.

An extensive renovation project preserved the historic shell of the building while using high tech systems to bring the building up to date and make it more environmentally sustainable. An international design competition was held and ultimately won by internationally renowned British architect Norman Foster. The entire building has been retrofitted with all interior walls and floors removed and then redesigned. Only the exterior facades were preserved. Internal court yards bring natural light deep into the building and provide natural ventilation.

The dominant aesthetic feature is the large glass cupola that rises above the heavy stone walls. It was not part of the original competition scheme but was added to reference the dome that used to sit atop the building. It features a complex system of louvers, screens and reflectors that bring natural light streaming down into the parliament chambers. The dome is open to the public, becoming a symbol to the openness and transparency of the new German Democracy. The entire rooftop has been transformed into an observation platform overlooking the city of Berlin.

A spiraling ramp twists around the glass dome providing spectacular views of the city and an ever-changing perspective of the stunning mirrored reflector. Fragmented views of the surroundings, fellow visitors, and the sun create a mosaic effect on this object dominating the space. A large carefully calculated sunscreen tracks the sun and prevents overheating and intense direct sunlight from disturbing the inhabitants below.

Thousands of visitors wait for hours to get a chance to visit this gem of contemporary design. It has become one of Berlin’s most visited attractions and continues to draw large crowds, even ten years after completion. Although it has seen its share of criticism it has ultimately been a great success and has grown into a wonderful symbol of the German government and the city of Berlin. It is a great example of how architecture can become something greater than a mere utilitarian building and provide meaning and pride to an entire nation.

The Jewish Museum

Berlin, Germany – designed by Daniel Libeskind
By Lucas Gray

The Jewish Museum in Berlin exploded onto the international architecture scene in 2001 with great fanfare. A truly unique design by Daniel Libeskind – the jagged volume cut by jarring windows is said to allude to the struggles and hardships the Jewish people have overcome throughout a troubled history. The design evolved from a deconstruction of the Star of David slowly evolving into its present form. This symbolic shape was disassembled and morphed into a long meandering building that bends and folds back off of the main street into a tranquil garden. It has an extreme contrast to the historic building it extends from and is an eye catching form that attracts visitors as much for the architecture as for the museum’s content.

The exterior is truly captivating. The metal cladding has ever evolving moods as it reflects hues from the sky and surroundings. At dusk, the walls turn subtle pinks and oranges that contrast against the dark gray of the planes that face away from the setting sun. As the building twists and turns small courtyards emerge housing symbolic gardens or hard-scaped plazas. Wandering around the structure gives the visitor an ever-changing ambiance with tight sharp spaces adjacent to open airy gardens.

However, this bold statement as a piece of sculpture in the landscape loses credibility when seen from within. As a museum this building is a terrible disappointment. From the questionable curation, the quality and interest of the exhibits, to the confusing procession, the interior is rather poorly done. As you descend a dark yet beautiful staircase to enter the first exhibit space you expect to emerge in an interior that reflects the beauty and complexity of the exterior. Instead you are left feeling flat as a long straight corridor lit with fluorescent lights opens before you. Small exhibits and artifacts relating to the holocaust are inset into the gypsum board walls. The content and stories being told deserve to be celebrated in a more elegant space than currently exists. The materials feel cheap, the detailing is poorly done, and the lighting is atrocious. As was pointed out to me, Libeskind didn’t design the exhibits. However, he was still responsible for choices of materials and detailing which fell short in my opinion.

A glimmer of hope arises as you move up another grand staircase that brings you to the start of the main exhibition space. Flying concrete beams pierce the three-story space above you and generate dramatic shadows and a feeling of intense movement. Looking back down after the hard climb offers an intriguing view of a unique architectural space. But the fact that it revolves around a 3 story climb up stairs limits its effect as many visitors just can’t physically accomplish it. It creates a terrible social injustice, especially with an increasing elderly Jewish population.

Once you do enter the exhibits you find kitschy displays, rather uninteresting artifacts and a space that is unemotional, unmoving, and rather unattractive. Its confusing as how to move through the exhibit, the lighting is terrible, and the small slashes of windows don’t let in natural light, don’t let out good views and reveal more poor detailing. More whitewashed gypsum board walls move you through the interior that is an ultimately forgetful experience.

Now I would be ready to give the architect Mr. Libeskind the benefit of the doubt. He was attempting to create a bold, unique form that symbolically related to a very touch history – especially here in Germany. However, since completion of this museum he has gone on too use the same jagged planes, slashed windows, and bland materials on dozens of projects since. I feel this takes away from the symbolism offered as an explanation for this outlandish form. From the Denver Art Museum, to the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, to the Contemporary Jewish Museum in San Francisco, Daniel Libeskind has created overly complex geometries without actually making great architecture. He has spent millions of taxpayers’ dollars without giving the people a building that will stand the test of time and become a symbol of their city’s culture.

Fire and Police Station

Elizabeth-Abegg Straße 2, Berin, Germany – designed by Sauerbruch Hutton Architekten

by Lucas Gray

Blending the boundary between adaptive reuse and new construction, this magnificent little building clings to the firewall of an existing structure in the government district of Berlin. The extension is clad with colored glass louvers that provide a strong contrast from the heavy brick of the existing building and yet interact with the surrounding trees. The original historic building was built in 1889 and sits on the north bank of the river Spree just a stones throw from the Reichstag and other government buildings. Sauerbruch Hutton Architekten undertook the renovation and expansion from 2001-2004.
The mature trees along the river become flames of reds and yellows in the autumn. The long elevated building nestles into this canopy as the shiny glass louvers vary in shades of reds and reflect the surrounding leaves. As you follow the gently curved corners of the building you are confronted with the long elevation where the reds slowly blend to shades of green to represent the dual roles of the building – a firehouse and police station. The entire façade glistens in the afternoon sun as it pours through the trees. Sections of louvers are folded up to become sunshades for the newly revealed rows of windows behind.
The main entrance to the complex is on the north, directly off the adjacent elevated roadway. A footbridge brings the public into a reception area on the second floor of the building where an existing window has been converted into the main door. A view from the entrance bridge gives a slight glimpse of the extension as it just bends around the corner of the brick building. The new structure is lifted to create parking space for the fire and police vehicles in garages below.
The building is modest, simple and yet extremely elegant. It utilizes a simple structure and a constrained use of materials. Its complexity comes in the exploration of color and the variations created by the movable glass louvers. Creating a long thin building was an ideal form to maximize natural ventilation and day lighting, allowing the building and its users to interact with the surrounding environment while decreasing the reliance on mechanical systems. This building blends bold architecture with environmental sensitivity, while utilizing a historic building in an innovative way. The real triumph however, is creating a work of contemporary architecture that is functional, responsible, symbolic and beautiful.

Holocaust Memorial

Berlin, Germany – designed by Peter Eisenman

By Lucas Gray

Undoubtedly this is one of the boldest and most moving public plazas I have ever visited. It is a testament to Peter Eisenman’s creativity and the risk city planners were willing to take that ultimately has made an unforgettable landscape. This 19,000 square meter city block is overrun by 2,711 concrete columns with varying heights set in a regular grid. Each column is 2.83 meters long by 0.95 meters wide and none seem to rise at precisely 90 degrees. There is always a slight angle that produces a somewhat uneasy feeling as you wander the paths and get enveloped in a sea of gray concrete.

The ground supporting the monoliths is not flat as it gently rolls like the peaks and valleys of the ocean’s surface. The columns themselves also undulate like a large wave, rising from the street edge to the center of the site. As you wander from the sidewalk into the depths of the site you find yourself feeling smaller and smaller as the columns around you rise on all sides and quickly block out the sun and views of the surroundings. As you make your way aimlessly down the rows you accidentally stumble upon other visitors, hear distant chatter, and run your hands along cool smooth concrete. It is a place that actively engages all of your senses and makes you more aware of what is going on around you. According to Eisenman’s explanation the site is meant to represent a supposedly ordered system that has lost touch with human reason, while creating a slightly confusing atmosphere. I think he has artfully accomplished this concept in an unforgettable way.

Below the concrete forest is an underground gallery displaying the names of all known Jewish Holocaust victims. This is the only direct reference to what the site is memorializing. There are no names or marks of any kind on the above ground installation. Instead it relies on the emotional response of visitors to get its point across. It is interesting to observe how this takes affect. On the outskirts the low columns act as benches and tables and some are even flush with the ground plane. People gather in small groups and sun bathe and chat or eat lunch. As the columns rise sight becomes limited and a more subdued feeling takes over with individual explorers often quietly contemplating their existence in such an overwhelming environment. It is amazing to observe how the mood changes so dramatically.

The project was first conceived in a competition in 1994. After hundreds of submissions were received and ultimately refused they ran a new competition in 1997. Peter Eisenman’s design was chosen from this round. After almost two years of debate and conflicts, Mr. Eisenman’s scheme was finally decided upon and construction began in April of 2003. It took approximately two years to complete opening to the public in May 2005. It sits one block south of the famous Brandenburg Gate and a few blocks south of the Reichstag.

Like all good public places this memorial is multi faceted. It provides its visitors with places to gather, to sit, and to be outdoors. It is place of wonderment as is seen when children, and adults for that matter, climb up and jump from column to column. It also is a place of reflection and remembrance – a symbol to the horrors of the past and the pain suffered by the Jewish people. But ultimately it is a place where each visitor is confronted with their own emotions and must look within themselves to interpret their surroundings.

The Nordic Embassies

Rauchstrasse 1, Berlin, Germany – Berger and Parkkinen

by Lucas Gray

The Nordic Embassies combine bold architecture with a concept that changes the idea of what embassies can be. Rather than each country building a separate entity the Scandinavian nations decided to create a single complex to house their local representation. This fosters an environment of cooperation and communication – what a novel idea in today’s overly fearful society. Instead of a fortress like atmosphere, as the United States fosters in their embassies around the world, this building offers a feeling of transparency and welcoming.

The complex is enclosed on three sides by a gently curving, green copper clad wall 15 meters high and almost 230 meters long. The entire wall is comprised of almost four thousand louvers that fold open at strategic points to bring natural light to the interior rooms and courtyards. The southern side is left open with just a glass wall to provide security. Views in to the courtyard are unobstructed and showcase the six individual structures housed within. The buildings all incorporate a complex system of sunshades and operable windows to provide a stunning aesthetic as well as address issues of sustainability. Materials local to Scandinavia are prevalent in all the buildings’ designs with the Norwegian embassy standing out with its 4 story tall 120 tonne, solid granite slab.

Five of the buildings are the individual embassies of the Nordic countries – Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland – organized in their geographic arrangement. Water features are located between the pavilions to symbolize the connecting seas between the countries. The sixth structure becomes a communal space offering open access to the public and housing a cafe, gallery space, events hall, lecture rooms, and other facilities. Events highlighting aspects of each country’s culture take place here – a recent exhibit showcased the work of a Norwegian architecture firm while November and December will see a series of events related to Children’s Culture in Denmark.

Although access to the courtyard is restricted the overall feeling of the place is warm and welcoming. Open views make a psychological effect of transparency while the common building is inviting and offers fantastic events and services. Free Internet kiosks await visitors in the lobby and the gallery and café guide visitors up into the building. The entire complex becomes a showcase for the region and acts as a walk in advertisement for prospective tourists. It is a truly remarkable feeling to be welcomed into an embassy and treated with respect and kindness. It redefines what this building type aspires to be and how individual people relate to the Nordic countries.

The idea for this complex began in the 1950s when the 5 countries founded the Nordic Council with the aim of fostering political and social cooperation. When Germany began the reunification process and the capitol moved from Bonn to Berlin the opportunity was there to realize this idea. An international design competition was held for the concept and was won by the practice of Berger and Parkkinen. They designed the master plan and communal building while each nation held a separate competition for their individual embassy. The overall feeling becomes one of connectedness and unification while each building showcases the individual freedom and uniqueness of the local culture.