Uncertainty of Identity

Kurt Espersen Peters

The advent of the modern era had profound effects on the urban environment. The matrix of the city, which had developed over hundreds of years, was subject to the demands of a new age and a new way of living. In many urban environments, the imposition of this new order radically altered its context, creating new types of urban spaces and/or urban conditions. Providing meaning to these conditions was sought through a series of formal investigations of these new spaces. A sense of unfamiliarity coincides with these new urban typologies - a fear of being unable to decipher emerging relationships. Expressing and defining spatial relationships within a structure or within the urban grid, give a sense of scale to a potentially undecipherable landscape. What these definitions seek to expound is the initial impetus of the current dilemma, and the unrealized potential of the ideal or the absolute: the utopian vision. While these traits remain elusive and unattainable, there are always efforts to manifest them in some recognizable form, system or strategy.

The search for traces of the ideal solution in the reality of our existence is examined in two architectural projects that seek to reconcile a myriad of components: the pedigree of architectural systems, the current post-industrial urban condition and the implementation of idealized formal theories. Even though these two projects appear to be diametrically opposed, their similarities unite them in one area: that of coming to terms with the uncertainty of identity in the modern era.

The ideal and complete concept of the Cartesian grid is seen as one of the hallmarks of the modernists. Its potential as a unified and flexible system spawned design methodologies that irrevocably altered the course of architecture. The exploration of these strategies by Peter Eisenman in his House II project sought to achieve a level of coherence and purism that was not evident in these original modernist machinations. Eisenman sought to expound and advance the high modernist concepts of structure and space, such as those established by Le Corbusier in his villas of the early twentieth century. According to Eisenman, these theories never achieved full fruition and were mired by an indulgence with aesthetic concerns.[1] His disciplined investigation into architectural syntax and semantics sought to reveal dormant spatial relationships inherent in these architectural systems.

According to Eisenman, certain architectural elements had loaded meanings: they possessed a pedigree that was easily recognizable.[2] Two of these elements were the column and the wall. There is an attempt to remove the pragmatic concerns from the wall and the column and express their nature through the preconceptions of Cartesian space. Beginning with an arrangement of sixteen columns on a square grid, Eisenman shifts this initial matrix diagonally. This “shadow” (which replaces the columns with walls) creates interstitial, or implied space. Through a series of calculated and disciplined moves, these spaces suggest inherent possibilities that the Cartesian system possesses yet are only revealed when the actual environment is altered. This is the difference between what Eisenman terms deep structure and a prior condition. Deep structure possesses the potential to reveal these spatial experiences but requires a physical alteration to make them manifest. This manifestation is a prior condition in which the act of shifting creates these readable spaces but the initial platonic form is no longer a singular unit, but a fragment of its original whole.

The resulting structure exemplifies a transformation of a theory into a set of rigid architectural principles. We are left to discover meaning only in the set of relationships that this singular theory promotes. It is an esoteric endeavor: a purely theoretical, autonomous and self-referential architectural investigation that seeks no other meaning than those found in its own matrix. In a way, this abstract exercise is a foil to the human experience. The human dimension seems noticeably absent in the theories behind House II yet paradoxically enough, its pure geometry and logical execution make us ever more aware of the human dimension, its perceptual capacity and how truly non-Cartesian it is.

Perceiving space, both from the Euclidean concept and from the phenomenological sense, has dramatic implications in architectural and urban interventions. This was a primary concern of Rem Koolhaas in his proposal for a contemporary art and media complex in Karlesruhe, Germany. Koolhaas challenges architectural and urban convention through an examination of the history and meaning of urban spatial types and/or urban conditions. These present conditions reflect the demands of the populous as much as it does those of business, commerce and technology. The siting for this project exists on the periphery of the city, a leftover space created by the order of the existing plan and the imposing matrix of a modern infrastructure. These lost zones possess spatial characteristics that reveal the complex nature of the modern city, something that Koolhaas seeks to capitalize on in an attempt to communicate his vision of the fractured city.

Koolhaas began his investigation with the history of the museum archetype. One of the most prominent precedents for the German museum was established by Karl Friedrich Schinkel in the Altes Museum in 1824-8 and further reinforced by James Stirling’s Neue Staatsgalerie in 1977-84. This concept of a rotunda secured within a rectangle combines two forms from antiquity that established a new paradigm for museum planning in Germany. Koolhaas was acutely aware of this factor and used it as the premise for his proposal.

In his proposal, the visitors and users of this institution required facilities that reflected the needs of the present and anticipated the needs of the future. Here, Koolhaas blends the traditions of the museum archetype with contemporary demands. The rigor of this system is altered, or even thrown out where deemed necessary by the programmatic requirements of the facility. Instead of inserting the programme into spaces, he allows the programme to dictate the space. This reversal of established hierarchies produces a fusion of seemingly incompatible systems, and results in new spatial relations. The rotunda within the rectangle gives way to new media technology, artist residences, and an irregular art exhibition space while including a railway station and vehicle parkade as prominent features. Just as the museum archetype undergoes a transformation, the principles of the modern building praxis evolve as well. The 18 storey building is an expression of the building as a machine. The complex synthesis of structure and space express the programmatic requirements of the project while engaging and projecting the spatial concerns that exist outside the building itself. This entire juxtaposition of space is serendipitously contained within a shell that does not seem out of place in the industrial parks that surround it. Here Koolhaas’ sensitive and insightful expression of austere building components and disjointed spaces exhibits the manner in which we construct and exist in the post-industrial city. This culmination of fragments is given relevance and for a fleeting moment, this is a complete and coherent solution to the dilemma of the edge city.

Scientific, sociologic and technological advancements continue to irrevocably change how we view the world and how we define our society and civilization. The world is, at any given point, what we say it is. We create and establish relationships that explain the conditions and phenomena that surround us at any given moment. As new paradigms emerge, so do new definitions. The search for the absolute or the ideal is always perpetually out of reach for we are continuously revising our current version of it. Eisenman’s House II seeks to find absolute relationships within a closed system. His search for the ideal exists within the complexity of geometric possibilities: understanding the syntax and structure and eliciting a response from this juxtaposition. One must comprehend the nature of the system before one can appreciate Eisenman’s commentary. Likewise, Koolhaas’ expression is a fleeting look at the current condition of the fragmented city. Through his implied space and architectural/urban commentary, Koolhaas offers some semblance of the metropolitan, urban and suburban condition. Again, one must decipher the condition of the modern city to gain an insight into Koolhaas’ gestures. Each of these projects presented distinct versions of a complete theory of relationships and transformation. In their own way, each has come to terms with the problems presented to them, yet the idealized or absolute solution remained elusive. Perhaps these solutions will forever avoid physical manifestation, but it will not cease to inspire and motivate minds to express some interpretation of it.

Notes:

1. Peter Eisenman, “House II”, in Five Architects : Eisenman, Graves, Gwathmey, Hejduk [and] Meier, (New York : Wittenborn, 1972), p. 27.
2. Ibid., p. 25.