številka / volume 163-164
november / november 2004
letnik / anno XXXIV
eko-logična arhitektura
eco-logical architecture
vsebina številke
table of contents
Miha Dešman Uvodnik
Editorial
Peter Šenk, Juan Alfonso Zapatta Pogovor s Kennethom Framptonom
Interview with Kenneth Frampton
Jesko Frezer Participativna arhitektura: upravljanje z realnostjo
Participative Architecture: Negotiating Realities
Peter Šenk Epizodno
Epizodic
Marjetica Potrč Začasni teritoriji
Temporary Territories
Ronald Wall Med svetovi
Between Worlds
Andrej Pogačnik Strategija prostorskega razvoja ali strategija varstva Slovenije
Maja Ivanič Les je lep
Andrej Hrausky Nebesa na Livku
Miha Dešman Vikend v mestu
Hans Gangoly Ne rišem...
I don't draw...
Maurizio Bradaschia Za mejo
Janez Koželj Svetloba in praznina
Andrej Pogačnik Peta evropska nagrada za urbanistično in urbano načrtovanje
forum
uvodnik

eko-logična arhitektura

Prihodnost sveta je odvisna od naše zmožnosti, da ohranimo oziroma zaščitimo globalno bivalno okolje. To je kompleksen in interdisciplinaren problem, ki zadeva vsakogar in vse, navadne ljudi, politike, strokovnjake, intelektualce, znanstvenike, umetnike itd. Za njegovo reševanje je potreben holističen pristop, v katerem imata arhitektura in urbanizem pomembno vlogo in odgovornost, predvsem pri iskanju inovativnih rešitev. Pri tem ne gre le za zaščito obstoječih virov, prostora, kulture ipd., pač pa predvsem za kreativno oblikovanje prihodnosti. Razviti moramo oblike in možnosti za vzdržno in trajnostno bivanje in razvoj, tako politični in ekonomski kot socialni in kulturni. Arhitektura mora biti inventivna pri kreiranju vzdržnostne in trajnostne arhitekture.

Idejam o arhitekturi, okolju in prostoru, ki izhajajo iz kritičnega odnosa do ekološke sedanjosti in prihodnosti, pa tudi iz razvoja znanosti, se nasproti postavlja ideja o arhitekturi kot golem načrtovanju in gradnji objektov. Ta paradigma danes obvladuje poklicno prakso in večji del splošne predstave o tem, kaj arhitektura sploh je. Današnja arhitekturna realnost v večjem delu sveta v glavnem nima izoblikovanega stališča do trajnosti in eko-logičnosti. Pozablja na probleme, ki so splošnejši in usodnejši od vsakokratne parcialnosti njenih interesov. Mnogi, začenši z razvpitim Koolhasovim pozivom k "lahkima" urbanizmu in arhitekturi, odvezanima kakršnekoli širše odgovornosti, pridigajo in prakticirajo usmerjenost v hitre efekte, v efemernost in profitnost. Hipokrizija arhitekture zavzema včasih že kar neverjetne razsežnosti. Na misel mi pride metafora iz katekizma, ki kaže dve poti na goro, ki sta pred človekom (in človeštvom); prva je široka, udobna in ne vodi nikamor, druga je strma, polna odrekanj, pripelje pa do cilja. Metafora je tako preprosta, da jo je v šaradi sodobnosti zelo lahko spregledati.

Na nove izzive bi morali odgovoriti z enakim zavedanjem "nujnosti", kot so storili npr. moderni arhitekti v obdobju povojne izgradnje "novega sveta" . Vsak čas rabi svoje utopije. Družba, ki se preneha spraševati o lastnem razvoju, postane izkoreninjena, postane monstrum. Veliko je znakov, ki kažejo, da postaja svet vse bolj monstruozen. Naravne katastrofe, vojne, terorizem, revščina in lakota, strah, pa tudi izpraznjenost smisla pri bogatih zavzemajo globalne razsežnosti. Ker je vsako utopično mišljenje označeno za naivno, celo nevarno, je širina razmišljanja in delovanja v veliki meri blokirana. Individualizem in vulgarni ekonomski liberalizem slabita vse etične in v utopično idealnost usmerjene ideje in prakse. Sodobna civilizacija, ki je usmerjena v brezmejno trošenje, je vse bolj očitno nagnjena k ignorantni neodgovornosti. V imenu neke namišljene nujnosti, kakršnekoli že, ekonomske, stilske, globalne ali estetske, žrtvuje celostni uvid v vse plasti in posledice svojih dejanj. Ohranjanje virov in okolja se v tovrstni optiki sliši kot konzervativizem oz. kot protipol inovaciji, a v resnici ni tako.

Modernizacija v klasičnem smislu je temeljila na izkoriščanju narave. Današnji pristop mora temeljiti na regeneraciji. Arhitekti moramo, v skladu s svojo konceptualno kompetenco, vedno upoštevati vse plasti in širšo perspektivo svojega dela. Opozarjati moramo naročnike, politiko in javnost, če smo soočeni z nespoštovanjem javnega interesa. Ohranitev in kreacija kvalitetnega okolja in življenja za nas in zanamce pa je nedvomno v primarnem javnem interesu.

Privrženci tehnološkega napredka so večkrat v zgodovini hoteli, skupaj s političnimi in arhitekturnimi utopijami, povezati naravne vire in urbanizirano potrošniško družbo v zaključen krog reciklaže: od Ebenezarja Howarda - Garden City, do Buckminstra Fullerja, z njegovo Znanostjo načrtovanja sveta (World Design Science) in geodično strukturo njegove "vesoljske ladje Zemlje". Morda smo danes na pragu nujnosti uresničitve takih idej. Današnji svet je tematski park, ki ga je zgradil modernizem. Arhitektura prihodnosti je že zgrajena. Avtoceste, infrastrukturni objekti, ekološko sporna industrija, nekontrolirana poselitev. Živimo v svetu, ki je skvarjen z ostanki civilizacije, anomalijami, devastacijami. Hkrati s tem, ko uporabljamo prednosti te civilizacije obilja in udobja, pa sovražimo njene pojavne oblike: uničeno krajino, smeti, bolezni. Pri tej dvoličnosti obstaja nevarnost, da odgovor nanjo zdrsi v konformizem, v šminko na obrazu vsakdanjosti in rutine. Oportunizem, ki skuša olepšati to, kar moti videz, ni nobena rešitev. Prenehati moramo razmišljati v okvirih in obzorjih mišljenja naročnikov, politikov in špekulantov. Odgovornost je drugje. Nove možnosti tehnologije in novo razumevanje sveta bi nam že danes omogočala, da bi se lotili trajnostne rekonstrukcije sveta na drugačni ravni, ki bi povezala utopijo in realnost v novo, smiselno celoto. Poiskati bi morali nove odgovore na staro vprašanje: "Kako ustvariti hišo, mesto, kraj, svet, v katerem bi radi živeli?"

Razpršena poselitev je v zadnjih desetletjih postala dejstvo, ki slabi kulturno in okoljsko kvaliteto krajine. Mobilnost, ki jo prinaša avtomobil, je vzrok neobvladljive širitve urbanizacije. Okoljski problemi rastejo. Namesto kompaktnega mesta imamo mrežo komunikacij, informatike in prometa. Prometne površine naraščajo še hitreje kot pozidane. Poleg splošnega onesnaževanja atmosfere z emisijami je negativen vpliv splošne mobilnosti tudi uničevanje doslej nedostopnih območij, kot so deževni pragozdovi in celo polarna območja. Nujna sta zgoščevanje znotraj urbaniziranih območij ter revitalizacija javnega prometa. Za zgoščeno poselitev je veliko sodobnih zgledov, npr. bralcem ab-ja dobro znano naselje Puchenau v Linzu avstrijskega arhitekta Rolanda Rainerja. Potrebno pa bi bilo z pozitivno zakonodajo spodbujati tak tip gradnje in zavirati razpršeno poselitev.

V približevanju ideji o eko-logični arhitekturi se sodobna arhitektura lahko veliko nauči od tradicionalne. Tradicija je prenos ognja, ne čaščenje pepela. Odgovorna arhitektura stoji v opoziciji do tradicionalizma in formalističnega regionalizma. Je site specific, ukvarja se z uporabo minimalnih virov, odlikuje jo realizem v odnosu do gospodarske in tehnološke realnosti, do potreb naročnika in družbe. Je tudi žargon pravšnjosti, enostavna, konstruktivna modernost. Estetski ideali se morajo precizirati s pomočjo višje izobrazbe in kulturne ravni vseh. Doseči moramo, da bodo ljudje znali ločiti med lepoto kašče ali kozolca in grdoto kvazi ponaredka. Tako arhitektura lahko in tudi mora ohranjati kvalitetno dediščino. In to tako tradicionalno kot tudi moderno. Namesto kiča ali designerske koketnosti je v arhitekturi potreben duh, ki evocira utilitarni pristop kmeta, ko si gradi skedenj. Ta pionirski racionalizem, združen z učenjem od tradicionalne kulture grajenja, je lahko osnova za skupno matriko boljše gradnje.

Gradbeni material z najmanjšo vsebovano porabo energije je les, s približno 640 kwh na tono. Torej je najbolj eko-logičen material les iz vzdržnostno upravljanih gozdov. Opeka je material z naslednjo najnižjo stopnjo porabe energije in sicer 4x toliko kot les, nato beton 5x, nato plastika 6x, sledi steklo 14x, jeklo 24x, in aluminij 124x. Stavba z veliko aluminija je le težko ekološka, če pomislimo na njeno skupno energetsko potratnost, ne glede na to, koliko energije prihrani spričo kvalitetnega tesnenja. (P. Buchanan, The Shades of Green, cit. po: K. Frampton, On the Predictament of Architecture at the Turn of the Century, Hunch n.6/7, 2003)

Edina uravnotežena možnost, ki jo ima današna arhitektura je Koolhasovemu površnemu profetstvu nasprotna. Je kritično kreativna arhitektura, ne pa avantgardistična za vsako ceno. Koherentna ideja o vsestransko odgovorni arhitekturi, ki se ukvarja s kreiranjem prostora za potrebe naročnikov in skupnosti, ne pa za potrebe kapitala in samopromocije, je pomembnejša kot še tako lep projekt. Misliti globalno, delovati lokalno je stara misel, ki dobiva skozi temo, ki odpira plasti eko-logičnega mišljenja in principov, nov in univerzalen pomen. Arhitekture brez okoljske in družbene etike sploh ni in ne more biti. Če tega dejstva ne sprejmemo, lahko razglasimo tudi njeno smrt. Na mestu nje bodo ostali zgolj dizajn, moda in PR.

Miha Dešman

editorial

eco-logical architecture

The future of the world depends on our capacity to preserve and protect our global dwelling environment. This is a complex and interdisciplinary problem, concerning each and everyone, be it the common people, politicians, experts, intellectuals, scientists, artists, etc. In trying to solve it we will have to adopt a holistic approach, in which architecture and urban planning play an important and responsible role, in particular in finding innovative solutions. This is not only related to the protection of the existing resources, space, culture, etc, but also to a persistent and sustainable existence and development, both political and economic, both social and cultural. Architecture needs to be inventive in the creation of a persevering and sustainable architecture.

Ideas about architecture, environment and space, that derive from a critical attitude towards an ecological present and future, and also from scientific development itself, find themselves opposed to a conception of architecture as no more than planning and building. This paradigm today dominates the professional practice and the major part of a general image of architecture and what architecture really is. TodayOs architectural reality in the majority of the world mainly does not have a clear-cut standpoint towards sustainability and ecology. It disregards problems of a general nature and wider fatal consequences in favour of the individual partiality of its interests. Many, beginning with Koolhas' "notorious call for light" architecture and urban planning deprived of any broader responsibility, preach and practice an architecture of quick effects, ephemerality and profitability. The hypocrisy of architecture can sometimes reach incredible dimensions. It makes me think of the metaphor from the catechism, about the two paths that lead a man (mankind) to the top of the mountain: the first one is wide and easy but does not lead anywhere, the other is steep, full of sacrifice, but it leads to the top. The metaphor is so simple, that it is easy to ignore its simple message in the charade of present time.

We should react to new challenges with the same sense of "emergency" as did, for instance, modern architects in the period of post-war construction of the "new world". Each period needs its own utopia. A society that ceases to ask itself about the goal of its own development, becomes a society without roots, a monstrum. There are many signs to indicate that the world is becoming more and more monstrous. Natural disasters, wars, terrorism, poverty and famine, fearÉ but in particular, the lack of human purpose and meaning in the deployment of capital that has reached global proportions. Because any utopic reflection is considered to be na_ve and even dangerous, the width of thinking and acting remains largely blocked. Individualism and vulgar economic liberalism weaken any ethical and utopic-idealist ideas and practices. Contemporary civilisation, oriented towards endless consumerism, is more and more evidently choosing ignorant irresponsibility. In the name of some invented necessity, whatever this necessity might be ? economic, stylistic, global or aesthetic - the holistic insight into all layers and into the consequences of our own deeds is being sacrificed. In this light, the protection of resources and the environment sounds like conservatism, or is held up as an opposing force to innovation. But the truth is far from that.

Modernisation in the classical sense was based on the exploitation of Nature. TodayOs approach, however, needs to be based on regeneration. In line with our conceptual competence, we, architects, must always take into account all layers and the broader perspective of our work. We need to speak out loud and tell our clients, the politicians, the public, whenever we encounter disrespect of public interest. The preservation and creation of a quality environment and life for ourselves and our posterity is undoubtedly in the primary public interest.

Many times in history, the proponents of technological development wanted, together with architectural utopia, to bring natural resources together and an urbanised consumer society to form a completed recycling circle: from Ebenezar Howard ? the Garden City, to Buckminster Fuller ? World Design Science, and the geodesic structure of his "spaceship Earth". Perhaps we find ourselves today on the threshold of urgent need to realise these ideas. TodayOs world is a theme-park, built by modernism. The architecture of the future has already been built. Motorways, infrastructure, ecologically contestable industry and uncontrolled housing. We are living in a world that has been poisoned by the residues of civilisation, with anomalies and devastation. At the same time that we enjoy the benefits of a civilisation of abundance and comfort, we loathe the forms in which it manifests itself: the spoilt landscape, the mountain of trash, the diseases. In this two-faced attitude a danger exists that the response to it falls into conformism, into make-up on the face of our everyday routine. Opportunism which tries to make over anything that disturbs the appearance, is no solution. We need to stop thinking in the framework and perspectives of clients, politicians and real-estate agents. The responsibility lies elsewhere. New technologies and a new understanding of the world would make it possible already today for us to deal with a sustainable reconstruction of the world on a different level, that would bring utopia and reality together into a new, sensitised whole. We need to find new answers to the ancient question: OHow can we create the house, the town, and the world we would like to live in?

Over the past few decades, dispersed housing has become a fact. It weakens the cultural and environmental quality of our landscape. Mobility, introduced by the car, has lead to an uncontrollable spread of urbanisation. Environmental problems arise. Instead of a compact town we have a network of communications, of information, of traffic. Road surfaces are growing even faster than buildings. Besides polluting the atmosphere with emissions, the negative impact of general mobility is now also the destruction of areas that are remote from urban centres, such as rain forests, or even territories of the polar circle. Condensation within urbanised areas is indispensable, together with the revitalisation of public transport. There are many contemporary models for condensed housing ? the readers of AB are familiar with the Puchenau estate in Linz, built by the Austrian architect Roland Rainer. What we need, however, are positive incentives through our legislation that would encourage such models for building, and discourage dispersed housing.

And as we approach the idea of architecture, contemporary architecture can still learn from the tradition. Tradition is a transfer of fire, not a purging of the ashes. Responsible architecture is in opposition to traditionalism and formalistic regionalism. It is site specific, it is concerned with the consumption of minimum resources, it excels in realism in relation to an economic and technological reality, to the client and towards society. It is also a jargon of "just-rightness", a simple, constructive modernity. Aesthetic ideals need to be defined at a level of higher educational and cultural awareness in the general population. We need to ensure that people can tell the difference between the beauty of an old granary or hayrack, and the ugliness of a mock substitute. Architecture can and must preserve quality heritage and both traditional and modern heritage. Instead of kitsch or designer coquetry, architecture needs a spirit akin to the utilitarian approach of the farmer who builds a barn. This pioneer rationalism, together with the wisdom of the traditional culture of building can be the basis for a common matrix of better building practice.

The building material with minimum energy consumption is wood (cca. 640 kWh/ton). The most eco-logical material is therefore wood, from the sustainably managed forests. The next on the scale is brick, with the second lowest consumption of energy (but that is still 4 times that of wood). Then follow concrete (5x), plastic (6x), glass (14x), steel (24x) and aluminium (124x). A building with a lot of aluminium can hardly be ranked as ecological if we bear in mind its total energy consumption, regardless of how much energy is saved due to tight sealing. (P. Buchanan, The Shades of Green, as quoted in K. Frampton, On the Predicament of Architecture at the Turn of the Century, Hunch n. 6/7, 2003)

The only balanced possibility available to todayOs architecture is opposed to KoolhasO superficial prophecy. We are talking about a critically creative architecture, not an avant-gardism at any price. A coherent idea about universally responsible architecture, that creates space to accommodate the needs of clients and community, and not simply the needs of capital and self-promotion, is more important than an object, as beautiful as it may be. Think global, act local is an old maxim which continues to be meaningful, opening layers of eco-logical thinking and principles. An architecture without environmental and social ethics does not exist and should not exist. If we do not accept this fact, we might as well declare its death. What remains is just design, fashion and PR.

Miha Dešman