WHAT IS A HOUSE FOR住宅所为何

Stefano Moor: My choice makes me smile a bit. I find your idea to talk about a house quite peculiar. A one family house is a very tricky topic.  Luigi Snozzi never set a house as a design exercise at university because, as he claimed, a house was the most difficult topic that exists.  I would even provoke you and ask: does it still make sense to design and build houses? 

As an architect from Ticino, I have a specific point of view on this topic. If you spoke with someone from Tokyo it would probably be very different. There, it’s normal to have 50 cm spacing between two buildings, for they have completely different ideas on density and structure within the city. If you talk about houses in Ticino, in light of discussions about saving the free space, densification etc. you could say that it is a mistake to build them.

As young architects, we immediately started to draw our mothers’ kitchens and shortly afterwards, our first houses, each time trying to put inside everything we had learned. At the same time and, without realising it, we lost perspective of what it would become. 

Lugano for instance is a disaster, a sort of Monte Carlo, built by constructors rather than architects. Now, I ask myself: is it their fault or our fault that we missed the train? We thought it was a beautiful opportunity to build houses, trying to manifest all our experiences, right to the limit of absurdity, and at the same time we were missing the occasion to collaborate somehow with the construction enterprises that we now like to criticise so much.

As a Ticinese the first thing that comes to my mind when someone asks me about a house is the typical suburban buildings, that are without quality and sprawl in all directions. I would call it a rotten city. In context of all the phenomena I am talking about, building a house today is a responsibility not to be underestimated.

WHAT MAKES YOU CHOOSE BAITA DEL MARIO, AN ADAPTATION OF A RURAL STONE COTTAGE IN VAL DI BLENIO?

I could have spoken about Casa Kalman even before studying at EPFL. I fell in love with architecture when I saw the drawing of that house by Luigi Snozzi. The line of trees that became the line of the house touched me deeply. But I started to ask myself if I have anything better to say about it than everything that had already been written? I thought it would be interesting to choose something else, a house non-house, a building that represents what interests me, but is not well known and not well established as a piece of architecture. Just four walls without function.

If I think about the power of a place regardless of its function (in the end that’s exactly what interests me) I need to talk about Baita del Mario Ferrari. It’s an example of the absence of architecture, and at the same time there is an incredible force when we consider the territory, the way the object sits on the slope and how it interacts with its context.

This building corresponds directly with my ultimate ambition as an architect, which is to achieve an autonomy in my architecture, linking a building harmoniously with the place where it stands, regardless of whether it is in the densest city or the vastest empty mountain landscape.

YOU MENTIONED URBAN SPRAWL, WHICH IS PARTICULARILY PROBLEMATIC IN TICINO. WHAT DO WE DO? IF WE MUST ADD ANOTHER ONE FAMILY HOUSE, HOW CAN WE AVOID ANY FURTHER DETERIORATION OF THE TERRITORY?

I believe that as architects, we cannot refrain from trying to solve the condition of urban sprawl. I know that even in this kind of context, there is still a chance and a possibility to contribute to a change. 

First, if the relationship between one house and its neighbour doesn’t work, you have to transform it into a theme. It means you must accept the autonomy of separate objects as a rule and be strong enough to try and establish relationships at a bigger scale. 

Second, it needs to become a non-autoreferential architecture and it must deal with the most fundamental topics that exist - orientation, structure etc., that are reduced to the bare minimum, so that the strength of the building tells a story about something else, other than the chaos of its immediate surroundings. If you do this well, you can contribute to the rebirth of that place’s character. It’s a very dangerous discourse, because you need to hope in the transformation offered by just one building and its architecture.

IS REASONING IN TERMS OF TERRITORIAL STRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SPACE IN CONFLICT WITH WORKING ON THE QUALITIES OF A SINGLE HOUSE?

I think, honestly, the first responsibility is to occupy ourselves with the city. But I don’t want to tell you lies, that if today a client called me and asked for a house, I would not be excited. I think every architect is like that. 

Snozzi was always saying that for him it was enough if a building follows certain rules, as if the next step was unimportant. In fact, it was only a way of speaking. If we look how refined his constructions are, the sensitivity of his compositions, we understand that he worked a lot on elaborating the basic scheme. His most notable projects are urban projects, but when you look at his built works carefully, they are also masterpieces as separate objects. 

Take for instance Casa Kalman. It took me years to understand that it wasn’t a composition of pillars and beams but rather a carved mass. At the beginning of his career, Snozzi wanted to be a sculptor. In the end, as an architect he pushed the limits of theoretical topics whilst also retaining a pleasure in designing and playing with physical composition. However, this didn’t reduce the importance of the basic idea behind every project, which was the improvement of common space.

IN A CONTEXT WHERE THERE ARE MANY SMALL HOUSES NEXT TO EACH OTHER HOW CAN YOU ESTABLISH RELATIONSHIPS WITH A VAST TERRITORIAL SCALE?

There is more than one way of doing it. If we had to build another three houses in a quarter already full of houses, I believe that by making autonomous projects, that emanate an external force, even if the houses were not in eyesight of one another, would start to create an urban dialogue. They would create a system that improves the urban tissue. Well positioned entrances, with the right relationship to the road and intelligent orientation would transform any place. Another way, and more efficient perhaps, would be to introduce a building of public importance.

In one of the last interviews, I did with Luigi Snozzi for the Meret Oppenheim Prize, he said something that touched me profoundly. He said that we shouldn’t be bothered about the topics of limited scale, we should be bothered about the fundamental issues of the structure of territory and public spaces. We should ask ourselves serious questions. 

How should a public building touch the ground in a particular place? What scale of building should we introduce in order to create a public space? By answering these questions, you would have the opportunity of changing the hierarchical system of a place by rewriting it. It would be no more a quarter defined by a series of separate houses, loose, without tension and without quality, but instead a quarter defined by a public building surrounded by houses - two completely different realms. It is very much about how the new object is able to recalibrate the forces and re-establish relationships with the city.

When I see vernacular structures in the mountains, I believe they are a response to the problems of urban sprawl and manifestation of the principles I mentioned before. We have a vast territory in which there are isolated objects, sometimes in groups, sometimes completely alone. Having in mind Luigi’s aphorism „Architecture is a void, it’s up to you to define it”, I am surprised that in this case it is the solid that emanates the power and is able to define the void. 

Across a large area, these small houses are almost identical and follow the same basic rules. The longitudinal section across the slope is always a result of the inclination. You entered on a certain level where it was dry, there you collected hay, downstairs you had cows. You could modify it slightly, but the rule was always there, you followed a section perpendicular to the slope. 

The cross section of the hut was governed by the length of wooden beams you could get from the trees nearby. The room for the cows was subdivided in three. The cows were smaller than the ones we have today (not full of hormones and kept solely for the production of hamburgers). Therefore, it was possible to have a middle corridor and two spaces for cows. It was a perfect construction, tuned to the way of life of a society, and conditions of the territory. It wasn’t a house in the strict sense of the word. It was a combination of storage and space for animals.

Today one of them, Baita del Mario has become a house. 

He (Mario) intervened in a structure that originally responded very clearly to the territory and as a result didn’t have to look for decisions that always cause plenty of doubts at the start. Do I make a plinth or not? Is it right to occupy the plinth? All these very difficult questions. He didn’t touch the room downstairs, nor the roof, which is a work of art in itself by the way. Not because the stone is beautiful, but because of the way it is built. You don’t need nails to repair it. It’s enough to move three stones and it works again. It’s perfect, so it is important not to touch, or change it. 

In this structure Mario inserted a sort of a sandwich. It doesn’t have double heights; it is 220 cm if I am not wrong. It doesn’t bring questions or doubts to the table. The orientation of the space he creates is very interesting. The original building is oriented towards the valley, with the main beams following this direction. The living space instead opens up to the opposite direction, using the opening that served to load the hay as the axis of the main room. It takes a larger amount of light, while the bedrooms get small windows, where you don’t need it. All the responses to main issues of architecture, at least for me, are there for free. For instance, when you start a project you always have to confront yourself with issues like where to put double height, and you are never sure. In this sense, in their rightness and simplicity the solutions conceived by Mario are perfect.

Another aspect that I find very strong is something that connects Mario to Martino Pedrozzi and his interventions in Sceru in Val Malvaglia, is the conclusion that it is wrong to modify the space around these mountain cottages – or indeed, add something to what already exists. These structures were so intelligently put on the territory that it wasn’t necessary to make small walls, fences and occupy the free space. 

The main quality of their composition is that the public space is everywhere outside, it touches the wall of the house. You could even be the owner of your plot, but nobody would know, it had no architectural manifestation.

The central problem of today’s diffuse city are the artificial limits, the perimeter metal nets. Without them it would already be very different. Why? It is because the force of open space is the infinite. The solidness of a house should be just its volume in an infinite space. The lesson of these vernacular huts is exactly this, there is a clear relationship between public and private space. The public space is an infinite territory all around. 

When Martino Pedrozzi speaks about his recompositions, he underlines that the gestures he makes are to reharmonise the balance between the public and the private. To make the limit very clear. In the sense of an infinite public realm, I find this particularly interesting. Martino collects the stones, puts them inside the remnants of the cottage’s four walls, and in doing so makes a sort of a tomb. What is more important, he cleans up the public space, rendering it unoccupied again.

In today’s discourse it is rare to hear the word „limit”, but it objectively exists. There are limits everywhere and without them things would become stupid. All these topics interest me a lot and I believe that through studying them, we can learn how to find responses to the city we now have and know doesn’t work.

We will always have the problem of how to occupy a territory that is not dense, we cannot make tabula rasa. The city generated by urban sprawl will always be there. Baita del Mario is one of the examples that corresponds with what I believe is right in this context. On the other hand, from much closer perspective, I really appreciate the intelligence of jumping over the most difficult topics that appear every time we start a project - plinth, orientation, roof and so on. Finding the existing structure that already answers the never-ending questions and allows you to intervene just minimally, at least for me is a miracle.

BAITA DEL MARIO IS A HOUSE THAT BECAME A HOUSE, ORIGINALLY IT WASN’T THE HOUSE THAT WE NOW KNOW. NOW IT’S LIKE A BOAT, AN EXTREMELY COMPACT INTERIOR SURROUNDED BY AN OCEAN. WHAT MAKES IT A HOUSE?

It’s a question that touches the topics that are much wider than architecture itself. It’s more about human life in general. If you are in the mountains all day long on an inclined surface, and you put your feet on a horizontal plane you have a feeling of security. Thanks to this small change, four walls and a roof above your head, a house is immediately created. 

I like, very much, a conference that was given by Livio Vacchini in Toulouse. He began by saying „Ladies and Gentlemen, I have to say that architecture doesn’t exist”. In saying this he meant that we can make up 30 000 theories, but if we have to speak about the essence of what architecture actually is, then all it amounts to, is putting a roof above our heads.  

What qualities can it have? If this intimate space separated from the infinite universe has its autonomous reasons of existence, it’s even better. It obviously needs dignity. But its essence is there from a very early moment.

When I go to teach in Geneva, I sleep in a hotel. Each morning when I wake up and look out of the window, I am always impressed by the sight of a person sleeping under the bridge opposite my room. I don’t know their story, but it makes me think: It’s quite radical not to have a roof above your head. 

We are talking about primary necessities more than about architecture, but then if a roof or a wall is done with Mario’s sensibility, and transformed into something more than what pure necessity demands, it starts to be interesting in another way.

OUR QUESTION „WHAT IS A HOUSE FOR?” IS A RESULT OF ASKING OURSELVES WHAT A HOUSE, APART FROM FOUR WALLS AND A ROOF, CAN BECOME. IN CASE OF YOUR CHOICE, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A BUILDING IN WHICH, APART FROM ITS ARCHITECTURAL ARTICULATION, THE CHARACTER OF A MINIMAL SHELTER IN A POTENTIALLY VERY DANGEROUS CONTEXT REMAINS VERY PRESENT. IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO UNDERSTAND IF YOU THINK THAT THE QUALITY OF BASIC PROTECTION IS SUFFICIENT TO GIVE A SENSE TO A HOUSE OR DOES IT NEED SOMETHING ELSE?

I think it’s not enough. Otherwise, we would all give up. The quality of a space exists objectively and can be brought to the highest levels. Obviously, I believe that apart from the primary topics of order and basic quality of living space, I am adding only what is necessary to make spaces where you feel good. The structure for example is capable of working miracles. I am not saying that in order to make a house you should refrain from exploring architectural topics of right dimensioning, proportion, light etc. I just like to step back and look at the foundations of any intervention, before beginning any subsequent quality-oriented research. If you work with these fundamentals, you can define not only the interior of the building but also the exterior. You create shadows, you find spaces that didn’t exist before.

In the end, as far as I am concerned, the spatial order is defined by the presence, or lack of, various disorders. We as architects draw the details and people say, „this is something that only you, as architect can see”. Of course, it is something that only I can see, and I am not even interested if you see it or not. I am doing it so that you don’t notice anything. This is what interests me about the spatial order. It is a situation that starts with the lack of something that for sure is not orderly. I am definitely interested in identifying and reducing the disturbing factors before adding anything. If you become crazy about the detail of a plinth, and you don’t want additional shadow you will have to convince a client etc. In reality what you do is, you try to solve a problem of the meeting between horizontal and vertical surface, and this instead changes the proportion of the entire room, which frees the client from the problem of a wrongly proportioned space.

The human mind is very fragile and that’s why it’s not bad to have fewer problems. You never know who is going to live in your design. A client comes and then he goes, his place becomes someone else’s’ place. If the house you build has a few specific values, they will last longer than the life of the client and for that matter your own. If we try to work with logic, to optimise and use typologies that work well with structure, we just reduce the problems for the client and for the future generations. We give the possibility of living autonomously, suffering, laughing, crying, smiling, all without being concerned by architecture that doesn’t work.

WHAT KIND OF LIFE CAN A COTTAGE PROPOSE?

For the last 20 years I have spent my summers in a small house in the mountains and I have to admit that it transforms me each time I go. The silence is almost scary. It makes you feel good, but it is not a comfort driven well-being, it’s something else. You are confronted with sensations that you are not accustomed to. 

Moving a lot, making primary gestures and being immersed in an incredible external tranquillity is something that I need desperately once in a while. These are qualities present in all remote places, regardless of architecture. If you have it and in addition you have architecture that makes your spirit experience another level of balance, it’s incredibly rewarding. The gesture of lighting the fireplace would be the same.

When I think about all the shepherds and all the cows that lived in these structures, I shiver. It’s one of the things that impresses me tremendously – the lasting of something through time. Very often these houses are in terrible places with severe climates, and I think the success of these structures is manifest in the fact that today, we don’t need to change any of their fundamental features. It just works, the walls were positioned and done well. The only reasonable way of confronting yourself is not questioning them. You feel you should adapt to it.

I am quite obsessed with order and method. If I am doing something in a place I always do it with an idea that this thing will be found and will provoke the pleasure in someone of finding something with a specific character. I admit that there are ephemeral things in life, but I am most interested in an architecture that will last and gain some kind of permanence. 

I tell you what I feel when I go to these places. I see the primordial constructors that put the stones in a way so that they become eternal, without knowing or predicting what will happen in the future. They didn’t know that we will go to their houses to drink wine or stay in silence. They were making angles like ancient Greeks, inventing solutions to keep the stones in place forever. They were architects, transforming the landscape because of their needs, but at the same time they were challenging time, transcending their immediate conditions. 

Obviously, their context was different, their main concern and source of action was survival. Still, they shared a fundamental human attitude, that today is often forgotten - to make things that will remain longer than one’s own life. Automatically it becomes a research of beauty. If a corner is made with an intention to last in time, it is beautiful, because there is an inherent rightness to it; it needs to be that way in order to exist.

People were changing the territory by introducing new light, new shadows. Maybe it wasn’t fully conscious, but how conscious are people today of building a house that perhaps changes the shadows of a place forever?

Livio Vacchini in his Chef d’Oeuvre writes that the handful of sand that forms a cone transforms the desert. The modest builders of Baita changed the Alpine landscape in terms of light, presence and anthropisation for centuries. 

I also do not know what will happen to the walls I build, but if during my whole career, I will be able to make 4 walls of a quality, that are good enough to remain the way I draw them for 500 years, what more can I dream about?

25.11.2020

斯戴法诺・摩尔:我的选择让我不禁莞尔。我发现你们谈论住宅的想法很特别,单一家庭的住宅是一个非常刁钻的话题。路易吉・斯诺齐(Luigi Snozzi) 在大学里从来没有把住宅作为一个设计练习,就像他所宣称的,住宅是最为困难的话题。我甚至想向你提问:设计和建造住宅还有意义吗?

作为一个来自提契诺州的建筑师,我对这个话题有着特殊的观点。假如你和来自东京的人交谈,可能会大有不同。在那里,两座建筑之间有着50厘米的间距是正常的,因为他们对城市的密度和结构有全然不同的概念。如果你谈论提契诺州的住宅,基于那些节约自由空间、密集化的讨论,你可以说建造这些住宅是一个错误。

作为年轻的建筑师,我们立即就开始画母亲的厨房,不久之后,我们的第一座住宅,每次都试图把所学到的东西都放在里面。与此同时,不知不觉中,我们失去了对建筑今后发展的视野。

例如说卢加诺是一场灾难,有点像蒙特卡洛,由建设者而不是建筑师建造。如今我自问:我们错过了火车,是他们的错还是我们的错?我们认为建造住宅是一个美丽的机会,可以尝试彰显我们所有的经验,直到荒谬的极限,同时我们也失去了与我们现在喜欢批评的建筑企业进行某种合作的机会。

作为一个提挈诺人,当有人问我住宅的问题时,我首先想到的是典型的郊区建筑,它们毫无品质,并且向各个方向蔓延。我会说这是一个腐朽的城市。在我所谈论的所有现象的语境下,当下建造住宅是一个不可低估的责任。

是什么让你选择了马里奥山舍(Baita del Mario),一个位于布莱尼奥山谷(Val di Blenio)的农村石舍的改造?

EPFL学习之前,我就可以谈论卡尔曼之家(Casa Kalman)了。我陷入对建筑的热爱,是当我看到路易吉客斯诺齐所做的这栋房子的图纸的时候。那一排树木形成了住宅的线条,深深地触动了我。但我开始自问,比起已经写就的一切,我是否有什么更好的可以谈论?我想一些其他的选择会很有趣,一个非住宅的住宅,一个代表我兴趣的房子。但作为一个建筑作品,它并不出名,盖得也不好,只是四面墙,没有功能。如果我考虑一个场所的力量而不考虑它的功能(这正是最终我感兴趣的地方),我需要谈谈马里奥山舍。这是一个缺失建筑学的例子,而当我们考虑到领地,物体坐落在斜坡上的方式,以及它与文脉(context)的互动的同时,其中蕴含着一种难以置信的力量。

这座建筑直接的回应于我作为建筑师的最终抱负,即在我的建筑中实现自主性,将建筑与它所处的场地和谐地联系起来,无论它是在

最密集的城市还是在最广阔的空旷山野中。

你提到了城市的蔓延,这在提契诺州是一个特别大的问题。我们该怎么做?如果我们必须增加单一家庭的住宅,我们如何才能避免领土的进一步恶化?

我相信,作为建筑师,我们忍不住尝试去解决城市无序扩张的状况。我知道,即使在这种语境(context)下,仍然有机会和可能为改变做出贡献。 

首先,如果一个住宅和它的邻居之间的关系不起作用,你必须将其转变为一个命题。这意味着你必须接受独立物体的自主性,将其视为一种规则,并足以强大去尝试在更大的范围内建立关系。 

其次,它需要成为一个非自发的建筑,它必须处理既存的最基本的话题——方向、结构等,当这些话题被减少到最低限度,这样建筑的力量就会道出一个另外的故事,而不是其周围环境的混乱情况。如果你做得很好,你可以为场所特性的重生做出贡献。这是一个非常危险的话语,因为你需要寄希望于仅仅一个建筑和它的架构所提供的转变。 

是否可以推论,论及领土结构和公共空间,这和专注于单一住宅的品质是冲突的?

我认为,实话说,第一要务是我们在城市中居住。但我不想向你撒谎说,如果今天有客户打电话给我要设计住宅,我毫不兴奋。我想每个建筑师都是这样的。

斯诺齐总是说,对他而言,只要建筑遵循某些规则就够了,好像下一步并不重要。事实上,这只是一种讲话的方式。

如果我们看看他的建造有多精致,他的构图有多敏感,我们就会明白,他在阐述基本方案方面做了很多工作。他最引人注目的是城市项目,但当你仔细观察这些建成作品时,它们也是作为独立对象的杰作。 

以卡门之家(Casa Kalman)为例。我花了很多年才明白,它不是柱子和梁的构成物,而是一个雕刻的整体。在他职业生涯的开始,斯诺齐想成为一名雕塑家。最终他作为一个建筑师,推动了理论课题的极限,同时也保留了设计和把玩物质构成的乐趣。然而,这并没有降低每个项目背后的基本想法的重要性,那就是对公共空间的改善。 

在一个有许多小住宅彼此相邻的环境中,你如何能建立起和广阔的领土规模的关系?

有不止一种方法可以做到这一点。如果我们不得不在一个已经充满了住宅的街区再建三栋住宅,我相信通过建立具有自主性的项目,会散发一种向外的力量,即使这些房子不在彼此的视线范围内,也会开始创造一种都市对话。他们将创造一个系统,改善城市的组织。位置良好的入口,与道路的正确关系和智慧的朝向将改变任何地方。另一种,也许是更有效的方法,是引入一个具有公共重要性的建筑。在我为梅里特・奥本海姆奖(Meret Oppenheim)奖对路易吉客斯诺齐进行的最后一次采访中,他说了一句话,深深地触动了我。他说,我们不应该为那些规模有限的话题而烦恼,我们应该为基本问题——领土结构和公共空间而烦恼。我们应该向自己提出严肃的问题。 

在一个特定的地点,公共建筑应该如何接触地面?为了创造一个公共空间,我们应该引入多大规模的建筑?通过回答这些问题,你将有机会通过重写一个地方的等级系统来对它进行改变。它将不再是由一系列独立住宅定义的街区,松散,没有张力和品质,而是一个由住宅包围的公共建筑所定义的街区 —— 两个完全不同的区域。这在很大程度上关乎于新的物体能够怎样重新调整力量并重新建立与城市的关系。 

当我在山区看到乡土构筑物时,我相信它们是对都市蔓延问题的回应,也是我前面提到的原则的体现。我们有一块广阔的土地,其中有一些彼此隔绝的物体,有时成群,有时孤立。考虑到路易吉的箴言 “建筑是一片空洞,由你来为之定义”,我惊讶于在这种情况下,是实体散发着力量,而得以定义空洞。 

跨越整个大的区域,这些小住宅几乎是相同的,并遵循一样的基本规则。随着山坡倾斜面的纵剖面总是倾斜的结果。你在某个干燥的高度上进入,在那里收集干草,而楼下有奶牛。你可以稍作修改,但规则始终存在,你的剖面遵循着那个与山坡垂直的角度。 小木屋的横剖面由你能从附近的树上得到的木梁的长度来决定。奶牛的房间再被一分为三。这些牛比我们今天的牛小(并不富含激素,只为生产汉堡包而饲养)。因此,可以出现一个中走廊和两个属于奶牛的空间。这是一个完美的建构,符合社会的生活方式和土地的条件。它不是严格意义上的住宅。它是仓储和动物空间的结合。

今天其中之一,马里奥山舍成为了一个住宅。

他(马里奥)干预了一个结构,这个结构原本对领土有着非常明确的回应,因此不必寻求判断,而这些判断在开始时总是引起大量的质疑。我到底要不要做一个基座?占据基座是正确的吗?所有这些非常困难的问题。他没有碰楼下的房间还有屋顶,顺便一提,这些本身就是一件艺术品。不是因为石头有多漂亮,而是因为它的建造方式。你不需要用钉子来修补它。只要移动三块石头就足以重新奏效。它是完美的,所以重要的是不去碰,或者改变它。 在这个结构中,马里奥插入了一种三明治的形式。

它没有通高的高度;如果我没记错的话,它是220厘米。它没有提出问题或疑虑。马里奥创造的空间的朝向是非常有趣的。原来的建筑是面向山谷的,主梁都沿着这个方向。起居室空间则向相反的方向打开,将曾用于装载干草的开口作为主要房间的轴线。这里吸收了更多的光线,而卧室作为并不太需要的地方,获得了小窗。对建筑的主要问题的所有反应,至少对我来说,都在那里,自由供给。例如,当你开始一个项目时,总是要面对一些问题,比如把通高放在哪里,而你永远无法确定。在这个意义上,马里奥所构思的解决方案的正确性和简单性是绝佳的。

另一个我认为非常强烈的层面,是将马里奥与马蒂诺・佩德罗齐(Martino Pedrozzi)对斯凯鲁山,马尔瓦格利亚山谷(in Sceru in Val Malvaglia)的干预联系在一起的东西,那就是修改这些山舍周围的空间是错误的——或者说,在已有的基础上增加一些东西。这些结构是如此聪明地放在领土上,没有必要做小墙、栅栏去占据空闲空间。

它们构成的主要品质是,户外的所有空间都是公共空间,直到触碰到房屋的墙壁。你甚至可能是这个地块的主人,但没人知道,它没有建筑表现。 

今天扩散性城市的核心问题是人工限制,围起来的金属网。没有它们就已经会大有不同。为什么呢?这是因为开放空间的力量是无限的。房屋的坚固性应该只是它在无限空间中的体积。这些乡土小屋给到的一课正是如此,公共和私人空间之间存在着明确的关系。公共空间是四周无限的领土。 

当马蒂诺客佩德罗齐谈到他对山舍的重组时,他强调他的姿态是为了重新协调公共和私人之间的平衡。为了使限制非常明确。从无限公共领域的意义上说,我觉得这特别有趣。马蒂诺收集石头,把它们放在小屋的四面墙的残余部分里,这样做是为了制造一种坟墓。更重要的是,他清理了公共空间,使其再次成为无人居住的地方。在今天的话语中,很少听到 “限制 “这个词,但它是客观存在的。到处都有限制,没有限制,事情就会变得愚蠢。所有这些话题都让我充满兴趣,我相信通过研究它们,我们可以学习如何找到应对我们现在拥有的、已知的不起作用的城市的办法。

 我们将永远有一个问题,那就是如何占据一个不密集的土地,我们不能建造一片空白。由都市扩张产生的城市将永远存在。马里奥山舍是其中一个例子,它与我认为在这种情况下正确的做法相一致。另一方面,从更近的角度来看,我真的很欣赏跳过最困难的话题的智慧,这些话题在我们开始一个项目时都会出现——基座、朝向、屋顶等等。  

找到现有的结构,已经回答了永无止境的问题,并允许你只进行最小的干预,至少对我来说是一个奇迹。 

马里奥山舍是一座变成了住宅的房子,最初它不是我们如今所知的住宅。现在它就像一艘船,一个被海洋包围的极其紧凑的内部。是什么让它成为一所房子? 

这是一个涉及到比建筑本身更广泛的主题的问题。它更多的是关于人类普遍的生活。如果你整天在山里,在一个倾斜的表面上,你把你的脚放在一个水平面上,你会有一种安全感。得益于这个小小的变化,加上四面墙和头顶上的屋顶,一个房子就随即产生了。 

我非常喜欢利维奥・瓦奇尼(Livio Vacchini)在图卢兹举行的一次座谈会。他一开始就说:”女士们,先生们,我不得不说,建筑并不存在”。他说这句话的意思是,我们可以编造三万种理论,或者其他什么,但如果我们必须谈论建筑的本质,那么它就只是在我们的头顶上放一个屋顶。 

它能有什么品质?如果这个从无限的宇宙中分离出来的私密空间有其自主的存在理由,那就更好了。它显然需要尊严。但它的本质从很早的时候就存在了。当我去日内瓦教书时,我睡在一个旅馆里。每天早上,当我醒来向窗外看时,我总是对我房间对面的桥下睡着一个人的情景印象深刻。我不知道他们的故事,但这让我想到:头顶上没有屋顶是相当激进的。 

我们谈论的是原始的必需品,而不是建筑,但如果一个屋顶或一堵墙以马里奥的感觉来完成,并转化为比纯粹的必需品要求更多的东西,那么它也开始以另一种方式变得有趣。

我们的问题 “住宅所为何?”是问我们自己,除了四面墙和一个屋顶,房子还能成为什么。在你的选择中,我们谈论的是一个房子,在它的建筑学阐释之外,一个最低限度的庇护所,处于一个潜在的非常危险的环境中,其特征依然很有存在感。我很想知道,你是否认为有着基础保护的品质足以让住宅有意义,还是需要其他东西? 

我认为这是不够的。否则我们都放手了。一个空间的品质是客观存在的,而且能被提升到最高的水准。显然,我认为在秩序和生活空间的基本品质这些主要话题外,我只添加必要的东西,让你感觉这个空间良好。例如结构是能够创造奇迹的。我并不是说,为了做一个住宅,你应该避免探索正确的尺寸、比例、光线等建筑话题。我只是喜欢退后一步,看看任何干预的基础,然后再展开后续的以品质为导向的任何研究。如果你着眼于这些根基,你不仅可以定义建筑的内部,还可以定义外部。创造阴影,找到以前不存在的空间。 

最后,在我看来,空间秩序是由各种紊乱的存在或缺乏来定义的。我们作为建筑师画出了细节,人们说,”这是只有你,作为建筑师才能看到的东西”。当然,这是只有我才能看到的东西,而且我甚至对你是否看到它不感兴趣。我所做的是为了让你不注意到任何异常。这就是我对空间秩序感兴趣的地方。这是一种从缺乏某种事物开始的情形,肯定是没有秩序的。我的兴趣绝对在添加任何东西之前确定和减少干扰因素。比如你对一个基座的细节变得疯狂,而你不想要额外的阴影,你将不得不说服客户等等。在现实中,你所做的是,试图解决水平和垂直表面之间的相遇问题,进而改变了整个房间的比例,这让客户从比例错误的空间问题中解脱出来。 

人的思想是非常脆弱的,这就是为什么问题少一点也不是坏事。你永远不知道谁会住在你的设计中。一个客户来了,然后他走了,他的地方变成了别人的地方。如果你建造的房子有一些特定的价值,它们会比客户和你自己的生命更持久。如果我们试图用逻辑来工作,优化和使用一些能很好的配合结构的原型,我们只能是为客户和后代减少问题。我们提供了自主生活的可能性,痛苦、欢笑、哭泣、微笑,所有这些都不用担心不适用的建筑。

山舍能提出什么样的生活?

在过去的20年里,我都在山区的一个小住宅里度过夏天,我不得不承认,每次过去,它都会改变我。寂静的环境几乎是可怕的。它让你感觉很好,但它不是一种舒适感驱动的幸福感,而是其他东西。你面对的是你不习惯的感知。 

大量的移动,以原始的姿态沉浸在令人难以置信的外部宁静中,这是我偶尔迫切需要的东西。这些都是存在于偏远地方的品质,无论建筑如何。如果你在拥有这些以外还能有建筑,使你的精神体验到另一个层次的平衡,那会是令人难以置信的收获。点燃壁炉的姿态也是如此。 

当我想到住在这些建筑里的所有牧羊人和奶牛时,我不禁打了个寒颤。这是给我留下深刻印象的事情之一——一些东西在时间中的持久性。很多时候,这些房子是在气候恶劣的地方,我认为这些结构的成功体现在今天,我们不需要改变它们的任何基本特征。它就是有效的,墙的位置和良好的建造。唯一合理的自我面对的方式是不质疑它们。你觉得你应该适应它。 

我对秩序和方法相当痴迷。如果我在一个地方做一些东西,我总是带着这样的想法:这个东西会被发现,并激起某人发现一些特质的乐趣。我承认生活中有些东西是短暂的,但我最感兴趣的是能延续并获得某种永久性的建筑。 

我告诉你我去这些地方时的感受。我看到了原始的建造者,他们把石头放在一个地方,使其成为永恒,不了解或预测未来会发生什么。他们不知道我们会到他们的住宅里去喝酒或沉默地待着。他们像古希腊人一样创造角度,发明解决方案,使石头永远留在那里。他们是建筑师,改变了景观因其所需,而同时他们也在挑战时间,超越眼前的条件。 

显然,他们处于不同的语境,主要关注点和行动来源是生存。不过,他们还是分享了一种基本的人类态度,这种态度在今天经常被遗忘——建造比自己的生命更长久的东西。自然而然地这成为一种对美的追求。如果一个角落是以持续时间为目的而制造的,它就是美丽的,因为它有一种内在的正确性;它需要如此,为了存在。 

人们通过引入新的光线、新的阴影来改变这个地方。或许这不是全然有意的,但今天的人们有多大的意识去建造一栋可能永远改变一个地方的阴影的住宅呢?利维奥客瓦奇尼在他的项目管理(Chef d’Oeuvre)中写道,一把沙子形成的锥体改变了沙漠。山舍(Baita)谦逊的建设者们在几个世纪以来改变了阿尔卑斯山的景观,包括光线、存在感和人性化。

我也不知道我建造的墙会发生什么,但如果在我的整个职业生涯中,我能够制造出4面高质量的墙,足以在500年内保持我所画的样子,我还能梦想什么呢?

20201125

Stefano Moor

Born in Lugano in 1968, Stefano Moor graduated in 1993 from the Polytechnic Institute of Lausanne with Luigi Snozzi, with whom he started a long collaboration as a teacher in the same institute and at the international architecture seminars of Monte Carasso, which he still organises.

In parallel, he pursued a professional independent activity and had numerous teaching experiences as an external examiner. His works have been presented in personal and collective exhibitions and he has held lectures in Switzerland and abroad. Since 2014, he teaches at the HEPIA in Geneva.

www.stefanomoor.ch