Rafael Moneo is arguably one of Spain’s greatest living architects. Born in Tudela, Spain, in 1939, Moneo studied at the ETSAM, Technical University of Madrid where he obtained his architectural degree. Before he started working on his own Moneo worked for well-known and established architects, such as Francisco Javier Sáenz de Oiza and Jørn Utzon. Moving on from studying and learning from these architects, Moneo won a number of high-profile design competitions. This helped establish him within the architectural elites. He has been asked to talk at many Universities across the world and became a guest lecturer at a number of similarly high-profile institutes, such as Harvard and Princeton. He has created his own magazine and has written several books and articles related to his design process and thinking. His theories about designing buildings come therefore from working as a practicing architect, he has formulated these ideas in order to teach.
In his book “Remarks on 21 Works” , Rafael Moneo discusses his theories on architecture in relation to his own buildings. In chapter 13 he analyses his approach to siting a building. I will consider this and will later discuss it in relation to my own studio project.
“Architecture comes into being and is nurtured in a given place, and the attributes of that place, its deepest condition, become intimately entwined with it.” Moneo believes that the specific place, where a building is sited, will have a profound influence on the final design. The architect not only needs to work to the dimensions of the site but also, identify the key characteristics that make it unique. He almost views a site as a source for potential energy, that through design will be released and made clear. Moneo places importance on the total understanding of the place. It is vital to work out from a site; which specific aspects will play a part in the new design and which need to be omitted.
Moneo goes on to state that, "architecture belongs to the site, I am not trying to suggest that architecture derives from the site automatically. There is no cause-and-effect relationship." Here Moneo is putting forward his theory that a design does not initially come directly from the given place, as if by magic. Here he adds, “To know the site, to analyze it, to scrutinize it, does not produce an immediate answer." Subjective ideas to the design have to be brought forward with the architects’ analysis of the place. A design is not produced by feeding into a machine that then produces a correct output. Moneo does not design theoretical buildings, like those of Eisenman . His career was involved in many varied commissions that have to confront a specific site. He does not place a building on a site without relation to the character of that site. Moneo argues that the design must take ideas from its site, and to not simply fill it with a contextual response. It is, therefore, more nuanced and sensitive to the DNA of the given place.
In discussing the Kursaal Moneo states, “I deliberately strove to avoid a conventional architectural solution and searched for an alternative in a building capable of maintaining the site’s character as a geographical accident.”
The Kursaal sits in a very special place in San Sebastián at the mouth of the Urumea River and the beach of the bay known as la Concha and below Mount Urgull and Mount Ulía. It is also directly between the urban grid and the sea. The geography that Moneo is referring to was the inspiration for the two large cubic volumes. The specific qualities of the site were utilized and produced the form of the building that was powerful enough to reflect and to sit within that unique geography. He deliberately relates the design to that geography, its relation to the bay, and therefore distances it from the city grid.
He states that "the dialogue between the expectant site and the interests and concerns of the designer culminates in the appearance of the architecture."
This is where the architect has to bring together the specific requirements of the program, the client’s and users’ requirements with a design proposal that also takes inspiration from its setting. Moneo adds, “The architecture acts as a tool for recognizing and revealing the site’s presence.” The building sitting adjacent to the landscape allows for a better understanding and appreciation of that landscape. It enhances it with its presence.
“in the case of the Kursaal, consumption also involved recovering the landscape, rescuing the geography. The architecture tried to fuse with the landscape, to become one with it.” A building takes over a site. In every building, a part of the place must and will be eaten up by the new structure imposed by the architect. Moneo tries to merge the building with the landscape to create a single entity. It is so entwined with the setting that it could not be built elsewhere.
Moneo elaborates on other influences on the design of his building, “In discussing the architecture of the Kursaal, it is essential to mention the debt to the sculpture of Jorge Oteiza. Oteiza helps us understand how primary solids are activated in the hands of the sculptor, who imbues them with a desire for motion.” Moneo takes inspiration from outside influences such as this famous Basque sculptor and absorbs and transforms his sculpture into his ideas for the building.
He adds, “The notion of context has been overused in architectural criticism, and architects have eroded this concept by applying a methodology that used the analysis of the building’s location as its basis.” Moneo argues against the formulaic approach of contextualism. This is a superficial approach that is based on the form of adjacent elements without having a more intuitive and creative response. The solution does not come from replicating scale, materials and the form of what is adjacent. Hence his reference to Oteiza. It is not a copy of a sculpture, but it can have its influences. Remember, the architect needs to resolve all the issues a client needs in a building while still having a poetic response to the given site.
He states, “Understanding the place as a context implies establishing an order in the process of producing the project the undervalues the opportunity for the fruitful interaction between place and architecture.” Simply understanding the context and applying a formulaic approach that reacts to that context, misses the opportunity for a greater and more interesting interplay between the site and the building. This, Moneo believes, should come from an inner reaction to the site, from an intuitive interpretation of the place, in relation to other influences and ideas.
(SUMMERIZE MONEO’S THOUGHTS/THEORIES)
For this year’s studio project, we are designing a Marine Recovery Centre within Bowling Harbour. Essentially this is an archeological facility focusing on the recovery, restoration, and documentation of shipwrecked vessels. It aims to further our knowledge of the design process, forcing us to look at a site both rationally and metaphorically. Our main points of focus are the structure and how the building can change over time. In regards to how the public interacts with our building, we must provide them with a journey that betters their understanding of the use and need for a building like this.
Situated on the Clyde estuary, historically the piers at Bowling were used as a docking point and for the unloading larger goods from ships onto horse-drawn barges to be distributed across the country. There was a shipyard, where prisoners were sent to Australia from Bowling in the late 18th Century. The large enclosed body of water also known as the Basin was used to store fishing boats during the offseason. With the decline in the Clyde fishing industry, it has been deprived a chance for change and growth. The remaining structures on site, need restoration. Tidal changes and water movement greatly affect our design strategies, as well as the natural landscape, which has been allowed to grow freely over the past 30 years. So Bowling Harbour, a once thriving trading and fishing community have many boats that have been left to spend the rest of its days sunken and wrecked. The harbor is also symbolically like the ruined vessels that reside within it.
The site is large, on foot the sheer size of it is overwhelming. The main dominant structure is the stone pier/breakwater that shelters the basin from the Clyde. The basin- which is 590 meters long by 90 meters wide- is contained by the breakwater and is like a thin line built along the river. To the landward side are a series of pyramid sloped structures built as mooring points. To the West of the pier as it turns, is an abandoned structure where the old shipyard used to sit. It is constructed from large timber posts and beams built into the water as structure. A damaged and decaying timber plank deck sits on a larger plane.
The whole site is cut off from the small town of Bowling by the Glasgow/Helensburgh railway line. Foot access through the back of the railway station and from the canal side is the only means of entering the site. The way I observed the site for the Recovery Centre was by initially exploring points of interest that lay sprawled around the basin. Like Moneo, I tried not to focus on a strict architectural approach but rather to view the site in an analytical way. Seeing what parts of the site should be emphasized or removed.
The stone pier is a powerful image in the river. It has a graphic quality. The previous ruined structure sat beside this stone feature and didn’t really touch it. It was a wooden pier with a couple of buildings on top that were used as ticketing and waiting areas. The pier was built to allow passengers to board paddle steamers, which would take them on tours up and down the river. Adjacent to this was a shipyard that constructed puffers for the West coast trade. As the shipyard created boats, it felt appropriate to place the new building more in relation to that historical function. To engage with the memory of that place. This is an approach based on Rafael Moneo's thinking's' about a site. There is also this interplay between water and the existing forms on the site. Drawing influence from this, picking it apart and understanding it, allowed for my building to form naturally. I wasn't using the surrounding context of Bowling to generate my proposal, as this wouldn't be true to Moneo's process.
My building will also have a reference to the structural qualities of the old pier. So, there will be a deck and rooms built above the water on a similar structure. The only difference being that I will use concrete instead of timber. Understanding the essence of the site produces a design solution that relates in some way to previous structures and uses. I chose to make the new structure out of board-formed concrete . The impression left of the wood on the new structure relates back to the old timber, as if like a memory. I chose concrete for its durability, its strength.
The building that I am placing on top of this structure, was formed from the idea and abstraction of movement. In looking and exploring the site it was very difficult to fully embrace all of it, as the only safe access was through man-made structures. There was a very linear approach, not allowing for any movement beyond the safety of the basin wall. Moving on from this I chose to design a flowing mass that that sits very juxtaposed on top of my formal structure, with different arms/sections extending over the water, each having a specific role within the recovery process.
A Recovery and Documentation Laboratory, which will be the main space within my design, extends out over the basin boundary line. The basin, in the past, would be related to storing and keeping ships safe from the unruly waters during the winter. Yet in my case, the vessels don’t need that safety. The boats are already damaged. They come into a covered graving dock that is part of the building. Gates to the graving dock are then closed and the water is drained. So, the damaged boat is then in a safe shelter. I wanted to keep the memory of the shelter that the basin holds and adapt it to the modern. This element of my building is about embracing the river, like a handshake. Although this feature is about shelter, guarding the boats in a calmer water. It is also about pushing boundaries.
Various elements relate to the previous projects and the buildings shipyards and cranes.