On June 10, Japanese architect Kengo Kuma, who has visited Moscow for the third time, delivered a lecture “Architecture after the disaster” as part of the Strelka summer program of the Institute of Media, Architecture and Design. The stated theme promised to tell the story of some kind of shift in the approach to architecture - be it in aesthetic, constructive or social terms - that occurred after the disastrous tsunami of 2011. But in fact, Kuma only touched on the topic in passing. Basically, his presentation, accompanied by slides, consisted of describing projects in the portfolio of his bureau without any reference to the consequences of that tragedy. However, after the lecture Archi.ru managed to talk with the master for half an hour and ask him - as far as possible - about this aspect.
Archi.ru:
Over the past few years, you have repeatedly stated in interviews that the 2011 tsunami changed the way you think about architecture and architects: architects should be humble or even meek; Also, because of the tsunami, you have become even more active in advocating the use of natural materials in construction. Some kind of understatement is felt here. I do not see a direct relationship between the destruction of concrete houses by the tsunami and the call to use natural materials in construction. After all, houses made of natural materials would collapse in the same way? The link between the tsunami and the call for architects to be more modest is also unclear. Could you explain yourself?
Kengo Kuma:
If an architect uses natural materials in the construction of housing, he will not be too self-confident and will not consider his buildings invulnerable to the elements of nature, as he thinks when erecting buildings from concrete. In this case, you will have to choose the construction site more carefully so as not to expose the houses to the blow of the elements. People used to understand the weakness of natural materials, which formed the Japanese tradition of housing construction. The Japanese chose the location of the house very thoughtfully. You probably know that there is feng shui in China? In Japan, there is an even more sophisticated, subtle system than feng shui, and much attention is paid to the location of the house. But in the 20th century, people forgot about this tradition due to the spread of concrete.
However, you still do not completely abandon concrete. Even in a bamboo house, you use concrete by pouring it into the bamboo trunk. What guides you when deciding whether or not to use this material?
If any additional structural reinforcement is required, we use it. I know very well the limitations of natural materials and sometimes I have to add something. But, in any case, concrete is not the protagonist in the project. This is my difference from Tadao Ando, who saw the main character of architecture in concrete, wanted to flaunt it. For me, concrete is just an imperceptible element of support.
But then natural materials play only a decorative role, not a constructive one
No, it is often constructive. For example, in one of my projects, I use ceramic tiles as a structural element. Or in the Starbucks Cafe project, where wooden sticks are not an element of the interior, but the skeleton of a building. It's not that easy, but I want to use wooden sticks, not metal or concrete for the supporting structures.
Another question that came to my mind when I heard the word "meek" in relation to architects. How do you feel about DIY technologies in construction, in particular the use of 3D printers? Do they have some kind of future? What will then be the role of architects?
Technologies like these can make architecture more democratic, and democratizing architecture is very important. In the 20th century, architecture was wholly owned by the construction industry. Only large contractors can build large and expensive residential buildings, and they are very different from the simple houses of ordinary people. I don't like this situation. The state, unfortunately, stopped building social housing 15 years ago, when the neoliberals, led by Junichiro Koizumi, were in power. They have encouraged major developers to build housing in the form of luxury multi-storey residential towers, but this is destroying the face of the city as such. And today we are in a situation of chaos. People need social housing, but the state cannot afford to build it. A similar situation is observed in many countries of the world.
What can architects do in this situation?
If possible, they should do the projects themselves. An architect should not be a slave to a developer developing a private luxury residential project in high-rise towers. The architect must be proactive when developing house designs. By the way, I have implemented my own project of building a small apartment building for young people. I found a good place for him - not a prestigious and expensive plot, but a small abandoned piece of land in the city. The building materials we used were inexpensive. But for the younger generation, all this does not really matter. I started this project on my own three years ago, now it has been completed. Six young guys live in a 4-storey building. In Japan, these houses are called sharehouses.
But is such a project rather an exception to the rule?
Not at all. The sharehouse movement in Tokyo is growing, and these houses are becoming more popular than ever before.
Japan was faced with the need to resettle the large number of victims of the 2011 tsunami. How is this problem solved?
Government policy is to relocate people from the coast to the hills, to the hills. This is the foundational approach. But no one can imagine what exactly is happening with such a large-scale resettlement. I myself am working on a project for Minamisanriku, one of the tsunami-hit towns in the north. The mayor of the city also decided to relocate people from the coast to the hillside. But it seems to me that this is not enough at all. The settlement on the hill is a somewhat artificial new city, there is no lively activity in it, there is no public space. And I want to keep the main street on the waterfront. Our idea for this town is to re-use the tsunami-affected area to create a shopping area with a busy shopping street. Thus, this zone will become semi-tourist-semi-residential. We started to develop the project of this street, aiming to make it attractive for tourists. If we succeed in this task, this street can become the new center of the city.
From your presentation, I understood that you and your bureau are innovators, you are always looking for new solutions. How do you know you want to use the new material?
The choice of material occurs when discussing the project. Someone comes up with an idea, and we begin to develop it. We are very democratic in making decisions. In general, we just always want to develop, and not sit in one place. Material is a key factor in the creation of architecture. In the 20th century, most architects considered concrete to be the only possible material and played with its shape. But it seems to me that the form is secondary, and the material itself is decisive for the creation of architecture.
During your lecture, there was a very funny moment when one of the listeners asked if you were building in a cold climate. You then began to quickly scroll forward through your presentation, showing a huge number of experimental designs, incredible shapes and outlines. And when we got to the desired slide with
house in Hokkaido, then everyone saw a building of a completely traditional shape, almost a Russian wooden hut with a pitched roof. Yes, all the enclosing structures were unusual - made of a translucent membrane. And yet the audience reacted to this contrast with loud laughter. Do you think that in cold climates you can build something really unusual from an architectural point of view and at the same time functional? Or is the simplest solution the best in this case?
The house in Hokkaido is experimental, but the experiment was not with the form, but with the structures. Therefore, its form is completely traditional, but the solution in the complex cannot be called simple. The way we combined underfloor heating, warm air circulation, computer-controlled air conditioning, membrane walls and roofing … Besides, this is a permanent building, not a decorative temporary pavilion - hence the simple form. But in any case, I would like to build something extraordinary in Russia, to challenge the harsh climate.
