Archi.ru:
– You know, you break all the stereotypes about what a famous architect looks like. You are not dressed in black, do not look haggard, and you are smiling.
Benedetta Tagliabue:
- Yes it's true! (laughs) It's worth creating a new image of an architect, I guess. But I would like to change something else. While preparing for the competition, architects do not sleep at night. Why?! Modern technology makes it possible to work much faster than before. But everyone still says: "When we have a competition, we do not sleep for days!" I do not understand why. Maybe because architecture is a profession that never ends. Moreover, it deals with reality. It is very difficult to translate an idea into reality, you need to go a long way, put a lot of effort. We do not have a narrow specialization, we have to do completely different things ourselves. By the way, while preparing for this exhibition (note - "Urban Regeneration - Traveling the World" in the Moscow Museum of Architecture) my employees did not sleep for several days. However, I try to take a different approach anyway.
Judging by the layouts at the exhibition, public spaces were important to EMBT long before their design became a global trend. This is true?
- We understood from the very beginning that it was necessary to create not an object, but an integral “thing”. In this vein, we have always thought, at least for the last thirty years - for sure. The building must be adapted so that it is possible to organize a public space “with his participation”. For example how
Gas Natural headquarters, which we designed over ten years ago. The Santa Catarina market in Barcelona, the reconstruction of which we were engaged in, is also not an object, it is a place. Architecture should serve people.
People are now becoming more and more disunited, we are almost completely going online. At the same time, the need for public spaces is growing. Is it a paradox? Why do we, immersed in our gadgets, need public spaces?
- Perhaps a paradox, but most likely a reaction. Finally, we can understand the full value of physical contact. In the past, I was often asked if architecture will recede into the background when we have the opportunity to travel virtually. Now I can visit Moscow without leaving Google, and now we understand that this is completely unable to replace physical movement in space. In reality, we can interact, we have completely different sensations. Sitting here now, I know that over my head I have vaults, behind a door, I perceive the lighting in a certain way, I see you opposite me. This is not at all the same as chatting on Skype. Perhaps right now we are aware of the power of reality and the "corporeality" of space.
– Modern public spaces that emerge from Beijing to New York look quite similar. At the same time, piazza for an Italian means at all the same thing as a square in the mind of a Chinese. Should you take a more diversified approach to the design of public spaces?
- We cannot but influence each other. For example, if I, an Italian living in Spain, design in China, then of course I think it would be great to make a piazza there. It may be unusual for the local residents, but they accept new ideas with ease. The Chinese are the most cosmopolitan nation imaginable, open to everything. It seems to me that mutual influence is beneficial, we still cannot exclude it. But I also believe that you need to be tactful about the place, take into account its peculiarities and adapt the project using local materials, decor, doing everything to make it characteristic. In our architecture, we try to do just that. However, there are things that are good for any country. For example, public spaces where people gather and where they are happy.
How, in your opinion, should an ideal city be designed?
- With love (laughs) No, seriously. I believe that the perfect city can only be designed with love. I know many good chief city architects, but the best are those who work with love. This means dedication, awareness, a sincere desire to make the city a better place. Naturally, the greater the amount of work, the higher the likelihood of errors. But you cannot be afraid of criticism. It is important to be proactive and explain what you are doing and why you decided to do it that way. I think this is very important.
What is important for Moscow? What does it lack to become a more perfect city, in your opinion?
- The city should be easy to use. I saw that new pedestrian zones and bicycle paths are being built in Moscow. I think this is important. It is necessary to be able to feel the city with your body - legs, feet. Transport is also important, in Moscow I really like the metro system, you can easily and quickly cover long distances. Simply fantastic! Traffic problems are now facing cities very acutely, and, in my opinion, Moscow is coping with their solution. I don’t know what will happen in the end, but I’m not an expert on Moscow. Although it seems to me that about the same thing is happening here as in Paris. They are trying to create a developed underground infrastructure connected with land routes that can be easily navigated, for example, by bicycle (note - EMBT is working on a project
Clichy-Montfermay station). The same happens in Naples, a terrible city in terms of traffic, and in many other cities.
Why, in your opinion, ideas about the ideal layout of cities undergo changes over time, sometimes quite significant?
- Everything in the world is changing, especially people. We constantly have to adapt. The city is a constructed world, and it also changes. Cities are growing so rapidly that it can even scare someone, everything is moving forward faster than ever. You can find yourself in a new city that has grown in literally 10 years, and at the same time it is already huge. Therefore, we have to pay more and more attention to urban planning, think about architecture, and how to integrate it into the urban space. Quality spaces are now needed not only in the center, but also in the periphery. Perhaps new polycentric cities should appear, we need residential areas that will be mini-cities.
You were on the jury for the Pritzker Prize last year when it was awarded to Alejandro Aravena
- I enter it now.
Yes, but then Alejandro Aravena received the award, after which some architects and journalists began to say that turning architecture towards solving social problems could destroy it. How much do you agree with this statement?
- I do not reason in that way. Yes, when designing social facilities, you cannot afford excess and create luxurious buildings. But Alejandro Aravena made an amazing discovery: he came up with an architecture that awaits the intervention of future residents. It is a powerful way to reconstruct informal South American settlements. Favelas, among other things, are also bad because they lack any infrastructure, not even a water supply. To create a city with suitable planning and housing, Alejandro designed houses that can already be lived in, but they are not yet finished. So people can put a particle of themselves into these buildings, improve them, because it is the diversity that makes the city alive. The idea is simple, but very beautiful. We at EMBT are ready to use every opportunity to design social architecture. We never say: “Oh, no, we won't do that! We don't like it because the budget is somehow too small. We try to do the best we can within even the smallest budget.
So you never refuse?
- We are ready to make social housing, public spaces, administrative buildings, take on a small scale, design parts of cities - whatever. We are open and consider social facilities as part of our social mission. Architecture is a service sector, it should serve society, we do not forget about this.
– Your favorite architect is Le Corbusier, as they write in almost every article about you. It's hard to believe, EMBT buildings are far from being "cars for housing", they are more like living things themselves.
- Perhaps this is not true. (laughs) When I was asked about my favorite architect, I could not think of anything, there was an absolute emptiness in my head. I was at a loss and think, what can I say: “That's it? No one? . And then she called the first name that came to mind. In fact, my favorite architect is my late husband (Enric Miralles - N. M.'s note). He introduced me to design and construction when I was just studying architecture. He had so much energy, so much passion for the profession. Enric died, but I continue to move in the direction he set, and along with me and others - we all continue to work in his spirit. For my husband, Le Corbusier was very important, as well as for the entire Spanish school of architecture. But Le Corbusier is not only functionalism, he is also a little crazy, he painted, wrote poetry and did things that looked very rational, but at the same time were insane. Le Corbusier's childlike naivety can be seen in many of the details of his architecture, especially in Chandigarh. Perhaps due to the geographical distance, he allowed himself more experiments there and created more things related to the poetic part of his nature. Yes, I like the poet in Le Corbusier.
How would you describe your architecture?
- Human, with an integrated approach, sensitive to the context … I don't know: this is the first thing that came to my mind.
Again it can turn out, as with those journalists and the answer about Le Corbusier
- (Laughs). I wonder how Le Corbusier would answer. ***
The interview was organized with the participation of the Moscow Urban Forum, in which Benedetta Tagliabue will take part.
