Start semester
80 613 Re-Store : Folkemuseet
Full course name in Norwegian Bokmål:
Re-store: Folkemuséet
Credits:
24
Course code:
80 613
Level of study:
Master
Teaching semester:
2020 Spring
Assessment semester:
2020 Spring
Language of instruction:
English
Year:
2020
Maximum number of students:
15
Person in charge
Amandine Kastler
Erlend Skjeseth
Required prerequisite knowledge
- Good understanding of written and spoken English
- Intermediate to a good level of digital modeling and draftsmanship
- Experience with and interest in building large scale material models
Course content
“The use of the term 'vernacular' is intended to convey a sense of 'realness' but, ultimately, only serves to reveal its own underlying artificiality.
Vernacular architecture is an oxymoron. By its nature, it cannot be appropriated without becoming something else. One could say that architecture is the conscious appropriation of building into culture. As soon as we go near the vernacular, we kill it. But in so doing, we make something else.”
Charles Holland, Architectural Review, November Issue 2019
A Rural Trilogy
The Re Store studio will continue to creatively assess, transform and reuse existing buildings. Building on the foundations of the Modular Vernacular Studio (2018) on coastal heritage and Fieldwork Studio (2019) on large agricultural structures in the countryside, this semester the studio will carry on working with the vernacular but in a site where the urban and rural converge: the Norwegian Museum of Cultural History (Norsk Folkemuseum). Located at Bygdøy in Oslo, it was conceived as an interface between the industrial worker of the city and the rural customs. The studio will use the outdoor collection of buildings at the open-air museum to explore the preservation of historic architecture as a political act, with the aim of instilling a critical appreciation for the enduring benefits and limitations of vernacular construction beyond the pastiche.
It is now 35 years since Kenneth Frampton wrote the seminal essay Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance. A reaction to the emerging post-modernism of the 1980s spearheaded by Venturi and others, the essay sought to mediate between the local and the global and postulate a resistance to the flattening of architectural discourse and production. The studio will revisit the critical regionalism of Kenneth Frampton, the post-modernism that predated it and problematise the idea of the ‘Genius Loci’ with fresh eyes. We will draw on the spatial and constructional characteristics of the vernacular, to determine the formal qualities that have evolved over time from the bare necessities and resource scarcity while not shying away from discussing the notion of architectural style and tradition in conjunction with contemporary architectural discourse.
By teasing out these implicit characteristics, highly resolved architectural proposals will address key questions: What is the role of a cultural museum today? What values are inherent in vernacular buildings? How are heritage buildings used as markers of identity? What happens to the reading of architecture when the provenance of its components is derived from multiple geographical areas and periods? How should architects design new forms within finite historic environments?
Norsk Folkemuseum
“The Norwegian Cultural Museum Foundation shall build, manage and disseminate historical knowledge and create experiences that are relevant to people's lives in the present and future.”
Statute of the Cultural Museum at Bygdøy
The Norwegian Cultural Museum is a construct. A collection of buildings moved to the city from the rural areas, curated as objects on the stage of nation-building during the latter half of the nineteenth – century. Founded in 1894, the museum is one of the earliest examples of a European wide trend towards the mass production of culture and folklore. National identity in Norway was consciously linked to the medieval era that predated the colonial union with Denmark and Sweden. This editing process is manifested in the collection of buildings through its focus on the vernacular of the inner valleys, presumed untainted by foreign influence. The outdoor museum as a didactic space aimed to showcase the regional variations in building typology, yet there is a curious lack of certain regions.
The selection was also influenced by transportability, which favoured modular notched log buildings, more easily disassembled than stone or masonry. Hence, the circumstances of the formation of the museum had a direct impact on what is today the vernacular canon in Norway. Now a historiographical fact, the museum tells us as much about the formation of the modern nation-state of Norway as it does about vernacular traditions.
When first planned, the museum was in a pastoral setting at Bygdøy with an abundance of space. However, the residential area around grew and the neighbouring institutions set their property boundaries limiting further expansion. Still, the museum is continuously evolving, leading to a densification process and a need for facilities such as educational spaces, sanitary installations, commercial spaces, service buildings, workshops and maintenance facilities.
The studio we will engage with and challenge the museums current development plans. Certain functions might have to be seamlessly integrated into the historic building fabric whilst others will be “back of house” located in restricted areas. The strong demarcation between the curated exhibition and hidden but daily operation of the back-stage areas is a programmatic distinction that could be questioned in the redesign of any museum.
Projects in the studio are not just bespoke tailor-made pieces of architecture, they are carriers of significance. Each project must position its self in relation to preservation discourse and the continued evaluation of the museum as a cultural construct through its design.
Proposals will be site-specific to the highly saturated environment of the museum, nevertheless, the approaches developed to working with the existing will be applicable to other urban or rural areas of heritage significance. The diversity of the approaches in the studio will reflect the pluralistic nature of complex heritage sites, where different parcels require differentiated approaches. Therefore, the output of the studio will reach beyond the one-off proposal and be relevant for anyone who wishes to engage with alternative forms of preservation.
Learning outcome
- Approaching the re-use and transformation of existing structures at varying scales.
- Formulate individual architectural proposals based on close observation and analysis of present conditions.
- Analyze and adapt existing infrastructure to develop operational forms of architecture.
- Utilizing precise surveying technology in both analogue and digital form.
- Engage actively with real stakeholders, including the local heritage authorities and museum staff.
- Learning how to navigate heritage requirements and regulatory framework.
- Experiencing historic craft methods and Scandinavian vernacular building tradition.
- Reading basic theory on vernacular, typology and preservation.
Working and learning activities
Kastler Skjeseth will teach the studio with Ane Sønderaal Tolfsen, a practicing architect based in Oslo. Ane will be running the Detail elective course and will bring a strong focus on understanding architectural detailing in terms of technical, structural and aesthetic considerations in combination with aspects as materials, scale, concept and construction
The Survey
“'Traditions' which appear or claim to be old are often quite recent in origin and sometimes invented.”
Eric Hobsbawn, The Invention of Tradition, 1983
Extensive measuring and observation of the case study will be the first act. Surveys will not only quantify physical properties but also the qualify values such as significance, symbolism and tradition. The studio does not consider research to be a separate exercise from propositional thinking, rather, it asserts that the act of surveying is propositional by nature and therefore inherent to design thinking.
Recordings will include architectonic thresholds, such as the relationships between foundations and topography, the domestic interior and the weathered exterior, traditional craft and contemporary construction. In addition, the specific context of the museum as a spectacle and a staged environment will add the dichotomy between the exhibit and the exhibition, between the actors on stage and the structure that maintains and supports. The reading of vernacular buildings often focusses on their relationship to topography and climate (one of Frampton´s six key points). In the case of the museum, the buildings are no longer in their original context.
The Artefact
The survey will be the foundation for the artefact, a large-scale material model that starts the inverted design-process from detail to building. The artefact, a physical and material manifestation of an essential component or junction found in your analysis, is translated into a contemporary building system at scale 1:5 or 1:10. This ‘hot-spot’ is a free-standing bricolage of materials that suggests something more than the sum of its parts. Learning from what has already been built, traditional craft will be translated into contemporary construction methods. Prefabrication and digital fabrication will inform the design, responding to, among other things, site, light, thermal conditions and construction logic.
The Approach and Proposal
“To build houses, you must have sites. Are they natural sites? Not at all: they are immediately artificialized”
Le Corbusier, La Ville Radieuse, 1933
The proposal will be a complex hybrid of a composite nature, negotiating through architecture the challenge of embedding modern building technology into a historical site, while also requiring that the site itself be designed. The insertion(s) will provide the museum with spaces for maintenance and services, allowing for everyday caretaking as a form of preservation.
Proposals can be deceitful and camouflaged, replacing the dogmatic and hermetic modernist notions of honesty in material and structure with the full deck of cards at hand for an architect in our day and age. Negotiating the contested waters of authenticity, designs can simulate and mimic near surroundings like a chameleon or state distinctiveness by breaking from the referential historicism of the collection like an irreverent black sheep. Engaging with the language of ornament, the textual qualities inherent in vernacular architecture and the potential for its revival through modern fabrication methods is encouraged.
Due to the scarcity of space and the proximity of buildings from different origins, each proposal will have to contain multiple features, differentiated through formal expression, programmatic disposition or its relationship to the immediate context. One part a highly functional space of utility whilst other parts may be of a symbolic nature or even a folly if need be. As parts of a larger strategy, interventions will both transform existing buildings and propose autonomous buildings.
There is a long-standing tradition of moving buildings and reusing architectural elements in Norway. Just like the vernacular houses in the collection were once moved to the museum, the projects should involve one transplant, an addition of a ready-made or pre-existing structure that compliments the existing selection of buildings in the vicinity. The design challenge lies in the adaption and interface between various parts.
Other Learning Activities
Projects will be developed iteratively through architectural drawings and large scale material models.
The studio will lend considerable attention to fieldwork. Students will be expected to travel to the Norsk Folkemuseum in Bygdøy regularly during the semester.
The studio will primary take excursions in Norway. First, a short trip to the area around the Lake Mjøsa to visit Maihaugen Open-Air Museum, along with projects by Sverre Fehn and Are Vesterlid. We may extend our reach to Sweden. Taking the train to Stockholm to visit the Skansen Open-Air Museum, along with key works by Gunnar Asplund and Sigrud Lewerentz.
During excursion week, we will travel to Lyngør Island to study the coastal typologies that are less represented at the Flolkemuseet. Accommodation on the Island will be subsidized, generously sponsored by the house owners. Students will live in a manor house dating back to the 19th century. The house was refurbished and modernised by Kastler Skjeseth Architects in 2017. Students can expect some costs of travelling back and forth to Lyngør but we will endeavor to keep this cost to a minimum.
Students are expected to work in the studio regularly. Teaching will consist of twice-weekly desk tutorials, seminars, pin-ups and reviews with invited critics. Students are expected to be active participants, to attend all trips, studio meetings, pin-ups and reviews, while keeping up with a rigorous level of production. The studio will be evaluated by assignments and participation, and judged as “passed” or “not passed” (according to AHO regulations for master studies).
The studio will frequently be exposed to a network of builders, artisans, construction sites in various stages and will be closely linked to the practice work of Kastler Skjeseth Architects. http://www.kastlerskjeseth.no/
The studio will run parallel to the EX14 unit at the AA in London that are investigating coastal typologies in Norway with joint excursions and reviews. During the last week of January, the studio will host joint seminar days at AHO with the students from the AA. Link to AA unit brief:
https://www.aaschool.ac.uk/Downloads/briefs2019/Experimental14_19-20.pdf
It is highly recommended to take either the Detail elective course or the Re Store elective course in conjunction with this studio.
Curriculum
The curriculum will be given closer to the start date.
| Form of assessment | Grouping | Grading scale | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Portfolio assessment (Vurderingsmappe) | Individual | Pass / fail | Pass/Fail, based on the following criteria in relation to the given assignments: The final grade in the course will be given based on: - Attendance and design production for twice-weekly studio meetings: 30% - Mid review and Interim review presentation: 30% - Final review presentation: 40% The oral presentation is a part of the portfolio assessment. Mid review, Interim review and Final review: Work presented for the Mid review, the Interim review and the Final review will be evaluated according to the following criteria: - Conceptual Clarity: Students should demonstrate proactive engagement with the material and self-motivated intellectual pursuits that enhance their design ambitions. Students are expected to clearly articulate their ambitions and the intellectual underpinnings of their work in pin-ups and desk crits. - Technique: Students are expected to execute all assignments with care and precision. Assignments will be evaluated not only on the basis of the ideas, but also to a large degree on the quality of the execution. Students are responsible for planning sufficient time for developing appropriate and thorough representations. Portfolio: The care taken in the compilation and design of the portfolio the presentation of physical models will be considered in the final assessment. The portfolio is to be formatted and printed at A2 or larger. Each student will also be required to design a portfolio booklet at A3 to accompany the printed portfolio. |
| Workload activity | Comment |
|---|---|
| Group work | |
| Individual problem solving | |
| Attendance | |
| Excursion |