“This practice is not nostalgic – the fragments it deals with are not treated longingly as a part of some lost whole, but rather as the emergent potential for what comes next.” Andrew Clancy, Critical practice: can architecture be critical?

The studio promotes a form of practice within the field of building heritage that is as comfortable working with existing buildings as proposing new. Contemporary architecture needs to develop ways of operating between the lines of history without falling into the well-worn traps of romanticism, sentimentalism and conservatism. Through analysis of the pre-existing urban fabric, this studio will draw on what is already there by harvesting fragments of the historical city and abstracting these findings into durable pieces of architecture. Tools and tactics to engage actively with the historic fabric of the city will be developed, and an elastic approach between standing out and fitting in will be practiced. To do this, the binary opposition between strict conservation and the tabula rasa will be challenged. Working within the constraints and resources of a particular site and its environs, the question we will ask is how to build into, on top and around what already exists.

The current dilemma for the city of Oslo is how to handle a forecast of continued growth inside a perimeter that is sanctified to protect the natural environments that surround it. Crossing the line towards the outback is a no-go zone and there is strong opposition to building tall buildings. The need to densify is inevitable and the city needs to better utilise its existing neighbourhoods. This inevitably will put pressure on historical areas, creating tensions between stakeholders. Yet, this is also an opportunity to improve, extend and enhance existing places through a more sustainable form of development that focuses on addition without subtraction.

The testing ground for the work will be Gamlebyen, a neighbourhood situated on the inner east side of Oslo. As the gaze of developers turns east from the seafront, this area is increasingly drawing speculation. Gamlebyen is an area protected by history and archaeology, its existing built environment is a tapestry woven over many centuries by countless authors. The area where medieval Oslo was once located has seen periods of prominence followed by decay and destruction. War and fire left it a burned-out timber village, replaced by Christiania, a new city of bricks and mortar further to the west. For centuries Gamlebyen remained peripheral to the major developments of the city. Industrial and infrastructural interventions in the 20th century left the neighbourhood partially destitute and impoverished. Today, the area has seen a significant increase in property prices and an influx of new residents. However, as the city grows and densifies around it, Gamlebyen remains a partly hidden treasure and a repository of subculture and resistance unique in Oslo.

Cycles of boom and bust have resulted in a scared yet rich and densely layered piece of urbanity, wedged tightly between the past and the future. The complex assemblage of built fragments and the seemingly ad hoc appropriation of space are valuable features of Gamlebyens character. Yet, they are not currently reflected in the regulatory zoning plans governing development in the area, leaving gaps and blind spots open to developer-led statements pushing in from the west.  The studio will operate in these sites of composite character by delving into the technical, cultural and legal parameters that determine their treatment. The diversity of the approaches in the studio will reflect the pluralistic nature of complex heritage sites, where different parcels require differentiated approaches. Hence, projects will reach beyond the one-off proposal and be relevant for anyone who wishes to practice as an architect in historical settings.

Working Methods:

The studio does not consider research, in any form, to be a separate exercise from ‘propositional thinking’, rather, it asserts that the act of reading, observing, surveying and fabricating new artifacts is all propositional by nature and therefore a powerful asset within design thinking. Projects will be developed iteratively throughout the semester using architectural drawings and large-scale material models, both analogue and digital. The different work phases will be supported by workshops and seminars.

Survey

The studio will lend considerable attention to understanding context through fieldwork and will embed itself in Gamlebyen to study variations in style and typology. Surveys will not only quantify physical properties but also the qualified values such as significance, symbolism and local tradition. Using both analogue and digital surveying techniques, recordings will document the intersection between historical periods and typologies. These fragments of the city will be iteratively adapted and translated to create a familiar, yet new building type that mediates these fault lines.

Artifact Model(s)

The survey will be the foundation for the artefact, a large-scale material model that starts the inverted design process from fragment to building. The artifact model is a physical and material manifestation of an essential component or junction found in your survey, which is subsequently translated into a three-dimensional piece at a detailed scale. This ‘hot-spot is a free-standing bricolage of materials that suggests something more than the sum of its parts. The original is not a prescriptive tool but rather the starting point for new designs. The production of models depends on workshop availability during the spring semester. Both analogue and digital tools will be used to make and represent new artifacts. 

Proposal

Proposals will focus on contextual construction through the design of a multi-functional building that embodies the complexity of the site it inhabits. This is architecture as a general practice, working on ordinary everyday things. The output of the studio will consist of well-resolved projects with distinctive formal qualities built on clear intentions. Proposals can be deceitful and camouflaged, replacing the limitations of modernist dogma with the full array of exciting strategies at hand for an architect in our day and age. Due to the proximity of buildings from different periods, each proposal will have to contain multiple aspects, differentiated through formal expression, programmatic disposition or its relationship to the immediate context. Or in other words, make a skillfully woven synthesis of seemingly disparate things. Depending on the site, projects will engage with the transformations and connection of existing buildings, as well as the design of autonomous new buildings. A selection of sites will be determined prior to the start of the course.