1. 2016

      • Date string
        18/01/2016
        Title
        Now available: OASE 95. Crossing Boundaries. Transcultural Practices in Architecture and Urbanism
        Educated short text tagged
        <p><span class="wysiwyg-font-size-medium"><span class="wysiwyg-font-size-medium">This issue of </span></span><i><span class="wysiwyg-font-size-medium"><span class="wysiwyg-font-size-medium"><span class="wysiwyg-font-size-medium">OASE </span></span></span></i><span class="wysiwyg-font-size-medium"><span class="wysiwyg-font-size-medium">takes as its point of departure the cross</span></span><span class="wysiwyg-font-size-medium">-</span><span class="wysiwyg-font-size-medium"><span class="wysiwyg-font-size-medium">cultural conditions in which architects, urban designers and landscape architects work. It focuses in particular on architects working in a condition of displacement in other words in relation to cultures, far away or nearby, that are not their own. </span></span></p>
    2. 2015

        1. Date string
          12/11/2015
          Title
          Audio recording presentation OASE 94 online on YouTube
          Educated short text tagged
          <div><div><b>The audio recording of the presentation of<a href="http://oasejournal.nl/en/Issues/94"><a href="/en/Issues/94" class="auto"> OASE 94 </a></a>with <a href="http://oasejournal.nl/en/Contributors/RemKoolhaas">Rem Koolhaas</a> in De Kunsthal on 3 September 2015 is now available online on our YouTube channel: <a href="https://youtu.be/OMUWyFEI9p8">https://youtu.be/OMUWyFEI9p8</a></b><br></div></div>
      • 2015

        • Date string
          17/08/2015
          Title
          Presentation of OASE 94 with Rem Koolhaas on Thursday 3 September 2015 in The Kunsthal
          Educated text tagged
          <div>On Thursday 3 September 2015 OASE 94, devoted to the early work of OMA/Rem Koolhaas, will be presented at the auditorium of the Kunsthal in Rotterdam.<br><br></div><div>The editors of this issue, <a href="/en/Contributors/ChristopheVanGerrewey" class="auto"><a href="/en/Contributors/ChristophevanGerrewey" class="auto">Christophe Van Gerrewey</a></a> and Véronique Patteeuw, will have a conversation with Rem Koolhaas on the first decade of the Office for Metropolitan Architecture, 1972-1989.<br><br></div>Doors open at 19:00, program starts at 19:30. Admission 10 or 27,50 euro (including a copy of OASE 94). <br><div>Please reserve your tickets by e-mail: <a>info@nai010.com.</a></div><br><br><br>
      • 2015

          1. Date string
            12/08/2015
            Title
            OASE 94: Parc de la Villette competition 1982 - CORRECTION
            Educated text tagged
            <div><div><div><b>Mr. <a href="/en/Contributors/BernardTschumi" class="auto">Bernard Tschumi</a> has informed the editors of OASE of a misattribution in the text of George Baird, published in<a href="/en/Issues/94" class="auto"> OASE 94 </a>(OMA The First Decade), on the competition for Parc de la Villette in 1982. Mr. Tschumi did not participate in the competition together with Alexandre Chemetoff. There was no joint Tschumi/Chemetoff submission. </b><b>The landscape design of the 125-acre Parc de la Villette was entirely <a href="/en/Contributors/BernardTschumi" class="auto">Bernard Tschumi</a>s responsibility (Mr. Chemetoff was simply invited by Tschumi to design a small 2-acre sunken bamboo garden). Only the Tschumi scheme won a majority of the votes in the 21-person jury.</b></div></div></div><b><span>Following the announcement by Mr. Tschumi, Mr. Baird has asked to make public the following statement: I thank <a href="/en/Contributors/BernardTschumi" class="auto">Bernard Tschumi</a> for correcting the credits for his winning entry to the Parc de la Villette competition, and apologize to him - and to the readers of OASE - for this misattribution. In the digital version of OASE 94, to be published next year, the credits will be corrected. <br></span></b><div><b>The editoral team of OASE apologizes for this misunderstanding, to all parties involved and to the readers of the journal.</b></div><br><b></b><br>
        • 2015

            1. Date string
              09/07/2015
              Title
              Call for papers OASE 96 | SOCIAL POETICS _ The Architecture of Use and Appropriation
              Educated text tagged
              <b>SOCIAL POETICS _ The Architecture of Use and Appropriation</b> <p><i>Els Vervloesem, Marleen Goethals, Hüsnü Yegenoglu, Michiel Dehaene</i></p> <p><span>This issue of <i>OASE</i> is situated within a tradition that gives a central role to questions of use and appropriation in architectural reflection. The general attention to use and appropriation is part and parcel of a layered critique of architecture. The critique of a vulgar take on functionalism in favour of an open interpretation of the relationship between form and use (Rossi). The critique of commodification by placing the focus on use value rather than exchange value (Lefebvre). The critique of the hegemony of design (and the designer) in favour of design practices centred around use and usership (Jacobs, Gehl).</span></p> <p><span>This issue of <i>OASE</i> will focus on the marked revival of forms of architecture that explicitly address questions of use and appropriation in the development of a sociocritical architecture. How can designers incorporate experience and use into their design process and architecture projects? Is this self-obvious or a point of contention? To what extent are designers ready to engage in processes of use and appropriation?</span></p> <p><span>Between the belief in the autonomy of architecture on the one hand, and heteronomic, user-centred forms of design on the other, lies a broad spectrum of practices that radically question the traditional separation between design and use. In this issue, the opposition of design and use, of autonomy and heteronomy, is not addressed as a matter to be resolved, but rather as a productive force field for architectural production, as a dialectic to be spatially articulated and from which architecture and the city may derive meaning. In short, <i>OASE</i> #96 wishes to explore architectural projects that put great stock in the poetics of use and appropriation in the production of architectural meaning. </span></p> <p><b>Call for Papers</b></p><p>We invite contributions of maximum 1500 words discussing critical architectural or urbanist design practices that mobilise use and appropriation as poetic material. These practices will be combined to produce both case-specific insights and shared ideas and arguments. In this way, we hope to move beyond the polemical theoretical discussions that have dominated this subject in the past. We ask authors to explicitly address the position adopted by themselves or other designers in the creation and articulation of possibilities of use. The papers must present a specific project or design practice that sheds light on the conceptual framework, the underlying motivations and the specific context in which this practice was developed.</p> <p><span>The central question in this issue of <i>OASE</i> is how design can proactively engage with future users and possibilities of use. This involves much more than the legitimation of design choices and is not limited to discussions on user participation or user-centred design. We are, for example, interested in the various ways in which possibilities of use are conditioned by changes in the public or private character of a space, its accessibility, its visibility, etcetera. We are equally interested in projects that carve out conditions outside of the public-private dichotomy and create new collective worlds, new commons, counter spaces of the urban regularity. We would like to include practices that move beyond the classical role play of client, architect, user, and situate design in a broader ecology of actors and users. We are looking for practices that display a keen awareness of the possible positive or negative impact of architectural or urban intervention and incorporate that reflection in the design. Strategies that work for the protection of the city as use value against the effects of land speculation, for instance, belong in this category. We are looking projects that conceive of use as a learning process and explore together with users the changing meaning of architecture. There is room for places concerned with reuse, reappropriation and the recycling of building elements and materials. We are interested in projects that work with traces of use (cf. usure), that conceive of use as patina rather than wear and tear. In the relationship between architecture and furnishing, and between furniture and its use we may also find clues for an architecture of appropriation. We look for contributions discussing questions of multiple use and appropriation, of different temporalities of use, time windows and rhythms, temporary and permanent.</span></p> <p><b>Deadline for full papers: 20 August 2015</b></p> <p><span>Papers may be written in English or in Dutch.<br> You may contact the editors to discuss possible contributions.<br> The selection of papers will be made in function of the quality of the papers and the diversity of practices.</span></p> <p><a>evervloesem@architectureworkroom.eu</a><span><br> </span><a>Michiel.Dehaene@ugent.be</a><br></p><br>
          • 2015

            • Date string
              15/05/2015
              Title
              Translucent oppositions. OMA’s proposal for the 1980 Venice Architecture Biennale. Léa-Catherine Szacka in conversation with Rem Koolhaas and Stefano de Martino
              Educated text tagged
              <p><b>Léa-Catherine Szacka </b><b>[</b><b>LCS</b><b>]</b><b>:</b><span> In 1980, OMA was invited to be one of the 20 exhibitors in the <i>Strada Novissima</i> at the Venice Biennale, entitled <i>The Presence of the Past</i>. Last year, in the catalogue of the 14th Biennale, you referred to that exhibition, saying that it felt like the end of architecture as we know it, and pointing out to the beginning of the Reagan era in 1981 and to the advent of neoliberalism. The <i>Strada Novissima</i> was a marketplace, the perfect performative space of consumption. How did you perceive this pivotal postmodern moment?</span></p> <p><b>Rem Koolhaas </b><b>[</b><b>RK</b><b>]</b><b>:</b><span> I think the year 1980 marked the introduction of postmodernism at an enormous scale in Europe. I have always thought that postmodernism was the style <i>par excellence</i> of market economy. There was a strange discrepancy: probably the thinkers involved in the exhibition had the impression that they were working on a highly intellectual enterprise, with a lot of historical sophistication and dimension. But actually, I, at the time, perceived the exhibition as the first manifestation of the free market. The <i>Strada Novissima</i> showed what architecture, ruled by the market economy, would imply. </span></p> <p><span>figure 1: <i>Strada Novissima</i>, Venice Architecture Bienniale 1980 (© Paolo Portoghesi).</span></p> <p><b>LCS: </b>It was not the inception of postmodernism, it was merely its diffusion to a larger public. </p> <p><b>RK: </b>It was the Europeanization of postmodernism. I lived in New York in the 1970s, so I was there when American postmodernism was born and when the arguments for it were being developed. I had an intimate overview of all the authors and how they interacted. I was alert to what postmodernism implied and I was horrified when I realized that it had reached Europe. That is probably why I tried to show a strong opposition to it. Taking part in the 1980 Venice Architecture Biennale was the occasion to make my opposition manifest.</p> <p><b>LCS:</b> As stated in the catalogue you were asked to design a facade: your dwelling or a personal museum, a space for the exhibition and sale of your own ideas. In other words: a billboard or a self-portrait. You went for a very simple design: a semi-translucent canvas, exposing the Arsenale. Lifted in the bottom left corner, the fabric was pierced by a red pole holding a neon sign saying OMA (or AMO). Your facade was not a copy of a facade from another project. It was a project in itself. How did it come about?</p> <p><b>RK: </b>Stefano made the drawings. We always had difficulties designing facades so this project was confronting us with our incompetence in a way. We had to do a kind of anti-facade or a non-facade.</p> <p><b>Stefano de Martino </b><b>[</b><b>SdM</b><b>]</b><b>:</b> The piece of canvas was a temporary screen the only concession to an exterior presence was the OMA neon sign. We did not play the formalist game, proving that architecture can be very little, that you can concentrate on content.</p> <p><span>figure 2: <i>Strada Novissima</i>, OMA/Rem Koolhaas, drawing by Stefano de Martino (© OMA).</span></p> <p><b>LCS:</b><span> Rem, in 2011 you said, in an interview with Charles Jencks in <i>Architectural Design</i>: we were uncomfortable with the notion of the street. </span></p> <p><b>RK: </b>I hated the idea of having to do a facade, even more a facade to represent oneself. So there were essentially a number of things that we wanted to avoid.</p> <p><b>SdM:</b> Yes, and the Biennale confirmed that we were on the right track. To know that we were in a minority was exhilarating. We upset a lot of people. Everyone else fell into a camp: the morphologists who couldnt help considering cities as pieces of cheese that you cut up in blocks, and those who could only think of the wow factor of their inventions We were trying to see what was essential, before you need bricks. When you have a system of relations, then you have architecture. </p> <p><b>LCS:</b> Your facade, like all the others, was built by the set designers of Cinecittà. In what way did this imposed collaboration between architecture and cinema change the outcome? Could we speak of a fictional element in the facade? </p> <p><b>RK: </b><span>Our facade was fundamentally different. It was not even made by the Cinecittà technicians. But I think that the role of Cinecittà in the exhibition was tremendously interesting in the sense that it represented an early announcement of how unsubstantial architecture had become. <i>Delirious New York</i> was also about that: showing that architecture was no longer a substance but an illusion. </span></p> <p><b>SdM:</b><span> We were never into facadism. Maybe now that its all about facades, you dont hear this word anymore, but at the time it was an insult. We saw the <i>Strada Novissima</i> as a kind of postmodern Potemkin village. Knowing the people invited, we could very well imagine what would happen. We knew it would be a horrendous pastiche. Our project moved in another direction: it was ephemeral, non-referential, and it produced its own logic, defining a situation instead.</span></p> <p><b>LCS: </b>Behind the facade you presented two projects concerned with preservation: one dealing with a medieval fortress, the extension of the Dutch parliament in The Hague (1978); and the renovation of the panopticon prison in Arnhem (1980). These projects resonated with the gesture of the wall: they were about opening the wall, creating a breach. How and why were these projects shown? </p> <p><b>RK: </b><span>We didnt have a lot of work, and these were the two things that we were working on. By coincidence they both addressed the conversion of historical compound. The approach did not fit with the exhibition mentality. It was a convenient demonstration of how history could be approached in a different way. It was only when I started working on <i>Cronocaos </i>that I realized how consistently that has been a theme of our work. To some extent, I am a child of that mentality, but it took a different expression. </span></p> <p><b>SdM: </b><span>Next to the large charcoal, the watercolour drawings and the tiny models in plexi cases was Rems text Our New Sobriety, with the assertion that the plan is of primary importance. I remember quite some people were puzzled: What is he saying? <i>Ma che</i>?!. But that was the real message. Rem wrote the text in ten minutes flat, in London. This manifesto was published in the catalogue for OMAs first retrospective at the AA, in 1981.</span></p> <p><b>RK</b>: The text, together with our non-facade, was a way of asserting difference.</p> <p>figure 3: <span><i>Strada Novissima</i>, OMA/Rem Koolhaas (© Charles Jencks).</span></p> <p><b>LCS: </b><span>You elaborated the project for the <i>Strada Novissima</i> parallel to the study for Boompjes Rotterdam (1980) and for housing projects in Berlin: Kochstrasse/Friedrichstrasse (1980) and Lützowstrasse (for IBA 1984).</span></p> <p><b>RK: </b><span>For Boompjes we were invited after the Biennale. It was the moment of separation between Elia Zenghelis and myself. The Dutch parliament project was still a collaboration, while the prison one was already just us. The separation was never about issues, it was just that it became difficult to work on the emergence of an architecture office, as a team. I dont think that the Biennale influenced these projects, nor the other way around, but it could be that the Biennale made Boompjes possible, that it helped us to get the commission. A lot of things were coming together: in 1978 I published <i>Delirious New York</i>, then we almost won the competition for the Dutch parliament, and then there was the Biennale.</span></p> <p><b>SdM:</b> The Koch/Friedrichstrasse project was an alternative to the idea of the city current at the time the street, making facades, rebuilding blocks It took as a model the courtyard house, which has a boundary but no facade, and a void at its core, the inversion of a block. Next to the Berlin Wall, on a site with little substance left, this seems almost contextual</p> <p><b>LCS: </b><span>What about the relation between the <i>Strada</i> and later OMA-projects?</span></p> <p><b>SdM:</b> The polemic was more relevant than the project itself. With the proposals for the Exposition Universelle in Paris, right after the competition for Parc de la Villette in 1982, we elaborated an immaterial, ephemeral architecture to get away from representation, especially in relation to the national pavilions. Architecture as national representation becomes very exhibitionist: its all about facades. In our proposal, the plan organises the activities on the two sites, focusing on the systemic aspects of the program