"From Pessimism to Optimism."
By Philip Jodidio

The International Conference on Architecture and Cities for the 21st Century took place in the newly inaugurated Congress Center of Valencia, a futuristic building designed by Sir Norman Foster. After opening remarks by the Mayor of Valencia, Sra Rita Barberá Nolla, and by Ms. Minja Yang, Director of Information of the UNESCO World Heritage Center and General Coordinator of the Conference, the floor was given to Professor Hubert-Jan Henket.

Professor Henket described the activities of DOCOMOMO at the beginning of the morning session. In particular, he explained how this organization has carried out a rigorous selection process leading to the nomination of certain essential 20th century buildings for the UNESCO World Heritage list. He recalled that, at its origin, modernity in architecture was "opposed to earlier tradition." It may be interesting to note that the success of the Modern movement was such that the reason for the existence of DOCOMOMO today is to preserve and protect the heritage of a school which was founded on the rejection of the past. Clearly put, his organization wishes to preserve the monuments of Modernism so that they may serve as examples for future generations. In a sense, the very success of the movement has brought it about full circle, denying its own founding principles.

The intervention of the French architecture critic François Chaslin, which followed that of Professor Henket, was more philosophical. Chaslin sought to answer the complex question of "what the avant-garde means today." In fact, he spoke with a certain nostalgia about what might best be described as the end of the avant-garde. The concept of the Modern movement, which rejected past tradition, was naturally linked to the revolutionary ideas which held sway early in the century. Today, says Chaslin, there is no longer any possibility of a revolutionary movement for critics to define promote. François Chaslin made reference to the simultaneous emergence of the Punk and Post-Modern movements around 1977. The slogan of the first was "No Future," while the latter called for a new "Presence of the Past." In these slogans, and in the styles they embodied, Chaslin sees an essential turning point. In the evolution of contemporary architecture away from revolutionary change, away from the rejection of the past, which he says has occurred since 1977, François Chaslin finds reason for doubt, or even for fear.

There was very little trace of fear in the following intervention, that of Sir Norman Foster, who gave a series of examples which show just how contemporary architecture can respond to its urban and historic environment. The sensitivity which his buildings project vis-à-vis their environment is as clear a sign as any that the past is no longer being rejected by contemporary architecture. Sir Norman does not propose a revolution of any kind, but rather a series of interventions which may lead to the improvement of the urban environment, for example through the creation of new public spaces, or of buildings which demonstrate their respect for the environment, such as his new headquarters for the Commerzbank in Frankfurt. Sir Norman also spoke at length of his study of the traffic patterns in central London. He demonstrated convincingly that closing certain areas such as Trafalgar Square to car traffic could return broad sections of the city to pedestrians - areas which have for many years been overwhelmed by vehicular pollution.

As compared to the very large scale of the projects of Sir Norman Foster, the remarks of the Belgian architect Lucien Kroll, provided an interesting counterpoint. He argued not for massive change, or even for the demolition of the aberrations of the modern movement, but rather for an architecture of modesty, diversity and a certain form of rehabilitation. He spoke of "homeopathic architecture" as a remedy to the repetitive, inhuman housing and public construction of the modern era. Here, clearly, there is an attitude which does not find solace in the construction of massive new buildings, but which does point, in an optimistic way toward the improvement of the links between architects and the people who are called on to live in their buildings. The simple fact recalls Kroll, is that architects, in front of their white sheets of paper, often forget that diversity and individuality are more the human lot than rigidity and identical characters.

Luc Tessier, who spoke after Lucien Kroll gave a lucid presentation of the François Mitterrand's Grand Travaux in Paris. He recalled that the dozen or so interventions carried out by the French government in the 1980's succeeded in stimulating French architecture and in adding a number of new monuments to the city's skyline, but not necessarily in improving the overall quality of life, or in improving the difficult situation of large numbers of the city's inhabitants. Coming from one of the high French officials responsible for these projects, Tessier's admission on this front is significant, even if improving social conditions was never one of the declared goals of the Grands Travaux.

In the afternoon session, through a convincing series of statistical documents, E. Michiel Haas emphasized the health and environmental impact of building materials. Until a recent date, contemporary architecture has clearly taken the environment too little into consideration. The optimism born of the revolutionary sentiment described by François Chaslin in the morning session, and the overriding need to build following the Second World War and the economic prosperity which followed, were clearly not conducive to taking the environment into account in any significant way. Ecological concerns are today coming to the forefront because of the realization that growth and therefore the expansion of new construction have reached their limits.

The Italian architect Andrea Bruno spoke about the role of architecture in safeguarding and preserving the continuity of memory. He pointed out that architecture, even at its most durable is far from being eternal, and that most monuments have been consistently modified over time. For this reason, he prefers to speak of the "reappropriation" rather than of the "restoration" of architecture. Instead of a sterile, superficial nostalgia for the past, he calls for a constructive use of what went before. This attitude, he affirms, was that of previous centuries, which did not hesitate to transform the buildings of earlier times and to put them to good, contemporary use. Andrea Bruno affirmed that no single style can take into account the diversity of the challenges facing his profession, but that each new situation demands a reaction conceived of terms of the specific problems posed.

The following intervention, that of Mr. Eduardo Mangada's was intended to highlight the need for modern cities to change. A city which cannot adapt to the shifting requirements of the times, he said, is condemned to die. Mangada sees a number of priorities for the urban environment. He says that it is necessary to refurbish structures which have the value of bridges between the past and the present; to add new buildings either in empty spaces, such as the landfill created in Barcelona, or to replace outdated ones, without fearing the necessary act of demolition when it is warranted. In this respect, Mangada expressed his disagreement with the kind of transformative reuse suggested by Lucien Kroll. He also took a provocative stance, saying that he "loves concrete" and does not necessarily find great interest in matters of ecological concern. He called for a careful selection of urban projects, chosen with respect to an overall plan. He cited the danger of building isolated if spectacular structures, such as the Valencia Congress Center, if that fact calls into doubt the improvement of other city areas.

For the Cuban architect Ricardo Porro, who is presently a resident of Paris, architecture is the "creation of a poetic framework" which takes function into account. He spoke of a "romantic architecture" which "makes what is finite appear to be infinite". His School of Fine Arts in Havana calls on local imagery but also on his desire to give a "feminine" aspect to architecture, which is usually dominated by male imagery. "I detest clean architecture," says Porro, "the dirtier it is, the better I like it." He goes so far as to compare parts of his buildings to parts of the human body - such as breasts or intestines. Calling on his own artistic talents or on the culture of Cuba, Ricardo Porro clearly is an individualist, the living proof that contemporary architecture can take as many forms as there are types of culture, or that it can be as varied as specific circumstances may require. Here again, the message is that the artificial standardization of modernism is truly a thing of the past.

The "archeology of Japanese cities" was the subject of Ms. Itsuko Hasegawa, one of the most outstanding contemporary Japanese architects. She pointed out that change is constant in modern cities, and spoke of a "fluctuating architecture" which is in tune with the rhythms of the human body. Japanese cities she says, have for the most part grown in response to topographical conditions rather than along the lines of any planning scheme. Although major Japanese population centers such as Tokyo have been described as "chaotic," Ms. Hasegawa feels that they would be better described as "fluctuating cities," changing and responding to the needs of their inhabitants. She see a continuum between the planning of a building, its construction, use, and eventual disappearance. She says that the task of architects should be to be dynamic and adapt themselves to changing social currents. Including and reflecting the events which occur in the design and construction of a building seem to her to be a natural process. In ideal terms she defines architecture as a social art.

On the whole, it might be said that these interventions moved from the pessimism displayed by François Chaslin, whose nostalgia for an era of revolutionary change was almost palpable, and who finds cause in that fact fear, to the optimism of very different types displayed by Sir Norman Foster and Lucien Kroll. It should be recalled that the very presence of architects of the quality of those who intervened in this discussion are very rare on the scale of the large cities of the world. Even the massive projects of Sir Norman Foster can change no more than a part of one city at a time. Thus the idea of a more human, "homeopathic" intervention as described by Lucien Kroll would seem to be one of the most optimistic conclusions to be drawn from the words of these specialists.

Contemporary architecture has been liberated both from the constraints of the past which required adherence to specific styles, but it has also been freed of its fear of history. Where architecture is no longer trying to turn its back on the past, perhaps it can engage the future in a more positive mood, with a certain modesty and the realization that architects have an important role to play in making the increasingly important urban environments of the world livable and even pleasant. The desire to create "exemplary buildings" expressed by the Mayor of Valencia, and Ms. Minja Yang's remarks about the need to view the patrimony of mankind not only as a matter of historic monuments but also as one of a true coexistence with the past, set out the terms of this debate.

The interventions of the participants, whether concerned about the direction of architectural criticism or engaged in the actual work of improving the built environment, went consistently in the direction of declaring that there is a new spirit in contemporary architecture. There is clearly no longer a dominant style, but this must certainly not be interpreted as a negative situation, one in which there might indeed be "no future." Rather, today, the architect has been liberated to take into account the past, and he has once again been given the responsibility which was historically his, of creating buildings which are respectful of the urban environment, truly integrated into their surroundings in every sense of the term. Any dominant style, such as Modernism was in its heyday, would forcibly deny the sensitivity which architects are being called on to express today. Theirs is a great challenge and a great responsibility. Their lucidity in the face of this challenge, one might even say their maturity, is an encouraging sign.