Jean-Philippe Vassal

Transcription

Tonight we have Anne Lacaton and Jean-Philippe Vassal as our guests and lecturers. I have to begin this presentation saying that we had a very special relationship since our career began. So maintaining a friendship along many indicates. In several cases, I have written about their work. And the last time-- one year and a half or something like that-- in the [inaudible], four years ago? Probably four years ago. But I want to introduce them by saying that both of them studied in the School of Architecture in Boulder, finishing their studies about 1980. Then they had some experiences in town planning, and traveling to West Africa to Nigeria. They returned some years later to France. Since then, they have taught in different schools of Europe, but also the States, and have been a [inaudible] professor at the GSD in study abroad in 2010, 2011. She has been teaching in Los Angeles, and in the ETSAM in Madrid. Almost every year, she comes a couple of days. And Philippe has taught in Dusseldorf, in Los Angeles also, Berlin, and now continues teaching in Berlin in UDK school as a professor. From the moment they finished their Latapie house in 1993, very well-known because of the winter garden that spans the interior of the house, they have gained prestige with an architecture celebrated for its social proposed, economy of means, and critical understanding of sustainability with a position very much constructed in discussing the whole bureaucratic apparatus around the lead ranking systems, et cetera, et cetera. Low tech and alternative architecture have been always [inaudible] associated with them. That in my understanding, explain very superficially both their work and their success. In the sense of the success, I have to say they have won very important awards along their career, including the Grand Prix nationale [inaudible] in France, the International Philosophy of [inaudible] in 2009, and the [inaudible] Award, et cetera, et cetera. And they have also some-- oh not award, the finalist, no? And they have written-- I was thinking with what. And they have some monographs published, and essays. Some of them published in Spain by Gigi, two in France, one at least in Germany, and one in Japan. That's just the A plus U, the geography. Well, I don't want it to be too long. But it's going to be a little bit longer than I wanted. The only important thing I want to say in this introduction is that some critics have overemphasized a relatively naive of these architects, confusing the apparent simplicity of their projects with a sort of anti-architectural approach. Or have emphasized the social side, setting it against the usual formalist ticks, which are the two different ways to understand their work. I think that to perceive their works seriously, we have to address the fact that they have constructed a very personal discourse that is removed from these two lines. The basis of these schools maybe link it to an experience of culture, of our generation that has not many difficulties. I mean, it has a kind of easiness to navigate between high and low culture. And this has created its own signs of identity from this kind of mixing of popular culture, and certain more sophisticated references. One of them, for me, is very obvious. And I think that today we will have a demonstration. Is Mies van der Rohe. I mean, Mies van der Rohe is understood as a social architect, which he was not, by the way. But taking the Lake Shore Drive apartment as a model that, obviously, has been replicated by many, many times losing the original qualities of the model, its special dignity, internal fluidity, and projection towards the landscape that constitute the true nature of the prototype invented in the Lake Shore Drive. They have come back to this kind of basis of the prototype. When they began proposing to restore Social Towers instead of demolishing them, adding perimeter rings as buffer spaces around, just adding exactly the same thing, a special dignity, internal fluidity, and projection towards landscape. So I think that this integrity of the work of Mies van der Rohe read in very different terms is very present in their work. Also, we can talk about Levi-Strauss, Claude Levi-Strauss, the structural anthropologist, especially his love for primitive or aboriginal cultures, and for the city too. And very present, almost in a literal way, in the firm origin in Africa, and the love that they have maintained since then for ultra basic solutions in whatever commission they have where others see opportunities for unfolding formal exuberance. Still today, they assist in showing in their lectures-- I don't know if today you will do it-- the primitive straw built by them in May in mid-1984, a place where necessity and lack of resources helps to reinforce the authenticity of the work of the architect. And authenticity is a word that explains very well their attitude. There are many other references. I always comment-- and this is something that Marcos Garcia Rojo which is around told me time ago that one of the favorites films of the film is [inaudible] erotic film [french], a splendid celebration. I love this film too, a splendid celebration of humor, improvisation, and blue collar attitude, attitudes that only constraints can impose so radically, as the film shows. And I think that this film has a great impact in the methodology of work at the office. Or I would-- just to close this very long presentation. I'm sorry for this. Is the influence of Michel de Montaigne, and his amazing invention of the figure of the essay in the last decades of the 16th century. I think it's clearly a source of inspiration for them. All the essays are in Michel de Montaigne are always for surprising and paradoxical, at the same time obvious but respectful of what was already there. This happens in their project in Dunkerque, where instead of fulfilling with new slabs the barn that was the origin of the program, they just planned to duplicate it, and maintained integrity of the original. And they were able to win the competition, which is very lucky to have a good jury that understand the economy and efficiency of the idea. And I just want to conclude here saying that what we see in the work of Lacaton and Vassal is that nothing in architecture is what it looks like at first glance. Many have confounded the apparent simplicity with a rejection of style or architectural culture, as if just social concerns were able to produce memorable architecture. My understanding is exactly the opposite. Only by unfolding the cultural layers that are condensed in their work, only through sophisticated continuity with history, context, city, modernist industrial business systems we will be able to understand their success and the lessons their work bring to all for us tonight. Please join me in welcoming Anne and Jean-Philippe. Thank you very much for your talk and your invitation. We will present some of our projects. And it's never easy to select some of them. Because we love all of them. And they are all connected, responding, continuing a way. But first before presenting this project, we would like to share, briefly, the state of our personal positions and philosophy of design today. Sorry to read again something. But it's-- the city from and by housing, the conditions for a city are based on the combination of two objectives. To produce quality of living, situations for great comfort intensifies a territory. These ambitions have to remain inter-dependent and simultaneous. It is no longer possible to claim the evolution of the city without questioning the reasons to live and stay there. Defending the pleasure of living seems, for us, eminently political today. The special generosity is the starting point of a possible social life. To transform the city is first to transform the way we look at it. It means to look at it as a collection of capacities and energies to expand, and not as an inert mass for modeling. It is to think at the city as an aggregation of activities and living spaces. Attitude-- it means to provide extraordinary responses in terms of quality of housing. In priority, it means to make all existing situation outstanding by giving priority to what is unloved, disastrous, or unfinished to all that is sensitive. This is not to increase urban disparity by emblematic or isolated actions, but to re-balance the functions and urban pleasures. At the same time, it is to initiate the construction of new housing in synchronized action with a transformation or fragile, already-existing situations. And to ask simple questions. Is there everything needed there? What is missing? Accurately, it is a work that focuses on accuracy, sensitivity, kindness, attention. And attention paid to people uses structures, trees, paved soils, bugs, everything that already exists. And that has allowed, so far, to host, to guide, to charm. It is to consider with equal attention all kind of geographies. It is to study the potential for evolution and transformation of each constructed situation, each already-equipped territory. The inventory is a tool of knowledge. The inventory-- exhaustive, comprehensive, accurate data needs, states, aims the gathering of information and parameters to go beyond the usual generic terms-- housing, urban form, zoning. It examines the factual situations. It lists needs case-by-case. And it focuses on the variety of scales, characters, constraints, regulations, absences, challenges, and opportunities. The inventory is based on the expertise already undertaken by urban actors and pushes it forward. Precepts-- it is about never demolishing. It is about to never undoing, but to add and strengthen the balance of existing urban organizations. It is about not cutting what is alive. It is about allocating investments in order to achieve improvements and new achievements so that everyone has a direct benefit of the public action. It is about removing housing from its financial and social classifications. It is about opposing to the principle of housing as a financial product in order to adapt offer and needs. It is about providing housing with the generosity of views that has been missing for 50 years. The unit of urban measurement is housing-- not housing in general, but one house or one flat. It means a continuous attention to its inhabitants multiplied 10,000 times, 50,000 times, one million times. Urban planning, it's a sequential, multiplicative, and simultaneous urbanism dedicated to make consistent the entire existing territory with the essential rights of its use-- home, freedom of mobility, and access, to write to a remarkable environment serenity and security. The city is conceived as a series of to be continued situation and mobilities-- living well, to be well into your living room, to stay in front of a door, being close to services, shops, feeling well while walking through the park, meet people. Any intention of densification must be linked to the strategy of relationships and ease and continuity between the quality of an interior, a common era, and a public space. Density-- to densify means providing more space without compressing individual space, to give the ability to housing and residents to experience plenty of situations, the ordinary as extraordinary. Freedom, mobility, porosity, generosity, should form the foundation of any discussion on densification. To densify carefully, to extend the existing situation, do not to wasting land, to involve a separate imposition strategy of proximity case by case to agglomerate, to expand, and to add. So it's really about freedom and inhabiting. And constantly these questions, to be inside, to live, to inhabit, and this question of freedom. So Africa was probably our second school after the School of Architecture in Boulder, just to do, or to try to do, with nearly nothing-- with nothing, or nearly nothing. Just what you have around you, some branches fixed in the sand, some straw around the branches, the roof, the fence, the roof, a landscape, the desert, it's a fantastic luxury to live there. And we tried to go on with this image on all of our projects. The idea of luxury, of simple things, and about also this question of less is more that can be today also think in the way of cheap is more. Because today this question to use the economy in order to do the maximum seems, for us, a very important challenge. So it is possible in the same projects to do double space. Because to increase freedom, to allow more freedom, more possibilities for a family that has not so much money in order to give more possibilities and more freedom. This is our challenge, our goal, on different situations-- this idea of flight, air, to do with what exists, to do it the same. And to create different conditions, and new conditions, of living. The House Latapie [inaudible] was talking about. It was 20 years ago. But also, in Mulhouse, the possibility to keep on this challenge for social housing, 20 flats in Mulhouse, and to see how it is possible to try to work with this minimum, and to adapt to new situations. How it is possible just to superimpose two systems, two completely different systems. One is just one very efficient structural system of concrete with columns, , beams and floors. On top of it with a professional auto control greenhouse with all its equipment for creating climate. So capacity by the concrete system, and controlling the climate with the professional greenhouse system. And by the combinations of the two, the possibility to create flats and apartments there. With here, again, double space-- double space to say that the program of a house with two bedrooms, one living room, one bathroom, and one kitchen, should be not take at this restricted dimension, but should have some more space, free space, in order to expand. To expand other possibility, to invite friends, to have many other occupations, to give possible some surprises of the life. And to leave people expand their wishes and their character. So just this system that allows these two places, and then to see, oh, you can make a partition of it, giving each of the ground, each of the upper floor, each of the facade, to all the apartments in order to produce with the same budget of flats that should have 80 square meters, flats that is 180 square meters. And that will give these possibilities of life. Different possibilities of use, perhaps placing in the winter gardens things that, as an architect, we would never think that would be there. But being confident with the user and the inhabitant to use this capacity. Always, this relation between inside and outside, just transparency, just possibility to filter, to reduce the light if you need. But all the time, to have the maximum possible. Double space not only for housing. But housing is everywhere. Housing is here. Housing is in the school. Housing is in the city. Inhabiting is situations to be well in any place of the city. For us, it is this idea that today inhabiting becomes the most challenging objective for architects and urban planners in order to make the city comfortable and full of pleasures. For the School of Architecture in Nant, the question was also the same. In a very nice place in the center of Nant, to see what system could allow the highest level of freedom for 1,000 students and their professors. So to take all the parcel, all the plots, to occupy all the plot. And then on these plots to install a system of very, very high capacity, perhaps like an old industrial building that could have been there on the harbor or Nant before, but that it is no more here. So a system of a grid of 11 meter by 11 meter supporting some floors of a capacity of one ton by square meter. And the first main floor is at nine meters high, the second one at 16 meter high. And the third, that it is a roof, is at 23 meters high. And all of them have this capacity of one ton by square meter. And then a ramp, large ramp, of eight meters large, like a street, takes the people, or the cars, or the vehicles from the ground floor. And takes them to the nine meters, and then 16 meters, and then 23 meters, giving axis. The grid is the tool for the economy, the tool for the efficiency, the tool for the robustness. Some stairs and elevators, and the starting of the ramp that develops from ground to the next levels. And makes a sort of promenade from the ground floor of the city of Nant and then to a sort of terrace 24 meters high up. Opening possibilities-- all the floors in the school of Nant make a total edition of 30,000 square meters, when the program is 9,000 square meters. And the budget was about 9,000 square meters. But the idea was to keep on the budget, to stay in the budget, and to propose these 30,000 square meters of capacity and possibilities for the school. So a sort of huge space with huge heights where could be a building there before in which the school of architecture could install itself. A skeleton made with the minimum of concrete, but in the same time with the maximum of robustness, and the maximum of heights in order to achieve the possibility to different programs to install in it. So then inside this main structure, a secondary structure that takes its support from each of the main floors, and that will allow some mezzanine, some amphitheater it, in order to install the program of school architecture in this soft of loft with places for mezzanine, and different occupations in function of the levels. And then inside the system, to think of different climates. You have a green climate that it is a climate of the program, something that is you have in all the school other standards with regular temperature. And the blue one is a sort of intermediate climate between the climate of outside and the resulting of the climates in the green, and also the passive energy of the sun that makes this space totally usable, even if it is not at the right temperature or the year-- and to propose different capacity in different kind of space and climate. Then inside the system, the project develops. The ramp develops, organizing the connections with all the main situations. The auditorium opens to the street in order to have this interaction between inside and outside. The cafeteria occupies the ground floor. The nine meters volume gives a possibility for making huge models for the students, always with this relation inside outside, trying to open the different possibilities to have a concert, to have this auditorium open to the river and the outside for different presentations, or different sets of elements. Trying to work all the time with this porosity between what is inside and what is outside. But also giving this possibility of these kind of little meetings, where one professor can go in a corner and just have a view of the river and the city, makes a little speech with his students. Giving the possibility to go where the sun is, or to use the space, additional space, for performance and events. Always, this relation inside to outside, with sliding doors opening to a little balcony. And this possibility of views to be in your studio working on the models, looking to some friends on the level below. And then further on, the bridge, and the river, and the city-- transparency, visibility, porosity, mixing of climates, mixing of possibilities, opening the freedom to have a piano, or to make nets for rest. And the ramp, climbing, offering different kind of spaces, opening different panorama towards the city of Nant. And then 2,000 square meters free space on top of the school with the possibility of meetings, dance parties, or cinema at some moments. So opening the possibilities, offering this freedom of use. The other space here also in Dunkirk in this area that you see there so flat without nothing. Because before there was the harbor here, a very strong harbor with a lot of energy. And unfortunately, all the [inaudible] that were here have disappeared except one, one that you keep for nostalgia. Because to say we have to keep one as a memory of the workers there. You see how it was before. And all this is left, and now a sort of tabula rasa, and people trying to invent a new city. A building for nostalgia and memory, it was-- they call it the cathedral. Because there they were repairing boats, big boats inside this building. It is 30 meters high, 30 meters large, and 80 meters long. And the question here, it was to fill it with a program for art center, storage of art pieces and also exhibition spaces and administration. So the program was to use this space of 2,000 square meters on the ground floor, and this height, in order to have several levels for a program of 10,000 square meters of storage and exhibition rooms. And for us, it was strange to consider that the building was interesting only for its external view. But we had to think of all it was inside. Because here inside was the energy. Here inside was a work of the people. Here inside is the capacity. And for us, it was strange to imagine a competition where people ask you to fill this with new architecture, with new floors inside. So instead to work inside this big halle, we make a double building. We install an exactly the same building just on the site of the first one. And we put the program on the new one-- so in order to keep the first one totally empty. With the new one, transparent one with the storage and the exhibition rooms. Instead to fill the building to say, no, there is no nostalgia. There is no memory. The question is ambition. Ambition it is to double, and to have two times more possibilities. It was more simple to work outside than inside. It was more economic to work outside than inside. And it offers two times more volumes. And it keeps, I think, what is the most important-- this inside space free as it is with this real memory of what happens inside before. So building double in the same budge with this careful attention to economy in order to give more possibilities and more freedom. So now it's open. It's a art center with the use of the first original building, the cathedral, and new equipments like the entrance hall and the cafe opening to the exhibitions room in the new building. A new building that's totally different. Because the first one is quite opaque. This one is totally transparent and open to see around, and to the harbor around. When One from the first one, you are surprised by this huge volume, here you have a system of stairs and elevators that makes you going very high in order to have the views and the panorama all around you. So huge spaces with the connection of art, different possibilities to exhibit, with always these views and balconies to the sea. And here the view on the marsh. Here the view on the harbor. Views that you never had before, like looking from up to down, to the first big building. Building double seems, for us, interesting challenge in order to give to the program more freedom and no restriction. And as a point Anne was talking about is precision-- precision and delicacy to do with. But it is always connected with this African lesson that we had to do with in any circumstances. And when you are just close was to the sea, when you are in a forest on a parcel, well, you have plenty of beautiful pine trees. The question it is to say, how is this possible? It is possible to inhabit here, but to keep the site exactly as it is. It means never cutting a tree, never taking away a root, and using the dune, the sand dune, with the exact shape as it is, and being extremely precise to install a house, and to participate to this context. Even the light-- because normally it should be dark to go under a house-- it is possible to use the reflection of the sun on the sea the order to have this reflection coming from down to up, reflecting on the aluminum of the ceiling. And making this beautiful light under it. So it is just thinking very precisely how to mix two systems-- the existing systems of the trees, of the forest, of the roots that are particularly fragile. And then a steel structure that could go inside. And that could give the conditions to install a family here. So we have very, very precise foundations. We have a systems of [inaudible] that makes the house quite high over the sand dune, and that opens the view over the little bushes that you have in the direction of the sea. So all the trees of the black ducts are all there-- 50 at the beginning of the construction, 50 at the end of the construction. It was clear that if we had to say, this one, we should cut it, the challenge is no more here. There is no more excitement to do the project. No, to keep all of them, even this one that it is in the passage between the toilets and the bathroom, and it is a bit too big. It's OK to do. We have to do with this. And to manage all the question, how it moves when there is a wind, how it doesn't touch the structure. Because it's so strong that it could damage the house. And, finally, the main thing is to install a situation. To install a situation, to rest there in the shadow close to the trees. Touch the trees in your house. And to have this view towards the [french]. So to do with the minimum-- here the house was already there. It is like if 80% is already there with the trees, the sand dunes, the panorama, the view, the landscape. And as an architect, just have to add some elements of steel, some concrete, some transparent windows, and that's all, doing with the minimum, and this very precise, delicate attention to all what exists. So it's this kind of project we are sometimes on today, like this what they called ecological cluster neighborhood. And here on this parcel, the question was to say. Or it is possible to build 500 flats at the limit of this forest, which is a natural forest in the city of San Jose, so a forest that was there for all the time. And it's a sort of joke, it's a sort of, we should make this project on the car park of the supermarkets, but not on these places. Anyway, sometimes you are part of these kind of competitions with these sometimes uncomfortable situations to work on. It was clear that placing 500 flats there would destroy the site. Because how to protect the ground, how to protect the soil. So the first element of research that we have done, it is to search about the forest, about these different areas, different qualities, different part of it, different density of forests. And to see what kind of site we had. And to see the danger of building there. Even we find this whole building, that the client even didn't know that he was still there. But we find very interesting an old office building. And what immediately we say, we should not demolish it. And we write to the mayor in order to keep it. And he said, no, it's too late. Even if it was delivering some beautiful views on this situation. So the question was to think of, like in the first project, to see, oh, it was possible to raise over, to make this building that it is just on very long [inaudible]. And we have a pass rail at nine minutes high from the ground. And then the first flat's three meters higher at 12 meters high from the ground on three level. And these stairs coming from the pedestrian way to distribute the system. So a place where you could imagine that instead for the project to take part and to take the place of the forest, it could be possible to go in the other direction, how the forest is able to go back to the city, to take, again, these places that the city take to her. And to imagine that the vegetation could grow and extend with the building in the same time. So we don't see the [inaudible] and the stairs nearly. But a minimum impact on the ground, then the pass rail of distribution at nine meters high. And then the flats at levels 12, 15, and 18 meters. And then year after year, this possibility to the trees to recover the situation. And to install the vegetation, even under the buildings. So we can see here from four years to 10 years, and then from 10 years to 40 years, how the forest could take the place again in direction of the city. So the pathways are only pedestrian. We use this transparency, and this reflection on the materials. And we try to work a maximum with the light in order to push the vegetation. And in the same time, in studying some flats in a fantastic situation, so here the challenge is this one. It is to propose a system to propose an-- but in the same time, to propose a participation for the inhabitants to something that it is just below where they are leaving. How they can be responsible for the re-attractivity of a territory, how they can be responsible in terms of inhabitants to the recovery of the forest in a urban area. And how they can participate to this challenge. To do nearly nothing, like this plaza, the question was, how it is possible to make an embellishment of the plaza. And the answer, after two, three, four months of work and research, was to say, there is nothing to do. And our project is to do nothing. It's our project. And, please, you have to do it like we want. And it has been done like that. Or to do nearly nothing, like this big Palais Tokyo in Paris, where the structure was empty because also of a former project of demolition inside for a former project that never happened. And then this building stayed during two or three years in this situation, empty. And to see how it was possible to make the life again, to make the space free again. And to install a contemporary art center in it. So to do with a minimum budget, and to see how we could take an advantage of the quality, and the extreme strange character of these spaces in order to fulfill the wishes of artists and visitors. So nearly nothing, just giving the minimum for heating, for lighting, leaving the spaces like they are. Just working on this solidity in order to repair the building with a minimum budget. I have a black-- it's OK? It stopped. So I don't know what happens. Yeah, it's come back. So to see in this incredible place, how immediately plenty of artists organized different art spaces-- freedom, again, for visitors. So the Palais Tokyo is now open since 2002. And each year, 800,000 visitors are coming to explore the building. Our challenge was to say everything should be public. Every square meter should be accessible to public. And the Palais Tokyo offers now 20,000 square meters of art space with dark spaces, spaces with light, spaces with transparent roofs, spaces for video. This stairs, that is a new stairs that we imagined to go very deep vertically from the entrance. In order for the artist to choose, because there is so much space, so much ambiances, to choose precisely the ambiance that they like. Precision-- also for in this question of addition, sustainability, how we can consider that sustainability is to make sustainable what already exists. And this is why we work on this study called plus. When the French Minister decided to when there is so many people without housing in France or around Paris, decided to demolish these blocks of the '60s and '70s, we were really sad. And we work with [inaudible] to this question, no, keep them. Just add. Add to situations. Instead to demolish, there's plenty of spaces. Just try from the inside to reveal the spaces, and to reveal the possibilities. Extend, add. And from this situation that it is actually behind the walls, try to think how it is possible to give another quality, and another extension, and other possibilities. So it is in that the way that we transformed to [inaudible] in Paris that was a building built in the '60s, and fortunately damaged in the '80s with the asbestos panels of beautiful pink and red with less windows than before. And where we work on extension, extension by new rooms, and by new winter gardens, new elevators. In order, instead of demolishing, to add. And to propose new possibilities. So instead of that, to have this view, to have new winter gardens in addition. And then all this transformation from inside change, inevitability, the aspect and the view from outside. People were staying during the works, all people, and just have this extension of their flat. In the same principle, another city close to San Jose in La Chine, these very characteristic blocks around the cities in France. And to say, because it's is always this question-- should we demolish? Or should we keep? So here we have a little tower with 10 levels and 40 flats. And to see the possibility to extend, to see how it was possible from this situation to go to this situation, to have new bathrooms that were here before, and to bring them here, to have new balconies in winter garden and for all the four flats at each level. And then at the same time to think about density, how it is possible to add 40 new flats in two wings. And to use this hole in order to distribute some flats here also with particular entrances here. So then to see how by addition, instead of demolition, we can change the situations. Densification-- in order to give more place for each. Each has a much bigger flat. The budget is much lower than the budget of the demolition and reconstruction. And in the same time, small densification, more population, in order to make possible some new shops, some new equipment, some new services on the territory. And in the same times, this same kind of situations- winter garden, in order to save energy in a different way than triple glass, but staying between two glass, it is better if you can have some life between. Always, balcony filter is a possibility for the inhabitant to characterize his climate and his ambiance by the curtains, by the winter garden movement-- and these views on the landscape, and the territory. Today perhaps I present you with this project very quickly. But also it works because we work on this element, this building, this building, and this little building. It is 530 flats all occupied. There is 1% or 2% of unoccupancy. And it is to say instead of demolition, how it is possible to expand the situation. So it's a sort of wall in the city of Bordeaux that was the tests and experiments of decoration in the '80s that doesn't really change the life. With some people that tried to live and to do their best inside, even if the spaces are small, the living room very small, and the view are nice. But this difficulty to have a space, to have freedom, to develop their wishes, to develop their wishes of decoration. But all of this is extremely charming. All of this is-- why should we take this away? Why should we demolish this? And as in the first project with the trees, it is exactly to have the same attitude to say, we have to be so careful with all these posters, with all these furnitures, with all these little boards here, and even make the transformation. So from this situation, to increase to this situation. From this window, to give this possibility. From this kitchen, to open to go outside. And then from this situation for each flat, to give this possibility. Though then very quickly the story-- here you see the first elements of foundations. Then the elements are coming, already prefabricated with all the elements for the rails, for the balcony also already there. And then the change progressively. Eight elements by day, so these can go quite fast. So a lot of work still, but already this is done. But we have already here, and to change this very flat facade in order to give this extension to outside to extend the program. To say is it's not only a living room, bedrooms, bathroom. No, it's also additional space, like a garden. So at the end, the challenge it is that we should have no more flats. We should have only villa everywhere. So you can see here, the system and the process with these prefabricated elements that have their definitive balcony. Then they open under the windows. They cut under the windows. You see here. And then they place the new windows in this situation. Then we have also some [inaudible] to protect so that people can stay inside. And we have this protection in order to avoid from pollution. With the elements to show the walls, take them away, then open again. Place the window, and open to the winter garden. The kitchen, and then the light is different. The way of moving inside your flat is totally different. You have more freedom. And these big winter gardens that are just finished, and that people start to install their furniture inside. So it was like that. And it is like this. So this question of minimum to do the maximum to do with-- so for all the buildings also, I go very fastly, but new buildings with the same character, transparency, air, light, sun, this possibility for the inhabitant to decide by himself he wants to take the curtains or not. To open, or to leave like it is. In Mulhouse, another project, social housing with this same generosity of space, with this same attention and careful attention to the economy, the budget, with the challenge of generosity of space. Very quickly, I am very long perhaps, but very quickly to finish. And to give, perhaps, a question on, and what else? What else it is about, probably something that in some special conditions that could be important for projects. A sort of, we could say, decoration. We could say something else, an inspiration. Here it is in Vienna. And there was a question to make a cafe here, a cafe restaurant here inside these military building. And here this question was just to find some tiles coming from Istanbul. And to install them. And to create this relation between Vienna and Istanbul in order to create this special view. So here it is just one thing, to do nearly nothing except to place these tiles on the ceilings, and creating this reflection. Or in Bordeaux, it is just a very university Buildings for management, so nothing really funny inside. So we would also want to add something on each facade on the five levels at each balcony to create a sort of garden or rose trees-- 650 climbing rose trees with different names all around this facade to create a vertical garden full of flowers. Or sometimes, like this last competition in Guangzhou for the Museum of the City of Guangzhou, the original museum is like this, systems of platforms. And the reference to the symbolic foundation of the city of Guangzhou, five goats that came when the city was a desert. And then when the goats came, they sent some seeds everywhere. And the city become extremely luxurious. So a new plan to make a project of museum inside this context with this pagoda and this beautiful garden in this context of strange buildings. On this parcel here, to work on this situation. And there also to install, like in Nant, a very simple and efficient building, a sort of reference to the National Gallery of Mies van der Rohe in Berlin, a sort of stratification of levels up to 40 meters high with keeping the forest and the pagoda, installing the building totally on the back in order to keep the trees free. Offering different views to the space, and also thinking that something should be inside the building, like this reference to the Statue of Liberty in the [inaudible] in Paris, to say that today the statue should not be on top, but should be inside. And making the combination of these two systems-- the extremely clear and poor architecture of layers, plus this figure inside that inhabits the building. These five goats, symbolic, coming inside. There is not a building that refers to goats or to a special shape. No, it's a very, very clear building referencing to modern architecture, plus a statue inside, a statue that you can touch, a statue that you can go inside, a statute that will define different partitions of rooms, of spaces, inside at different levels. And that will separate a different function like a giant inhabitant up to the roof, where just the head appears. And the last project, actually, in Dakar, the reference to modern architecture. Because we really believe in modern architecture. We really believe in modernity. We really believe in this architecture made in the '50s, '60s in Dakar, Algiers, Buenos Aires, made of generosity, large balconies that we can see here. Here in this place near the market, a project of hotel of 15 levels where you can see some virtual images of the entrance hall, the restaurant the swimming pool, the rooms, and now the construction with the views, and the city on the sea. It's just now in construction. And should be open in ten months, hopefully. So we have shown everything, perhaps too many things, probably, sorry. But it is how we start from this little hut in Africa, and how we try to keep the way and the direction with the same challenges, with the same ambition, and we try with the same generosity. Thank you. [applause] Thank you, thank you. Well, we have some minutes that we can use for some questions. And let me begin with a resume. And I have taken note of the words that both of you made more emphasis. And it's to freedom of use, kindness, case by case, never demolition, generosity, living well, luxury and simple things, cheap is more, capacity, concrete, control climate with the winter garden, housing is everywhere, to do with and with a minimum, densification, economy of budget, and we believe me in modernist architecture. It's a kind of resume. I think it's very consistent whether you have-- I mean, from the very beginning, it's obvious that one of the things that all of us admire in your career is the attitude, the integrity, and the consistency, and a long time. And I think that the lecture has been, in this sense, very impressive. But said that, I just want to ask a couple of things. I mean, I would just refer to two. One is, why only at the end of the lecture and almost with excuses, you mentioned some kind of aesthetic value in your work with the tiles in Vienna, the beautiful cafeteria in Vienna? And I think that there's a kind of constant aesthetic in your work that is really important, it's one of the most important ingredients of your, let's say, formula, or your attitude. And so I'm just wondering, how do you deal with the fact that you have-- I mean, even if you don't like it, you can be described in terms of a style or attitude, if you prefer attitude? But it's almost the same thing for me. And the other thing is very practical. Is one thing that is impressive in all the slides that have this kind of perimeter rings of balconies and winter gardens is the width of the winter garden. I cannot measure, but it's around four meters or something like that. And how have you come to the conclusion that this-- because it's almost in every project or residential project. How have you come to the conclusion that this is the right dimension? Yeah, these two things. And then you have to use the opportunity to ask. I will start with the second question. It makes me time to think to the first one. In fact, for the first project we did, because we were working on prefabricated elements, we were thinking that we could bring the module on a track totally built. It's why the first project was with a module of three meters. But, finally, it was really a view of the spirits that we could bring a module. Because it was not very clever. Because we were bringing a lot of empty space. And it was expensive. So with the contractor, finally we decided to bring only the floors with the hand rails, years and then to build the columns on the site. Finally for the second project, we decided that this three meters were not any more relevant. Because it was not based on the limit given by the tracks to bring three meters element. So for the other projects, and especially in Bordeaux-- because three meters was a little small. Because we had two meters in the winter garden, and one meter balcony. And it was not generous enough. And we decided to add another meter for the project in Bordeaux. So the experience was positive in that way. And for the first question, I think that we don't have any problems with aesthetics. Aesthetics is part of the project. And we know that at the end, we produce aesthetic. And we work precisely. We work with care about the way how construction is done, about the how materials are placed. But the question is that aesthetic is not the preliminary of the project. It's much more a good result of a lot of intentions that, as Jean-Philippe explained, start from the quality of the interior space and the relationships that we introduce from inside to outside. And the outside is as far as we see. it's the reason why the winter gardens and the balconies are also very interesting, and always turning around. Because we want to continue as far as possible the possibility of-- there was something a space after, one after one. And it's one of the qualities of the house on the ground, to have more possibilities and you are on floor. And the last project, in fact, we liked very much this project. And we are very interested in this project. And the question of ornament is not, for us, a problem. Because the force, it's part of architecture. And sometimes some places, they don't need more than a little layer of poetry, of sensitivity, like flowers, or like tiles. And for us, it's not different as keeping trees in the forest, or extending. It's just the question of, when you start a project to have intentions. And to look carefully to situation. And to find the right idea. For the School of Architecture of Nant, for example, we don't need rose trees. Because we think the architectural students, they could organize festivals. They could organize films on the roof, et cetera, et cetera, and invite plenty of friends. And we had the feeling that in the School of Management in Bordeaux, it would not be like that. So it's precisely this. And for housing, the life of people is much better than flowers. And in Palais Tokyo, the artists and the art pieces would be much better than any decoration, or any finishing by the architect. So some projects have this question important. Some others, it is just to think that the-- because we really believe in aesthetics. It's for us, one of the main things of architecture. It's about giving some emotion, giving some sensible situations for the people inside or outside. So it's extremely important. But we have just the feeling that is the result of the process. If for the projects, the thinking, the participation, the decoration of the people, the generosity, the ambition, keeps at its maximum, the aesthetics, the beauty, should be there at the end. And we believe in that. Now we hope it works. Hello, thanks for the talk. I really enjoy your housing, social housing, with this notion of addition, and balconies, on the existing structure. I want to sort of project that into 50 years, for example. And let's say 50 years down the road, they say, this is not enough. Now we need-- this is not good enough. So then would you say that then the next step is another layer of addition. So you add another layer of balconies, or whatever it might be to the existing new layer of that existing building? In other words, when is addition, or generosity, at a certain point not adding actually anything at all, like for practical reasons or conceptually? We think, actually, that this building, there is a sort of statement status of incompleteness. You can see one beautiful building of this period of the '60s on the city of Nice opening to the ocean with very large balconies. It works very well. And some buildings in the '60s around the suburbs of the cities have been done at the minimum. The structure is the same. And the topology is the same. Except that here, you have no balcony. On the other ones, you have very large windows and large balconies. Here, you have small windows and the balcony. So I think the question it is, not to extend, and extend, and extend. It is just to place some existing building to the situations where they should have at the beginning, as the others. It's why this reference to the modern movement, for us, is important, referring to Algiers, to Buenos Aires, to Casablanca, to Dakar. It is this idea that when you are in a block, when you are in a slab like that, your life doesn't finish. It's just limited by the window looking to the void. No, you should make it like a villa. We are very impressed by the case study program here in US, and all our references looking to Pierre Koenig, this sort of simplicity, generosity, but extreme delicacy of the building. So the idea how it is possible to imagine this case study at all the levels of the building. So here, like a villa of Pierre Koenig, it has a garden. Or it has a panorama. Or it has a landscape around. But when you are at the tenth level, or the 15th level, you have the void. So then you should have this possibility of extension like a garden. So there is no necessity to extend two or three times. But one time, to make it at the maximum of generosity, and with minimum balconies. To give this idea of generosity is important. But the city is always moving. I like this idea that the city change, moves, but more by additions than by subtraction. So to do each time with the capacity of the existing, to extend it to, perhaps, to have extensions on the ground floor, to have new equipments, new shops, perhaps it will happen in 10 years, or in 20 years, on the ground floor of these buildings. We hope so. I think that, again, it's not systematic. It's the question of looking at the situation. And studying carefully. And see what is the best solution? Of course, if we had to renovate The Lake Shore Drive, we wouldn't do any addition. Because the quality of housing was already done. And it's done for a long time. So it's just-- again, it's not a question of to develop systems, but to evaluate the situation case by case. Yes? I love the work. Thank you for your presentation. I have an infrastructure question for you. I'm interested in the line that you draw between landscape and your work, or architecture and your work, that line that allows you to go forward or step back. When it comes to infrastructure, let's say in the public housing, the bathrooms the kitchens, the electricity, how does that-- what is your strategy toward generosity in quality of life when it comes to that infrastructure that might not necessarily be enough? I don't understand really-- can you? Yeah, when you have the infrastructure in the housing projects-- the bathrooms and the kitchens that might be as outdated as the buildings themselves, the reason that you've come to the building is to expand, improve the quality of life. But you've left that behind you when you add. So I'm kind of interested what's your strategy toward that? It's a very real-- Perhaps I don't talk about that. But in the same time we make these extensions, it's clear that there is a part inside that we-- for example, these big slabs, we rebuilt the bathrooms with the no equipments of the bathroom. And we do, again, all the electricity of the systems. And before there was one very poor elevator distributing all the two levels, each two levels. And the people, they were obliged to-- and now we add a new elevator that distributes all the levels. And so we have the old one that we keep. And we make stop at all the levels. So you have two elevators when there was only one. So it means that in the same times you makes this extension, you work with the existing for new electricity and for new bathrooms. But in the same time, sometimes some clients could have the wish to make everything white inside-- new paint, new ceilings, et cetera. And when you show these manges, it was clear for us that what people have done during 10 years, 20 years with their poster, with their decoration, with their furniture has to be precisely, carefully take care with. And this is much better than white paint. So it is these kind of attitudes that we try to have in this situation. But you are right. It's necessary to have new electricity. And to repair the bath tubes, the shower, the elements like that. For example, in the project with [inaudible], the 530 dwellings, the cost of extension is 42,000 Euros, more or less US dollars now, more or less. And in this cost, less than half is spent for the extension and the new facade. And 25,000 for the interior refurbishment, as well as new elevators, and security systems, and so on. Last question? Yeah, well, two last questions. OK, I really admired the park where your project was to do nothing. And you went a bit quick on that. Maybe because there's not a lot to say about it. But I was wondering, how does an architect decide to do nothing? Because I loved it. But what do you think about, in order to say, we're doing nothing? I think it's a result of a long work. Because for this square in Bordeaux, it was a project organized by city. And they invited five architects to work on seven different squares. And the question was very clear. Because it talked about embellishment of the city, and embellishment of the square. And they did a first example in the city where they renovated everything. They changed all the floors to make new pavements. They changes all the benches, all the lamps, to make a new design. And the cost was much expensive. And, finally, it was not changing so much. So when we had to work on the square, we have been there. And the first intuition was a very nice intuition. We were charmed by the quality of what we-- it was simple. It was not-- there were some things to change, but so little. And very fast was this intuition that if we were talking about embellishment, that was already beautiful. But we had to also develop arguments. And we were during four months, we went there sometimes. We discussed with people. And we could see how it was working. And finally, at the end, we had the question, how to embellish a square, we answered, the place, the square is already beautiful. And there is nothing to do, except a very few maintenance that was necessary here. But we say that this was a project. It was not a non-response. it was a project. And then we defended that. Because they [inaudible]. Of course, but, OK, don't you want to make-- we don't understand. They say, we don't understand why you don't want-- nobody's architects are like to change the benches, to design benches. But finally, here it was not necessary. And we had to defend this position. But they accepted it. And the question, we are paid for that. This one, yes. It's important to understand that the work of an architect is not only to build. It's first to consider a question, to consider a situation. And then to consider the complexity of a situation. And then to bring a reply. Sometimes it's to build a lot. Sometimes it's to build a little. Sometimes it's to do nothing. Thanks, so my question's similar to [inaudible], I guess. But you said earlier that when you responded that the aesthetic never comes first. But then I was wondering, there's certain sensibilities that continue throughout all the projects. And I would say that they're more formal, or figurative. For instance, it's sort of a doubling, or the brutal juxtaposition of two different systems that I think you amplify consistently in a way that has little to do with some of the other issues you talked about in budget, et cetera. For instance, in [inaudible] where the corridor is much smaller to emphasize the placement of the tree. Or in some of even the earlier, the Latapie House with the double facade that can be completely closed on the street or completely open, or even in your earliest project I know, where the box inside-- for the house, where the box inside the greenhouse above is rotated to kind of amplify. So I guess that's a current I see. And I wonder if you could speak more about that, or how this is a sort of a sensibility there that maybe you could call a style or an aesthetic as well. I think in a way, it's very simple. Because I think it's very human. And everybody sings to that. You feel better when you have more space, when you are not obliged to be constrained by the space, by the furniture. And the standards nowadays, it's just impossible. How can you imagine to live with a family-- I know that here the situation is different. But in Europe, the standards of housing are very, very small. And now with the crisis, it's a good opportunity for the private developers to build less for more. And now because of many regulation for insulation, for disabled access, everything is-- some rooms are increased. And some are reduced. So how can you imagine that the family can live in a relaxed way when you have a living room of 22 square meters? A bedroom has nine to 12 square meters, no possibility to go outside? So, for us, it's very important to first to give this easiness of space, a generosity of space, like in the countryside. You have no limit. And more space give a very good feeling of escape. And it's very important for people to have this feeling of escape. And we also convinced that, as we said before, that any project of densification would fail if you don't think that first you have to increase your individual space. Because you cannot base a sustainable city if you impose compression to the life of people. So for us, it's very important to think that way. Well, let me conclude just with a comment about your aesthetics. I think that this image is very clear of what Philippe said at the end, the love for modernist architecture. But at the same time, we have seen along the slides a kind of love for [inaudible], things as they are almost in a state of ruin in many cases. I mean, leaving them like, let's say, not decorated ruins, but just undecorated ruins that perform well. And there is a kind of mix of aesthetics in this respect for the journey holiday poster, and the love for this kind of simplicity, and compositional simplicity, I would say. So I think that this is a very special thing. Because it's very difficult to put together these two aesthetics. And we have inherited a kind of prism in the aesthetics of modernism that now is kind of infected by life, I mean, real life. And I think this is something that I-- mostly all of us-- appreciate a lot in your work. I think it's just about freedom. What you say, it's about-- as architects, we try to be free. We want freedom. We want freedom from urban planners. We want freedom. Because this freedom, we can try to give them to inhabitants. But this question what you say about aesthetics, it's also to keep free in the mind about the different way you can work. Let's give freedom to all of them. Thank you so much. Thank you. [applause]