THE CINO ZUCCHI TALK – NOT A TREE

A Christopher Alexander YouTube talk had just been watched. It looked like an after-dinner chat - a presentation on the processes involved in the Eishin College in Japan. One hoped that the audience was not there just for entertainment. The first part of this evening’s event had been viewed the day before; this second portion showed the images. While Alexander didn’t talk to the photographs, he did respond to questions and develop some themes as the slideshow progressed. A few notes were jotted down for the record:

Christopher Alexander

We never make working drawings.+

We draw things up when we reach a certain point, for regulators, as needed.

We use models – (images of models made from corrugated cardboard were shown).

Design is something that will get you into a mess.

We build.

Wholeness is everything . . . always the whole is the thing that matters.

The Battle for the Life and Beauty of the Earth is a book in the Oxford University Press series that records the effort involved in more detail.#

It is indeed a battle.

He had done one project in the UK – the Visitor Centre at West Dean Gardens, Sussex.**

West Dean Gardens Visitor Centre, Sussex.

Eishin College.

Alexander’s talks are thoughtful and precise. He takes time to choose his words that, even with pauses that give the impression of a muddled, disorientated mind, present his ideas with a surprising, lucid continuity.

Cino Zucchi

After the completion of this presentation, YouTube continued with the offer of another talk, as it does: The City Is [Not] A Tree. One immediately thought of Alexander’s paper titled A City is Not a Tree,* a widely cited publication of 1965 that had been read again just a few weeks ago, so the video was allowed to run: might it be more Alexander? It turned out to be a talk at the Harvard Graduate School of Design by Cino Zucchi given in the Piper Auditorium at Gund Hall in April, 2013.^ Zucchi had not only used the title, but changed it with the brackets around the [Not]. Was he questioning Alexander? The presentation took the usual format of architectural talks – see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2022/05/patterns-of-architectural-talks.html – happily without the hiccups of technical failures. Zucchi had done his preparation well. It might even have been a well-rehearsed talk that had been given previously, such was its substance and flow.

The 1:57:32 long presentation started with the usual welcome, followed by Zucchi being introduced by the host, who began the applause as he invited “Cino” to the lectern. There was no loose chat; Zucchi asked for the lights to be switched off as he began his slideshow that took over the full screen. Zucchi was going to be the voice; one could concentrate on the images. This first stage of the talk involved the city, as the title suggested. Zucchi gave what one might call an overview of many studies on cities, and their various aspects; something of a summary of city issues. It was scholarly, thoughtful, and clever, insightful, but offered only what one might consider to be an intellectual collage for folk to consider and use in whatever way they might choose. One could call the approach ‘encyclopaedic.’ It touched on a broad scope of city issues like form; density; vision; perspective; design; format; and much more. Each source was referenced if one wanted to follow it up. Zucchi offered no overall theme or concept to identify his intent, just the various categories of ‘city’ interest. He implied that there was a general feeling, an awareness about cities, that he brought to his work, noting, as an aside, that there was no necessary relationship between this presentation and his projects that were to follow. In amongst this fascinating collection of ‘city’ things, was the reference to Alexander’s paper. It seemed that Zucchi had given the title of this paper to his talk just because he happened to like it; nothing more. The naming appeared to be a little casual, almost careless; the [Not] was never explained.

The second part of this talk was the presentation of his own projects. This introductory ‘story of the city’ could be said to have ‘segued,’ (if one wanted to use a fashionable word), into the slideshow of his work, as there was no pause, or analytical summary of his city presentation that might identify an end or a beginning. One was left feeling that the title was merely ad hoc; decorative. City theory here was a collation rather than a new proposition. Did Zucchi want some of the Alexander ‘gloss’ to rub off onto his presentation?

The second stage of the talk was the more traditional presentation. Zucchi spoke generally about the projects as the slides appeared. The work was chronological, with each project being illustrated with slides of the first few sketches; the developed plan drawing; the schematic analysis diagrams; the line elevations; and the finished project. There was no great quantity of illustrations, just enough to get the ideas across, with added details that Zucchi must have been pleased with.

One was surprised with the number of projects that started with “We won the competition to . . . ” In Australia, projects rarely begin with a competition. The history of the Sydney Opera House competition has made potential clients wary of the ‘competition’ approach. The jargon is that one will only “Get an opera house,” referring snidely to the problems with the architect, time and budget on this project. No one seems to remember the political pressure the client put on the project team at the beginning when piling was foolishly started before the design was completed, just because it was ‘politically expedient.’ Europe seems to have no such problems with using competitions to select a design and an architect for a project.

Sydney Opera House.

Canberra, Australia.

It is not only the Sydney Opera House that has had ‘competition’ problems. The history of competitions, when they have been used in Australia, is not good. The design for the national capital, Canberra, was the subject of an international competition won by Walter Burley Griffin. This ended up in a mess not too different to that of the opera house. On other occasions, frequently the winner is praised, and then forgotten, with the project quietly going to another architect; or just being dropped in favour of some alternative proposition. Submissions are rarely made public, so the adequacy of the jury’s choice of the ‘winner’ cannot be reviewed, assessed, or criticised. Has this to do with our politicians, or our attitude to art and architects? The D.I.Y. approach seems to have some deep cultural roots: “An architect will only waste your time and money . . . (thinks: “Wankers!”).”##

Zucchi said a few times that he was a European. It does seem that Europeans are different. He showed one slide in his city summary that was a drawing by Le Corbusier that illustrated the whole of Europe as a city. It was an interesting thought.

Zucchi’s project work was impressive, both in quantity, quality, and scope. It was thoughtful and attractive. Schemes often concentrated, among other things, on the provision open public space. Was this the link to the city? His approach fragmented and twisted forms to shape public areas, and integrate new with old. His thinking often reached beyond the limits of the project site. The scale of the project was always a surprise. One could not gauge the scale from the early sketches, the plan, or the fine-line drawings of the elevations. It was only when the completed scheme was seen that one could see its size. These were generally large projects, but smaller ones appeared too. Each project, regardless of size, had a captivating sense of exploration and experiment, displaying a subtle sensitivity to its context, and a careful consideration of its detail.

Elevations that seemed mundane as drawings came to spritely life in reality. Zucchi seemed to love playing with collages and patterns. Did this explain his broad-based approach to city studies, and the ‘decorative’ title of the talk? The elevations had playful colour variations; intriguing geometrical arrangements that juggled sunscreens, balconies, and bathroom windows - (Italy wants bathrooms on the outside wall); and fine framing and moulded massing that one could admire. The work held a sense of carefully considered ‘design’ that made one wonder: What might Alexander think of this? While presenting clever planning solutions that shaped buildings to create public spaces, and developing the elevations with intricately complex patterns, one did question the experience of place. What might it be like to walk through or to live in one of these projects? Might one feel ‘designed’? Were the places demanding just too much ‘visual appreciation’? Alexander’s words reverberated silently: Design is something that will get you into a mess.

Was one looking at winning ‘design,’ the attractive visual outcome rather than enjoying a place made for life; for people? Might the work just be too clever; too intellectual; too thought out; deliberately overworked? The presentation left one feeling good about the work. The talk was informative; the work engrossing; but one had the sense that one was seeing just the very surface of things – perhaps 0.1% of the effort, the pretty parts of architecture assembled in a nutshell; or is it in a ‘Kinder Surprise’: a delightful revelation? This is the usual architectural presentation, but one sensed a huge gap with reality looming nearby. Is this what Alexander was talking about when he said that he was a builder; that one could only achieve wholeness by building, not by doing fancy drawings? There was a tension in the Alexander reference in the title of this talk; was this the meaning of the [Not]?

There was a strange torsion in the doubt about the talk. Are all architectural talks merely PR exercises? Are they just entertainment? Turning architecture into an attractive, feel-good experience might be a pleasurable experience for all – indeed, this talk was – but is it useful for architecture; for architects? The pattern of presentations seems to promote the ideal of the genius architects; the bespoke dabbler; the elite, elated artist who spends life ‘artfully’ creating wonders with a natural happy ease, again and again: effortlessly. Alexander has noted how there is far too much egotism in architecture.

The idea of architecture as a battle is pushed to one side, as are the important matters of functions, materials, details, joints, fixings, etc. - the very things that make the fabric that gives the building that becomes our experience. This is not the cliché, “God is in the detail” cry. It is the concern with the complete lack of any reference to matters of substance in these talks beyond the broad generalities of what are shown as gloriously successful, positive outcomes to be admired by all; this becomes a worry. The talks appear as conceptual decoration; games that are pretty, polite, and engaging where the rules, challenges, and techniques are never considered; just the happy outcomes. Architecture is presented merely as a successful, playful experience: an intellectual intrigue with nice things evolving, involving nice people, and nice outcomes. One can say that the talk was admired, appreciated; but there was a concern that it presented a flimsy surface only.

True to form, the lights came on, and the host suggested a few questions, starting with his own: “Can you say something about how you work?” was the substance of the first question. Zucchi came back to the microphone and started to talk about his processes: “One made guesses then tested these . . .” One could now, with the lights on, see him struggling with the microphone that looked to be too low. Was this why the audio kept varying during the slideshow. Zucchi had to lean over to get closer to the microphone, awkwardly knocking it a few times with his gesticulations: yes, he was European. He enjoyed talking, and talking about his processes which he had obviously given some thought to. After ten minutes, there was no more time for questions. These could be put informally to Zucchi later. The video faded.

One felt that the 1:57:32 had been well spent, even after the doubts arose. Just how this 99.9% of architecture can be considered needs to be resolved, because dealing with pretty surfaces only distorts perceptions, turning architecture into a joyously schematic, arty frivolity, when it is never the outcome of flighty visions, happy shaping, or ‘colouring in.’ It is, as Alexander noted, a ‘battle,’ but one that is totally satisfying when it is ‘won’ – a circumstance that is never without compromise or struggle. To see architecture in this other way will not demean it; it will shape it as a serious matter that can be respected, and not promote it as an engaging involvement for clever, decorative designers to delight in with a happy, indulgent nonchalance. Is it ‘rigour’ that needs attention, clarification, explanation? Perpetuating the image of the dilettante will only continue to cause harm to the profession that already has so little involvement in actual building for our planet, that architecture has become an irrelevant ‘aside.’

+

24 May 22

There could not be a greater difference between the work of Alexander and Daniel Libeskind. It is interesting to hear Libeskind say in his TEDX DUBLIN talk that “Drawing is the source of architecture.” It might be the source of his architecture. Libeskind, once a professional musician, sees his drawing as a musical score, creating yet another link between music and architecture.

Libeskind - F SHARP?

Zucchi church - not too sharp.

Libeskind - C SHARP?

 #

Christopher Alexander; Hans Joachim Neis;Maggie Moore Alexander

The Battle for the Life and Beauty of the Earth: A Struggle between Two World-Systems

Oxford University Press, USA, 2012.

**

Alexander gave the reference for those who wanted to see what it was like. The Visitor Centre is an enigma that needs more discussion. The work holds a quality that brings it very close to historic kitsch, yet it holds a certain quiet, admirable presence. The question that needs to be considered is: does Alexander’s approach always result in what might be called ‘historic adaptations’? Is it lingering too long in nostalgia, or touching on deeper, more meaningful qualities?

Details of the Visitor Centre, West Dean Gardens.

*

For the full text, see:

http://en.bp.ntu.edu.tw/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/06-Alexander-A-city-is-not-a-tree.pdf

^

See video on YouTube:

https://dezignark.com/blog/a-city-is-not-a-tree-new-models-of-urban-space/

##

The last major competition in Australia was Federation Square in Melbourne. While the project did get built, there have been some lingering issues that still raise complaints with the process. These have to do with a lack of experience, insistent ‘theoretical’ issues, and ‘experimental’ outcomes.

Federation Square, Melbourne.