Rotterdam (the Netherlands) 4-11 April 1974
Changing conditions II: the consumer society
Introduction
The meeting in Rotterdam was overshadowed by the death of Shadrach Woods in
the summer of 1973. The Smithsons formulated the ‘theme’ of the
meeting as follows: the ‘Implication of Team X thoughts as we now see
it after Shad’s death in the light of time that has passed and the architectural
responsibility now left to us’.
Organization of the meeting was dealt with by Bakema’s office. The discussions
that took place in the ‘shop’ under his office on Posthoornstraat
were recorded on tape. Several visits were paid to Bakema’s completed
projects, in particular to his town hall in Terneuzen and the psychiatric clinic
in Middelharnis. Van Eyck’s Pastoor Van Ars Church in The Hague and Herman
Hertzberger’s Centraal Beheer office building in Apeldoorn were also visited.
Discussions began with ideas for a book about the importance of Woods’
ideas — a book which never saw the light of day, among other reasons because
of the posthumous publication of Woods’ own Man In the Street. The participants
quickly moved on to discuss how architects collaborated, both within Team 10
and within the practice of Candilis-Josic-Woods. Candilis treated the subject
with some circumspection. He noted the emergence of several differences of approach,
especially since 1960, but assured his listeners that all concepts originated
within the firm, and that he, Josic and Woods had been equally responsible for
them. Another apparent incongruity that Candilis touched on occurred early in
the collaboration. On the one hand, he pointed out, an équipe is not
achieved without effort but is the outcome of a process in which the collaborators
each take their own responsibility; he therefore did not believe there was one
single moment that could be identified as the ‘birth of a philosophy’.
On the other hand, he stated that the idea of the Free University derived from
the projects executed in Morocco in the early 1950s. ‘In Morocco with
Shad, we began to work on an idea of a special conception to create place. Certainly
the special concept was influenced by the Soukhs of Marakesh. These had two
phenomena: two which always existed; spontaneity and diversity; with the ›main
street‹ of the Soul as ›the skeleton‹.’
One of the main differences between Candilis and Woods was their attitudes towards
technology. Candilis spoke of his dismay at the problems arising from the façade
system used for the Free University. Construction of the FU was years behind
due to the use of this system, which was originally developed by Prouvé.
The concrete-built university building in Toulouse had by contrast experienced
no construction problems whatsoever, Candilis asserted.
A difference of opinion had also arisen on the function of technology and materials
as means of communicating with the user. Candilis furthermore considered that
the transition from the general design of the FU to a fully detailed version
was too abrupt; there should in his view have been an inter-mediate step. Differences
between departments in the FU building were now indicated by signage and colour
differences. Candilis thought this was making the best of a bad job.
The visits to Bakema’s town hall and Hertzberger’s office building
provided a basis for long talks on social and political developments and the
changing position of the architect. Alison Smithson characterized Terneuzen
town hall as a ‘historic’ building in that it was made for a period
that was already past. It was designed for the ‘free society’, which
in her view was a hallmark of the post-war democratic welfare state and which
existed by virtue of mutual trust between people and between citizens and their
government. The rise of consumerism based on a ‘labour union society’
had undermined the basis of that mutual trust. As an emblem of the Dutch tradition
of a free society, Alison Smithson cited the paintings of Pieter de Hoogh: ‘then
it comes to the second thing of the town hall — that is, if you see a
Pieter de Hoogh painting, the quality and the pleasure in materials and possessions
is, inside-the-house and outside-the-house, absolutely equal.’
Hertzberger’s building received a much more critical reaction. The discussion
took place in the absence of Hertzberger, so the critique went unchallenged.
The prevailing opinion was that the Centraal Beheer headquarters conformed too
eagerly to the idea of the new consumer society. It forced you, according to
Peter Smithson, to choose over and over again from all the possibilities the
architect offered the user: ‘in the Hertzberger building, everything was
on display, two million objects saying: ›You have to consume‹.’
The visit to Van Eyck’s church had an entirely different effect on the
participants. Sandra Lousada, who took the portrait photos of Team 10 in the
church interior, recalled that the moment the visitors entered the church was
the first time the group fell silent.
Dirk van den Heuvel
Team 10 members present
organized by Bakema
present:
Jaap Bakema
Georges Candilis
Giancarlo De Carlo
Aldo van Eyck
Herman Hertzberger
Reima Pietilä
Brian Richards
Manfred Schiedhelm
Alison Smithson
Peter Smithson
Oswald Mathias Ungers
Stefan Wewerka
Bibliography