Spoleto (Italy) 2-6 June 1976
Participation and the meaning of the past
Introduction
Ten years after the Urbino meeting, De Carlo organized the second Team 10 meeting
in Italy, held in Spoleto. In this period De Carlo had completed two works,
both among his major and best-known projects: the Villaggio Matteotti at Terni
and the new premises of the Faculty of Education in Urbino. And it was perhaps
to foster discussion by making a field trip to these two projects that De Carlo
at first sought to organize the meeting as two days at Terni and two at Urbino
(with a day in between for the journey, which might have been used to take in
some buildings by Francesco di Giorgio). However, in the end he opted for a
single location and chose Spoleto, no doubt to simplify the organization but
above all, perhaps, to make it easier for Bakema to attend. Due to continued
heart problems, Bakema was under close medical control at that time and had
actually stipulated that he could only attend the meeting if there was a coronary
thrombosis lab in the vicinity. His presence mattered deeply to De Carlo, who
wrote: ‘I cannot imagine . . . a Team X meeting without you,’ and
went so far as to suggest postponing the meeting until the autumn. The postponement
proved unnecessary because the choice of Spoleto with its facilities obviated
the problem.
To judge by the correspondence preserved in the De Carlo archives, the Spoleto
meeting had an entirely different character than the one in Urbino, which was
the cause of endless discord. The people contacted by De Carlo first numbered
sixteen, but defections reduced the number that actually took part to a smaller
group, without any architec-tural historians or critics among them. An attractive
photo of one of the meetings on this occasion, frequently republished, shows
about ten people sitting round a table, among whom we can recognize Aldo van
Eyck, Peter and Alison Smithson, Pancho Guedes, Brian Richards, José
Coderch, Jaap Bakema and obviously Giancarlo De Carlo.
Apart from these, few others seem to have been present in those days, which
thus marked a return to the original definition of Team 10’s meetings
as working parties, impassioned debates but without any public hubbub. An almost
private event, consistent with the very informal founding spirit of the group.
That this was also felt by the other members at the time can be understood from
a passage of a short message De Carlo sent Reima Pietilä (one of those
unable to attend) immediately after the end of the proceedings. He wrote: ‘No
final documents as always — upon the ancient tradition of Team X —
but a real enrichment through good, patient and generous arguing.’ And
he wrote to the Smithsons in the same spirit: ‘Even though smaller and
smaller Team X seems to work as a good opportunity to see good friends —
good architects with whom [it] is nourishing to discuss.
’
We can form a precise idea of what a working meeting in Team 10’s original
spirit was like from a typescript, a sheaf of eighty closely written pages,
preserved in the De Carlo archive. It is the transcript of a recording of some
of the discussions. Unfortunately the version we have is only an early draft,
sometimes in rather shaky English, with some preliminary revisions and supplemented
by hand-written passages. It also contains numerous gaps, some of them extensive,
that often make it impossible to follow with any degree of precision the arguments
developed in the papers presented, so that the thread of the discussion is sometimes
lost. Perhaps the limitation of the recording to a couple of discussions in
the first few days shows that, for some reason, at an early stage it was decided
not to continue with the recording, which was originally meant to provide a
basis for a publication.
Moreover, it is no accident that straight after the introductory words (‘about
the meaning of the past’, the opening topic proposed by De Carlo in the
margin of an article by the Smithsons), the typescript contains a blank space
that reveals an interruption of the discussion and the introduction, no doubt
very lively, of a very different topic. When the transcript continues, in fact,
we read the first words attributed to Van Eyck: ‘I don’t know whether
the tape recorder assumes that we are something so important, to say that it’s
going to [be] publish[ed] later, that’s the point. I do not agree with
the form in which [lacuna] discussion is coming to the world. . .’. This
assertion — probably a reaction to the pending publication of the Royaumont
tapes in a forthcoming issue of Architectural Design and edited by Alison Smithson
— sparked off warm debate, which lasts for more than six pages of the
typescript and culminates in an open clash. Despite this, the recording continued,
but its use with a view to publication had by this point been severely jeopardized
and the uncertain destiny of the transcript was perhaps already decided. At
any rate, or actually by virtue of this very fact, the typescript with its gaps
and its deficiencies still remains a very precious record of the life of Team
10.
What this text reveals is the climate of the discussions, besides being a highly
effective record of the very informal conduct of the proceedings: no one chaired
the meetings; there was no regular order in the sequence of the speakers, no
one sug-gested using texts previously drafted, and everyone spoke off the cuff.
So the discussions were very free and spontaneous, ranging widely, covering
a series of topics that emerged from the course of the debate itself. The discussion
was sparked by a field trip to the housing estate designed by De Carlo at Terni,
which had clearly taken place earlier because at several points reference is
made to it. The Villaggio Matteotti provided the opportunity to keep the general
subject of participation constantly in the air: De Carlo dwelt on particular
phases of his meetings with the future inhabitants of the housing and described
how he developed a dialogue with them. The development of this interaction with
the architect was the subject of careful analysis by all the members.
The discussion started from very concrete issues such as the number of bathrooms
per home-unit, the meaning and use of road space, the choice of wall and floor
tiles, the position of the windows, the question of furniture, the layout of
the gardens. After starting with these questions, the discussion explored the
issues of the constraints imposed by the process of construction, the aggressiveness
of the real-estate market, the inertia of traditions, the restrictions imposed
by financial factors, the impact of consumerism, the users’ need for evocative
symbols and their aspiration to signs of a different status. Discussion continually
circled round the question of the role the architect has to be able to play
as he juggles with all these variables. As the debate unfolded along these lines,
the exchanges between De Carlo, Van Eyck, Bakema, the Smithsons, Guedes and
José Coderch (these are the contributions recorded by the typescript)
were often tough, made up of long statements that alternate with curt retorts,
of good-humoured discussion involving different people and abrasive duels.
Mid-way down page 83, after a comment by Peter Smithson, the typescript ends.
More correctly, it just breaks off, without any hint at a conclusion. Perhaps,
for a number of reasons, it is fitting that it should be like this. As we have
seen, De Carlo later told Pietilä that no final document had been prepared,
‘as always — upon the ancient tradition of Team X’. For this
reason, though very likely unintentional, the rather brusque ending of the typescript
is, all things considered, all the more honest.
Francesco Samassa
Team 10 members present
organised by De Carlo
present:
Jaap Bakema
Giancarlo De Carlo
José Antonio Coderch
Aldo van Eyck
Amancio Guedes
Brian Richards
Alison Smithson
Peter Smithson
Bibliography