Quads, pilotis and the City Centre - is divorce avoidable?
Daniel Bernstein, Professor, Research Laboratory, LAIADE
One of the most important traits of the culture of planning in the 20th century is arguably
the independence of urban space from the shape and assembly of buildings. Urban space is conceived
as a system of networks and relations into which the fabric of buildings is inserted, or plugged-in. The
building on stilts, or pilotis, is a striking device which is intended to both produce the highest level of
continuity in urban space, and to express metaphorically its freedom from the fabric of buildings. The
building on stilts may also be interpreted as conveying a powerful ideology. It denies the existence of
hierarchies, social differences, barriers, rituals and controls. It is the expression of transparency and
openness in an open democratic society.
When it comes to large institutional ensembles situated in the city, the above applies at the microurban scale. The internal organization and functioning of such ensembles being as it were a microcosm of the of the city’s macrocosm.
Whatever their merits in newly urbanized areas, the contamination of those basic design concepts with different, older, building types and urban spaces, and with social realities contradicting the ideal assumptions, will produce some fascinating results internally and in relation to the city environment . Two large rehabilitation projects in Paris illustrate this. One is the Unesco headquarters, the other the Jussieu Faculty site, some aspects of which this paper proposes to present and examine critically. In both cases the development of new use patterns combined with a certain amount of neglect, force now a reexamination of the original assumptions and characteristics of the designs.
The Faculty of Jussieu was conceived as a perfectly regular grid composed of strictly repetitive buildings on stilts, resulting in a vast almost entirely open space, visually connected to a fair amount of the environing urban space. This vast space comprises the areas under the buildings and the rectangles between the buildings. They are a modern version of the quads, and are defined by the columns and ceiling edge, above. The one element which is not incorporated into the grid is a tower block set in a space equivalent to 4 quads. This tower was intended to be a signal on the urban scale, the focal point of the institution. This is another trait of 20th century architecture, which can also be observed in the Unesco headquarters. The bureaucratic function plays the role previously given to the chapel, in hospitals and monasteries for example.
Over the years since its inception in the 1960’ two major facts combined to make Jussieu a problematic and conflict-ridden site. One was the increased overcrowding, the other was the omnipresence of asbestos fire protection. The asbestos made the slightest change in internal layout and allocation of spaces impossible. The future of the whole ensemble was in doubt and many advocated its complete demolition. The first step was therefore to test the feasibility and cost of decontamination and of internal restructuring and refurbishment. This having been done, and the decision to proceed finally taken, important decisions concerning the rehabilitation are made concerning problems expressed, as usual, under such headings as : security (of persons and equipment), safety (fire), networks (electricity, communications), internal climate (HVAC, lighting, spaces in between), durability of fabric, running costs (energy, maintenance, management). These problems involve all scales, from the design of a window to the access and circulation on site.
Architects and engineers are never short of ideas for solutions inspired by their current stock in trade. This is why it is probably necessary to give pause. It may come as a surprise that despite the variety of commissioned technical reports , and in the case of Jussieu architectural competitions, no special reports exist yet on the question of the climate and usage of the exterior spaces nor on the question of preservation of the monument seen as a whole. The lack of information on the climate and uses of the exterior spaces will hamper a reasoned approach to the microurban scale and its relation to the urban environment.
It cannot be argued that a report on the preservation could establish absolutely valid guidelines. But it would introduce the elements of debate, adding the views of specialists outside the building sector and a series of suggestive valuations. One must acknowledge in all modesty that such a report cannot represent more than a particular set of opinions here and now. Its merit is that it can stop unthinking or gut decisions, unnecessary loss of important elements and documents, and inform a “negotiation” between various possible actions.
As far as the microurban scale is concerned, the preservation report would have to clarify, in parallel with information on climate and use, the different values at stake. Where should one look for the “perennial” element : the quads between the buildings, the openness and permeability of the space which includes the quads, or merely the load bearing structure of the buildings? It seems at the moment that the decision would tend towards the third possibility, without being fully aware of it and without clear debate.
