Josep Lluís Mateo MAP Architects
Contact
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
 |
|
 |
|
La Contra de La Vanguardia 04.08.02 Lluís Amiguet Photo: JORDI BELVER |
< B A C K |
Mateo explains CCIB in the Barcelona context JL Mateo: I think that the transformation of Barcelona resulting from the urban and architectural projects of the Forum 2004 will be much more profound, decisive and determinant than that which was brought about by the work for the Olympics of 92. How much space are we talking about? We’re speaking of 30 hectares, almost 40 football pitches. What do you like most about the project? Without doubt the best is precisely that, its size. Doesn’t this happen in Madrid, or even Valencia? No. Nor in Berlin. This density is one of Barcelona’s characteristics. The huge Forum project will change this sensation of crowdedness, because it will suddenly open up an enormous amount of space for public use. What’s more, the very conception of the space is one of an opening. Barcelona will breathe sea air at last. For instance? The beaches, the parks, the long esplanade, the islands … This is public space we’re talking about, which will also be a living space. And maybe this sounds more credible coming from me, as I’m not responsible for its design. In general, the opening to the sea will be marvellous because it will generate a marine environment. Sounds good. It’s magnificent. What’s more, part of this new space is not changing its use, but comes from nothing. We’ve gained land from the sea. We’ve tried to convert huge, technical, dirty installations such as waste treatment plants into a leisure space open to all, into a living and positive part of the city. Let’s hope so. This should really be explained, because I think the majority of citizens still haven’t realized how enormous the public space that’s going to be created will be. What’s more, it’s going to be space that everyone can enjoy. This project is going to give a huge dimension of aperture and extension to the city. It will no longer be the Barcelona of the Eixample or “Enlargement”, or even that of 92. Since the very conception of this 2004 space we’ve been talking about a new Megalopolis. And if you check the data you’ll see I’m not exaggerating. How have you confronted all that space? I’m responsible for the built project of the convention centre, where I’m trying to approach what the anthropologist Marc Augé defines as “non-places” – empty, uniform spaces, with no specific feature, something like airports. It doesn’t sound a tempting concept. On the contrary, I think they’re interesting. They are specific contemporary spaces. My project is clearly a “non-place”, like those described by Augé. Others, more critical, call them “rubbish spaces”. They’re spaces where what’s important is not the limits, but rather what happens there: flexibility, movement, the capability of being a place where two or two thousand people can meet and then separate and move around in a chaotic way with order, both at the same time. Like an airport. Yes. And it’s very difficult for an architect to manage all this, because architecture has a real materialization time, and it’s complicated to mix use with the ephemeral. Of course, we’re talking about spaces which are economically viable, with the added attraction of being contemporary. It’s not residential expansion. Here, we’re confronted with non-residential installations of considerable volume: there are hotels, public spaces … It’s the space of the contemporary world and the architect has to give it new meaning. You conceived this centre as a space that can be used by up to 15,000 people. What problems have you encountered? Most present is the conceptual problem of thinking big, but it’s also paradoxical that the very big projects, like this one, take less time to build. Why? Because there’s a close relationship between size, investment and speed. If you delay these projects the need for them disappears. You have to have strategies to respond to the demands of size and speed. So they have to hurry. Of course. A gigantic project like this is also highly modulated and synthetic. It requires its own decision-making system. What do you mean? I mean the “fast track” - always making urgent, almost interactive decisions. You start in one place, but you never know where you’ll end up. I thought you controlled everything, including the timing of the work. No, because the decisions are interactive. You can only make a decision when you have the response to the previous one and you take the next decision when you see the last one turned out well, and so on. This lets a lot more of the people working on-site take a greater part in the process, which is what I love about it. Why? Because it re-establishes a stimulating, craft relationship with the work. And for me, as an architect, the process has always been a fundamental part of my work. I’ve always been more an architect of method than of form, that’s why I watch the plastic world from a certain distance. I try to understand architecture as reasoning, as strategy. Architecture for me is the result rather than the starting point, maybe because I’ve had the good fortune to be involved in projects in other European cities. And you have to get the right result in every case. One by one. Almost like designing high fashion. Is the Forum of Cultures 2004 more Catalan than Barcelonan? Well yes. I think it will turn this coast into the beach of central Catalonia, so in that sense yes, it will make it much more difficult for Barcelona, in the end, not to be metropolitan. |
|||||
|