MASTER THESIS 2024-25
KUL / CAMPUS SINT-LUCAS BRUSSELS
A POLICY WHISPERING PRAXIS
THE 10-YEAR BUILDING PERMIT
PETER SWINNEN
Image left: A 10 YEAR BUILDING EXPERIMENT
BALLOON HOME / A.J. LODE JANSSENS (1973-82)
MODEL SCALE ¼ / CRIT. (2022, CIVA ARCHIVES)
When imagining building something of social worth – whether it’s architectures, landscapes, a collection of things, a sequence of events, … – one is more than often confronted with authorizing (or non- authorizing) building legislation.
Observing any daily context, it becomes clear that the “idea” and the “practice” of spatial legislation are non-communicating vessels. Even more, more than often they fundamentally counteract each other. The resulting spatial mess and lost-in-translation are key evidence.
Our master thesis studio wishes to probe where it actual matters: problematizing the realms of spatial legislation. And thus, using architecture as a tool (not an end in itself) to challenge and set out future para-legal possibilities for building that is urgent, relevant and often unsolicited.
DID WE GET THE MEMO?
Today, a myriad of spatial practitioners loses itself in exalted narratives on “not building”, “un-building”, “not demolishing”, etc. Falsely believing that the sting is to be found in the physical acts of such doings or un-doings.
The fact that the political level, and especially the market, are quickly and slyly picking up on these “agenda-settings” is not an innocent observation. Such a dogmatic focus could in fact result in a zero- sum game for the spatial discipline; turning a blind eye to what could make an actual difference and should be tackled upfront: the policy of licensing. This is the actual nerve stem of spatial practice.
UNRULY STANDARDS
Some of the more inspiring spatial projects are in fact deviations from or simply full-on negations of ruling spatial policies. Putting forward their proper (unruly) standards, while testing them at scale 1/1. They deliberately focus on finding cracks in the system, which is anyhow a crux in spatial practice.
Sometimes this search for “cracks” is rather solipsistic, and not so interesting as a global strategy, like in the case of the Casa Malaparte, built on the Capri cliffs. Based on Curzio Malaparte’s writings, “his” house’s building permit was swiftly arranged and delivered in one single afternoon. Bending legislation Italian (or European) style? This is good for the myth but does not help us any further here.
More interestingly is for instance the case of another infamous house, the Heyvaert house. Whilst building, the Heyvaerts came to the conclusion that the house should be built differently, hence deciding not the follow the approved building permit, resulting in an astonishing “collage” that one could not conceive beforehand. It was only possible by testing and building it scale 1/1. The resulting Fremdkörper was regularized afterwards. Belgian style.
Or another scale – and here it becomes interesting – when Mies van der Rohe developed the spatial/volumetric concept for the Seagram Building (i.e. higher & slenderer tower + public plaza), New- York zoning law changed accordingly (1961 Zoning Regulation, POPS Program NYC). This further encouraged private developers to provide public space within their projects, in exchange for an up to 20% (!) bonus floor area. And of course, the true advantage of bypassing the City Planning Review altogether.
For better or for worse, the above projects would not have been possible if – at some point in the process – the designer did not take a clear and deviating stance vis-à-vis ruling legislation.
A 10 YEAR BUILDING EXPERIMENT
BALLOON HOME / A.J. LODE JANSSENS (1973-82)
MODEL SCALE ¼ / CRIT. (2022, CIVA ARCHIVES)
LEARNING FROM THE FACULTY (& THE WORLD)
The scope of building legislation is of course an endless and tiring labyrinth. In order not to lose oneself during the master thesis process, we put forward a first intuition and direction (up for debate). It’s equally a case that is close to the Faculty of Architecture and was already pre-researched in the past years by the studio’s staff.
Between 1973 and 1982 architect A.J. Lode Janssens (former principal of the Sint-Lucas School of Architecture, the current Faculty of Architecture KUL) developed a ten-year experiment, whereby he decided to live in a balloon home with his family, eliciting a live experiment on social and spatial behavior. He built the inflatable structure somewhere in Flanders, where one explicitly could not construct such a structure. Janssens nevertheless managed – Malaparte-style – to get hold of a temporary building permit for exactly 10 years. An experimental building permit. To our knowledge such exception was not allowed before the balloon home, neither after. So Janssens managed to enforce somewhat of a unicum, for the sake of architectural experimentation. This intriguing quest was exhibited for the very first time in 2022 at the CIVA Brussels, through archival material and a new scale ¼ model, and published at Spector Books, a book entitled “1.47 mbar”.
https://san-serriffe.com/product/a-j-lode-janssens-1-47-mbar/
https://civa.brussels/en/exhibitions-events/expo-aj-lode-janssens-balloon-home
A 10 YEAR BUILDING EXPERIMENT
BALLOON HOME / A.J. LODE JANSSENS (1973-82)
MODEL SCALE ¼ / CRIT. (2022, CIVA ARCHIVES)
We want to start from this casus as an open launching platform to retrieve, unearth and elicit equal yet very different strategies on the principle of the temporary building permit. Hence, we depart from Janssens’ trial, since we also believe it incorporates an important legacy linked to the Faculty’s DNA on experimental architecture. We will of course not end at Janssens’ endeavor. On the contrary.
For the Master Thesis Studio we wish to welcome a truly broad and international mix of students, since we also want to learn from their local legal possibilities when it comes to building. An important departure is thus learning from the world, brought in by the studio’s participants.
AN ATLAS OF PROJECTS
We will start with collecting interesting, cunning, and truly unruly spatial projects, that will act as a compact atlas of sorts. As a first benchmark. We will also critically analyze specific legal possibilities or impossibilities. In this perspective, our studio will be supported by leading legal expert EUBELIUS. https://www.eubelius.com/en.
This first gathering and probing phase of the atlas will help us to sharpen the question. A “10-year building permit”? Yes, perhaps. But at which conditions? And for what exactly? Or for whom? etc.
In a next phase we will challenge students to set out a personal trajectory, intensely using spatial design, for a very precise take on subverting legislation for the common good. So that by the end of the semester our original atlas can be completed with the actual design projects of the studio. This updated atlas will go beyond the more fatuous and navel-gazing stipulations in common building legislation, and investing in alternative and effective short-cuts. A new and exciting homeostasis for the sake of strong and buildable architectures/spaces.
THE STUDIO PARTICIPANT
The alfa and omega of any interesting studio at the Faculty of Architecture are the studio participants,
i.e. the students + staff. Hence, we are interested in students who exhibit great refractive analytical power, who are autonomous, critical, truly passionate, and proactive. And since our studio wishes to test architecture’s capacity as an unsolicited and pro-active tool for future policy making, we see the architect or spatial practitioner – thus the studio participant – as an effective “policy whisperer”.
The studio offers an intense guiding process – as one would have in any spatial practice – in order to allow students to excel in their final installment at the Faculty of Architecture. This is also the reason why we choose for a labelless studio because it’s not about synthesizing what you already know or feel attracted to, it’s about defining new and open directions for your future practice (in or outside of architecture). A bolstering envoi.
Studio participants will be encouraged to think politically and act strategically, so that real-time impact can be generated. We are interested in strong designers, clear thinkers and true team players that understand architecture as a strategic tool, never (ever) as a goal in itself. The studio will perform as a professional architecture collective, with precise goals and projects, regular deadlines and precisely defined responsibilities for each studio member.
The kick-off session is foreseen in week 0 of Semester 01 (2024). During week 7 of Semester 01 (2024) we will work on the “Atlas of Infringements” (workshop). And the effective Master thesis Studio starts Semester 02 (2025) and will run via weekly atelier sessions & follow-up.
The atelier is led by arch. Peter Swinnen (CRIT. architects, www.CRIT.cc), assisted by external punctual experts. The following non-exhaustive list indicates some first reading pointers based on our daily architectural practice, and will be further updated in the coming months.
https://crit.cc/work/rene-heyvaert-book-block/
https://crit.cc/work/a-j-lode-janssens-147-mbar/
https://crit.cc/work/luc-deleu-t-o-p-office-future-plans-1970-2020/
https://crit.cc/work/i-prefer-not-to/
https://crit.cc/work/oh-yes-mr-president/
https://crit.cc/work/red-luxembourg-2/
https://crit.cc/work/le-musee-et-son-double-book/
https://crit.cc/work/the-architect-as-policy-whisperer/
May 15, 2024