Is it possible that through deplorability, space exploration, dispute, rebellion, reinterpretation, liberalisation and the possibility of imminent extinction (all influential in Archigrams’ realisation) prove influential in the generative ideas of Renzo Piano’s and Richard Rogers’s Pompidou Centre in Paris, France?
Archigrams’ constitution was a series of insouciant, like minded individuals with a childhood in common, a rebellious sense of purpose and a remarkable lack of rancour towards the system they sought to overturn (Crompton, 1998). This system was The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA). Archigram rebelliously sought to change the institutions’ technocratic modernist hegemony (Sadler, 2005) thinking it put the wrong emphasis on teaching in architectural schools: insisting that greater time be spent in the study of social sciences, ‘time’ that Archigram insisted should be spent at the drawing board. This instigation according to Archigram was proving and would continue to prove detrimental to the creative process.
To Archigram the architectural situation was deplorable – how buildings were going up all over the place with no remonstration, due to the need for redevelopment, and how the hype of the time – ‘Modern’ was being used as a safeguard, allowing for what Peter Cook referred to as [the] crap going up in London [which] betrayed most of the philosophies of the earliest modern (Design Museum, 2007). Archigram wanted to reinstate modernist tradition.
Something evident in Archigrams’ whacky-looking schemes is the remarkable sense of jubilancy. Their proposals our full of creativity and have a certain element of facetiousness, possibly in response to RIBA’s social insistencies. Mike Webb referring to the healthy men and women depicted in the majority of Archigrams’ works, writes:
...they are beginning to look – how shall i put it – a bit faded, even jaundiced, over the past few years. They probably work no more than a week and are undoubtedly ‘with it’ a quaint phrase from the sixties which shows the speaker to be anything but. (Archigram, 1999, p.2)
This somewhat satirical reflection could be analogous to how Archigram saw the RIBA, or a not so small minority of the architects of their time. Though this would seem straying from the point and of no relevance to the Pompidou Centre, it is important to pry at repetitive themes and not to belie the context; as all inform the architectural psychology or thinking.
The most apparent theme is that of their persistent optimism in technology (Crompton), though through a more... hypothetically speaking... ‘appropriate’ level to building, and then taking this to its extreme by creating the living city... but why? It was a time of extraordinary technological advances when the soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first man in space [and] the photocopier was invented (Design Museum). If a country were able to send a man into space they could send a missile into your backyard – hence the idea of the ‘walking city’ by Herron, the ‘plug in’ by Peter Cook and the ‘Living pod’ by David Greene. What all these schemes embodied was the need for adaptation. Archigram responded to the age of the hi-tech by emulating these technologies, but in a manor ‘appropriate’ to architecture – taking Le Corbusier’s machine for living in (Corbusier, 1923) to the next level, but not by imitating the forms of ships and cars. What defines the aesthetic of the space shuttle, engine or machine anyway – but the operating elements! That is the fuel tank, the pipes, combustion chamber, electrical input, ect. In a building it is the circulation, ventilation ducts, water pipes, electrical services... that’s it ‘the servicing’!
* * *
The Pompidou Centre was to house a diverse set of functions – combining the old muse de l’Art Moderne, a public library, an audio visual centre and a large amount of exhibition space (Curtis, 2001). Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers, responsible for the 70s creation of the centre (as a result of winning the competition) made some interesting moves: they only used half of the site and in so doing creating a large public square. The structural system they employed – a highly expressive scaffold, constructed from precast, prefabricated elements, all of impeccable detail. This structural scaffold as well as adding depth to the facade creates a zone for which the services and circulation can run up. It is the expression of the services that create the buildings ornamentation - colour coded pipes and ducts slither up through the mesh of structure, servicing the huge completely open plan floors.
Ron Herron presented the argument that labels condition nothing but the mind. Using the analogy of a tin of beans and a tin of soup – you can switch the labels but the content will remain unchanged – it is not the ‘label’ that conditions the use or the activity but the space and the servicing (Archigram, p.137). this mode of thinking could not better be portrayed than it is in the Pompidou Centre, having no pretentions; it is an expression of itself. If Archigram had not undergone its trials and tribulations and been in the time that it was, it is likely that the Pompidou Centre would not exist.
References
Archigram. Cook, P. Ed., 1999. Archigram. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Corbusier, L., 1923. Towards a New Architecture. Translated from French by F.Etchells., 1927. London: Architectural Press.
Crompton, D., 1998. Concerning Archigram. London: Archigram Archives.
Curtis, W. J. R. Ed., 2001. Modern Architecture Since 1900. Third edition. London: Phaidon Press Limited.
Design Museum, 2007. Archigram: Architects (1961-1974) [online]. Available at: [Accessed 5 September 2011]
Sadler, S., 2005. Architecture Without Architecture. Cambridge: MIT Press.
.jpg)
