Lewerentz Fragments

LEWE RENTZ FRAG MENTS

Jonathan Foote Hansjörg Göritz Matthew Hall Nathan Matteson

Lewerentz Fragments Edited by Jonathan Foote Hansjörg Göritz Matthew Hall Nathan Matteson Actar Publishers 2021

Contents

1

Lewerentz’ Lessons: An Inspiring Initiation Hansjörg Göritz

5

Substance and Effect Wilfried Wang

11

Lewerentz and the Haven of Beauty Claes Caldenby

21

Drawing as Building: Lewerentz and the Drawings for St Peter’s Jonathan Foote

37

St Peter’s Forging Brick Ola Wedebrunn

47

The Proximity of Distance Patrick Doan

55

To Build a Church Janne Ahlin

67

Photographs of the Construction of St Peter’s

93

S:t Petri and I! Thoughts on Thirty-five Years as Priest and Participant Ann-Marie Nelson

101

Nyberg and Lewerentz Mariana Manner

113

Letters, Notes, and Dialogues

145

The Exner Couple and ‘the Lewerentz Family’ Thomas Bo Jensen

159

Three Swedish Siblings: Lewerentz’ Materialized Spirit Hansjörg Göritz

173

Sigurd Lewerentz and a Material Basis for Form Adam Caruso

181

Reduction and Economy: Architecture as a Practice Nicola Flora

189

Sigurd Lewerentz: The Paradox of Construction Enrico Miglietta & Gennaro Postiglione

203

The Practice of Heterodoxy Matthew Hall

223

Lewerentz Quantizes Nathan Matteson

237

Notes on a Chapel and Two Canopies Johan Celsing

255

Reading Darkness: A Sensory Experience Paolo Giardiello

267

Index of Images

Drawing as Building: Lewerentz and the Drawings for St Peter’s Jonathan Foote

Since the onset of the sixteenth century, the architect’s labor has been increasingly distanced from the actual site of construction. Unlike earlier periods, where the architect conducted a project directly on the building site, renaissance architects began to work commonly in drawing studios.

Today, with complex tools for virtual communication between builders and designers, it is common for an architect to design buildings without ever having set foot on the construction site. In contrast to the strong distinction made between drawing and building in today’s professional setting, Sigurd Lewerentz relished the possibility of fluctuating between them. He spent large amounts of his daily work conversing with workmen and conducting design decisions at the building site, particularly in his later years on the Churches of St Mark and St Peter. Through close collaborations with materials and builders, Lewerentz translated his ideas into an architecture that was deeply personal. What is more, such an approach was thoroughly inseparable from his unique method of engaging construction through drawings and sketches. Upon examining a few, what seems clear is that the conventional understanding of the architect’s drawing as a representation of a future, completed building is not adequate for understanding how Lewerentz utilized the medium of pen and paper.

Instead, for Lewerentz, drawing is building, and although the physical acts of drawing and building are separated, in his imagination the two remain indivisible.

Filippo Brunelleschi, the fifteenth century master builder of the Florence cathedral dome, was said to forgo prescriptive drawings and models and

St Peter’s Forging Brick Ola Wedebrunn

The source for the ceramic bricks of St Peter’s Church is metamorphic slate sediment clay with contents of iron compound, silica, and elements of coal.

When manganese hydroxide is added it turns dark and strong. This slate clay is of high density and contains grains of sandstone and added chamotte particles to reduce shrinkage, preventing cracking defects and the effects of uncontrolled fire.¹ The clay was machine pressed and due to its low calcium content, burnt at 1200 degrees Celsius in the oil-fired ring kiln at Aktiebolaget Helsingborg Ångtegelbruk, a limited company, using vapor during the winter months for drying the clay. The brickyard situated in Högaborg, Närlund, immediately south of Helsingborg, once was one of the largest industries of the city.

Founded in 1873, it produced red brick from slate clay until 1968 when it moved and finally closed ten years after.

The red tile normally originated from clay at the surface of the soil.

The red clay is washed out from lime giving the lower layers of clay a high content of lime as a source for light yellow bricks. The slate clay of Helsingborg is red and has unique properties. Its geology and elementary composition makes it dense, dark—almost violet.² These qualities were sought for the conservation of Kärnan, meaning ‘the core’, a medieval tower castle, partially reconstructed in 1893–94 by the architect Alfred Hellerström. With this work, red Helsingborg bricks became characteristic—a material representative for the city, used for monuments and other constructions in and around the country.

The geological composition and material properties of the slate clay

Further definition and context of the term ‘forging brick’ can be found in Lars Ridderstedt, ‘Tegelsmide och ljusdunkel’, in Adversus populum: Peter Celsings och Sigurd Lewerentz sakralarkitektur 1945–1975 (Uppsala: Hallgren & Fallgren, 1998). Ridderstedt refers to the origin of tegelsmide as defined by Ulf Hård af Segerstad in a newspaper article on the day of the inauguration of St Peter’s, ‘The church in Klippan is not realized drawings, it is a materialized vision, with infinite loving hardships, brick upon brick modified and lithely adapted to its own advancing reality, characterized by hands a meticulous modelled forged stone.’ Ulf Hård af Segerstad, ‘Ett mästerverk i “tegelsmide”’, Svenska Dagbladet, 27 November 1966.

4

brick module depth, hence had to be clad with cork for insulation on the inside. The copper flashing on the top came after the first rainstorm, when water penetrated the brickwork, a result that was not so easy to accept for Lewerentz. The front skylight has projecting bricks, their formation carefully designated in drawings. They were there to meet the early rays of sun, and to register shadow on the brickwork. In the corner of the sacristy Lewerentz wanted to have a number of second-rate bricks worked in, which he one day brought with him. They sit on eye-level, yet are not easy to find for the uninitiated.

Other seemingly trivial contexts also led to unexpected results. The ceramic tile floors of the parish hall were never drawn, but were the result of a spontaneous delivery of tiles, partly second rate. But how to lay them?

He didn’t want any artful solutions, rather he studied crossword puzzles with their interplay of black and white squares that he saw as a possible starting point for setting the patterns.⁴ The floor pattern of the assembly hall was conceived after a study of an Egyptian camel carpet, which he saw after his son-in-law had bought one in Cairo. Such carpets were used to protect the camels’ backs from hard leather saddles. Lewerentz then noticed possibilities that these soft woven patterns could offer for a hard ceramic floor inside a building in the cold and dark north.

The kitchen of the assembly hall was a chapter all by itself. It was much too small to serve the desired 100–120 persons at that time. Lewerentz realized that the kitchen was too small, but he never admitted it openly.

Later the kitchen was refurbished and enlarged, based on drawings by the architect Bengt Edman.

The surrounding area Early on, Lewerentz reflected how options for expansion could be solved.

He first thought that the parish building could be extended towards the pond. After some consideration he did not want to pursue this thought, because ‘however you do it, you desecrate’. Instead he sketched a freestanding hall in the park behind the assembly hall. He imagined a building in free sculptural form that would serve as a kind of entrance via a subterranean corridor, connecting to the area underneath the assembly hall. Where one rounds off towards the pond, Lewerentz imagined a place filled in a labyrinthine way, with tightly grown plants. In an architectural

60

72

80

84

out in the wrong direction. I think that . . . it could probably be better done. It is a way to solve it, anyway. Then it is of course different. Here, I have white conduits. I would not have needed this really. But there doesn’t exist dark conduits for this kind, for the task they have. We have black conduits in other rooms.

[BN] It is not so that you emphasize that the walls will last for a hundred years but one changes the conduits every tenth, twentieth year? [ SL ] It, I thought that that is how you do it. It is a natural way of laying them.

And it is this: that you can be allowed to think about where the lighting is best placed. I don’t know how you should do in another way when you have this kind of material. And besides, if you had another material to cut into, it would be . . . I think that way, to put it in in advance and then get it out in points that never quite fit in . . . and have to draw long then. It is nothing to strive for.

[BN] No, it is a consequent work-method. [ SL ] There is a lot to do about this. But then it is so that I haven’t had time in this kind of space to keep studying it long enough. It is the same in all of the rooms, everywhere it is the same thing. But I have in any case consequently tried to get rid of wires on the floor . . . it is carried out everywhere. It is not so bad. The feeding is from above.

[BN] That is what the whole church is for.

About masonry and walls Sigurd Lewerentz [SL ] and Bernt Nyberg [BN ] [ SL ] Of course there are some experiments since it has to be so quick. Two years on a thing like this is hell too short. I think. If you want to experiment so . . . like this mortar and this masonry work. We had to work with it in the beginning.

[BN] What is the mixture of it? I have wondered. [ SL ] It is cement and lime and gravel of different kinds.

128

3

4

5

between the church and the busy nearby road Slotsherrensvej, as a reference to St Mark’s.

Work on Islev Church began in 1967, the year after the Church of St Peter was inaugurated. It is easy to assume that this church owes a debt to St Peter’s and, particularly, St Mark’s,³ which has significantly coarser joints than St Peter’s.⁴ It is, however, worth noting that two different techniques were used for the masonry. In both cases the mortar was applied in one process. But whereas excess mortar was scraped off at St Mark’s using a wooden block, at Islev Church it was pressed back against the joints with a trowel.⁵ The Exners did this to ‘seal’ the joint—sealing it against penetrating water. If you look at the masonry of the two churches up close, the difference is indeed evident. At St Mark’s, the mortar has a level surface as a result of the way the excess mortar was scraped off; at Islev Church the mortar has a very uneven surface, which reveals that it was pressed in by hand.

Looking at the brick bonds that were used reveals another significant difference. Whereas running bond was used for building the churches of St Mark’s and St Peter’s, perpendicular headers were used at Islev church. The vertical rows of headers were placed at fixed intervals, as in an old medieval bond, forming a constructional connection to the wall behind. Depending on the wall height, three wall thicknesses were used at Islev Church: 1½, 2 and 2½ bricks. The thickest wall has two cavities, one for insulation and one for ventilation and heat supply. The double-cavity wall is a specialty of the Exners and a recurring feature in many of their churches. Seen in cross-section, it consists of three half-brick walls, an outer face, a wall in the middle, and an inner face, separated by cavities 12 cm deep. The outer face and the inner face are connected with the wall in the middle by means of the before-mentioned headers. The vertical courses of headers of the outer face and inner face are offset from each other. This prevents any direct connection through the wall. In other words, heat and cold transfer is forced to make a detour through the wall, considerably reducing heat loss. In line with this constructional use of the wall’s bonds, the self-supporting capabilities of the masonry have been put to use consistently in Islev Church. Brick arches were used over all openings, and there is no steel reinforcement inside the walls, suggesting that structural requirements took precedence over aesthetics.

148

Lewerentz’ starting point was completely different. St Peter’s and St Mark’s were also built from walls 2½ bricks wide, but using running bond only. We cannot see what the walls conceal on the inside, but many details indicate that steel reinforcement was inserted in the joints. This is made clear in the tall light wells of St Peter’s and in some places in the office wing, where the bricks are laid in vertical stacks, resulting in continuous vertical joints from floor to ceiling. This would only be possible due to steel reinforcement placed in the wall. The Church of St Mark shows many similar traits. This is illustrated in its most extreme by a clear span of 10.7 m over the opening between the nave and the aisle. This free-floating wall, weighing more than a ton, is supported by invisible diagonal reinforcement, consisting of diagonal tension bars fastened to steel reinforcements hidden inside the lintel and in the top of the wall.⁶ To Lewerentz, the brick’s own ability to help solve problems of statics was not important. His masonry is more sculptural than structurally motivated. A brief exchange of words, related by Janne Ahlin, between Lewerentz and the then churchwarden for St Mark’s, Nils Brandt, says it all: the churchwarden asked Lewerentz whether the vaulted ceilings in the church’s main space were chosen for acoustic reasons. Lewerentz replied. ‘Yes, it may be that it also benefits the acoustics, but let me tell you, Brandt, it is pure and sheer aesthetics.’⁷ Lewerentz, Peter Celsing, and ‘the family’ Lewerentz himself claimed to have found inspiration for the masonry of St Mark’s in a book on Persian tile architecture.⁸ However, it would seem that a more direct causal relationship can be traced back to the autumn of 1952, when Lewerentz, in collaboration with the thirty-five-years-younger architect Peter Celsing, was asked to draw up a proposal for restoring the cathedral in Uppsala. It is not unlikely that their joint exploration of the cathedral and its old masonry may have inspired them to start using the coarse red masonry for working on their own buildings.⁹ As a young architect, Lewerentz had, before the advent of modernism and its demand for lighter materials, used some hard-burned, dark red bricks. These bricks had been produced at the Ångtegelbruk tileworks in Helsingborg, where Lewerentz around 1915 had planned and designed an area that contained homes for the workers of the plant.¹⁰ In the four years they were exploring at Uppsala, Peter Celsing even managed to land several commissions for

151

6 ‘Tegelbalkar: Ett bärkraftigt alternative’, Tegel no. 2 (1963): 26–30.

7 Janne Ahlin, Sigurd Lewerentz, Architect 1885–1975 (London: MIT Press, 1987), 216.

8 Lars Ridderstedt, Adversus populum: Peter Celsings och Sigurd Lewerentz sakralarkitektur 1945–1975 (Uppsala: Hallgren & Fallgren, 1998), 244 & 318; Sigurd Lewerentz, ‘Markuskyrkan i Skarpnäck’, Arkitektur 9 (1963): 246.

9 Ahlin 200–208.

10

Reduction and Economy: Architecture as a Practice Nicola Flora

Sigurd Lewerentz is one of the few architects of the twentieth century that never attempted to write theoretical text explaining the reasons behind his works, or to create a retinue of adepts or disciples. He trusted only his architecture and thus construction is the only language by which to understand his way of perceiving the world and to reflect that perception through built work.

His absolute dedication to the rules of his profession was due to an ambition for clarity which he never betrayed during his career. All of his work exemplifies the strictest selection of expressive means to obtain the greatest economy of communication. In his thinking, drawing, and built architecture, Lewerentz uses the tactile quality of materials and the raw power of construction techniques—through form, material, light, and space—to make each building a metaphor for the intense and dynamic world that surrounds it.

Each work of the Swedish master demonstrates that his ultimate aim is to create a clear constructive vocabulary: inflexible against the passage of time or changing trends. Lewerentz does not replicate styles, but uses strict planning and geometrically controlled procedures in relation to both the materials and the location of the work. The forms of Lewerentz’ architecture evolve through each building, but there is always a primary concept that is in alignment with his own perception of the world and the relationship between man and nature.

Lewerentz never employed architectural trickery for effect; ‘astonishment’ and ‘fascination’ were never visible aims of his architecture. However, we

the classical language of design to a modernist mode was not instant but developed gradually over some years. When the crematorium was built in 1931 the conical profile was gone and the chimney was made considerably thicker from being encircled by a staircase. Thus Lewerentz evaded the straight appearance of a chimney and instead seemed to aim at a more abstract shape with associations towards a rudimentary tower.

The exterior of the crematorium built in 1931 had white stucco similar to the chapel Lewerentz built in Enköping around the same time.² Another similarity to some of his projects of that time was the apse-shaped wall in the room to where the coffins were brought upon arrival at the crematorium.

In the crematorium this curved wall has a low door through which the coffin could be slid into the crematorium hall and oven. It was this small reception space with a convex apse that was later rebuilt into the Chapel of Hope.

Outside, the walls of the abstract portico had cavities in which urns could be stored before burial. For the crematorium at Woodland Cemetery in Stockholm a similarly shaped mortuary room was built in 1940, where relatives could take farewell of the deceased.

During the years 1936–43 Lewerentz developed many projects dealing with how the two new chapels, St Gertrud and St Knut, could be added to the existing building of 1931. The monumental position for a main chapel is at this stage exchanged for a low position further south in the cemetery and where ultimately two chapels merged with the crematorium of 1931.

When the two major chapels were built wall-to-wall with the crematorium, the small almost semicircular shaped reception room for coffins was extended to hold fifteen seats. The original entrance door and wall was moved eastward so that the portico became part of the interior. The descriptive nomenclature in the drawings varies from ‘reserve chapel’ to ‘small ceremony room’, and in the 1943 presentation in Byggmästaren it is labeled as ‘reception chapel’. The refurbishment and extension in 1943 feature interior walls and ceilings clad with slender wooden slats, and the floor was given a surface of grey limestone. From Lewerentz’ studies for room adjustments one may discern stages when an undulating textile fabric is hung along the semicircular and straight walls. Furthermore, a small window was introduced high on the southern wall, the high placement of which may be explained by the fact that the extension of the crematorium meant that the exterior space south of the chapel had become a room for

239

2

3 The presentation of various projects for these two larger chapels is beyond the scope of these notes. A few drawings from the ArkDes however indicate how the chapels at one stage were positioned towards each other, with entrances facing east and west instead of the ultimate design where both chapels are set with entrances facing north.

Other drawings show early versions where tall horizontal canopies with circular columns are positioned on platforms accessed by stairs.

the second oven. Its glazing has an interesting and decorative wooden frame in the form of two arched vaults with small circular perforations suggesting associations considerably different from the chapels previous modernist character.

The new entrance wall and door is built as a wooden partition divided in two sections where the entry doors are the height of the lower part. The wooden wall is perforated with twenty-four thin vertical slits for light which add some, however subtle, illumination to the chapel.⁴ At the time of its dedication the Reception Chapel had a mild associative interior presumably with a somewhat different character from the original of 1931. While distinct, the chapel was still sober in character.

It appears as if the small chapel may have been a useful complement to the larger chapels that held at least 140 persons each. Lewerentz therefore again developed a new scheme in 1955–56 for an additional larger extension. His drawings present a longer chapel where the existing wooden entry wall and partitions are re-utilized and moved eastward. Furthermore this extension has a sideways curved space which provides room for the placement of an organ and a side entrance. In this extended chapel all the major parts of the 1943 extension are retained, however the new floor, walls, and ceiling have the same grey marble slates in the widened extension as the 1943 exteriors of the major chapels of St Gertrud and St Knut. The renewed interior thus becomes a space where the previous wood-clad wall and limestone floor are combined with the marble slates for floors, walls, and ceiling in the new part. The appropriated wooden wall and door are now inserted in a new exterior wall of grey marble. Also the new entrance wall has one particular window of a design different from all previous windows in the ensemble. Inside of the new wall is a space for the organ where the floor is slightly raised above the new main floor, with its marble and limestone paving sloping down toward the apse materialized in wood.

The design of this added curved volume is reminiscent of entrances and ground treatments for extensions of the crematorium in 1943.

The side entrance at the organ has a steep sloping canopy, today covered with corrugated fiber-cement panels.⁵ Lewerentz’ drawings of 1956 however indicate that the material should be ‘corrugated plastic glass’. His drawings of 1955 and 1956 evidence that the aim to unify or consolidate the various new and old building phases into one over-arching character is gradually

241

4

5

Index of images

x–xi Windows at St Mark’s Church¹² xii Nygrenska Chapel, Valdemarsvik Cemetery (1906)¹⁰ xiv Competition entry for the Malmö Crematorium¹, ¹⁶ 4 Window detail at St Peter’s Church¹⁰ 9 Social Security Administration Office Building facade and courtyard¹⁰ 10 Vault at St Mark’s Church¹⁰ 15 Härlanda Church¹⁰ 15 St Mark’s Church¹⁰ 16 Interior and masonry at Härlanda Church¹⁰ 18–19 Masonry comparison of Härlanda Church and St Mark’s Church¹⁰ 20 Acoustic slot masonry detail at St Peter’s Church¹⁰ 24 Sketch by Sigurd Lewerentz and clipping (ARKM .1973-05 )¹, ¹⁶ 25–27 Floor tile and interior elevation drawings of St Peter’s Church (ARKM .1973-05 )¹, ¹⁶ 28–29 Elevation drawing of St Peter’s Church (ARKM .1973-05 )¹, ¹⁶ 31 Section of masonry bench at St Peter’s Church (ARKM .1973-05 )¹, ¹⁶ 34–35 Folded drawing of St Peter’s sanctuary space (ARKM .1973-05 )¹, ¹⁶ 36 Helsingborg brick surface¹⁹ 38 Damgan, Mausoleum Pir-I-Alamdar [Mehemed], Mausoleum Tchihil Duchteran, from; Denkmäler

267

persischer Baukunst: geschichtliche Untersuchung und Aufnahme muhammedanischer Backsteinbauten in Vorderasien und Persien, (1901–10)² 39 Masonry floor surfaces at St Peter’s Church¹⁰ 42–43 Sigurd Lewerentz’ Helsingborg brick catalog with handwritten notes by the architect (ARKM .1973-05 )¹, ¹⁶ 44–45 Masonry details at St Peter’s Church¹⁰ 46 Sigurd Lewerentz and foreman Karl Sjöholm on site⁸ 48 Masonry detail sketches (ARKM .1973-05 )¹, ¹⁶ 52 Still images from Bernt Nyberg’s construction process films¹⁴ 53 Sigurd Lewerentz on site¹⁵ 54 Andrew’s Chapel entry threshold at St Peter’s Church¹⁰ 57 Exterior corners at St Peter’s Church¹⁰ 58 East facade of St Peter’s Church¹⁰ 59 Exterior and interior masonry vault forms at St Peter’s Church¹⁰ 60 Tile floor patterns at St Peter’s Church¹⁰ 61 Crossword puzzle clipping from Lewerentz’ personal archive (ARKM .1973-05 )¹, ¹⁶ 64–65 Sigurd Lewerentz¹⁵ , 68–83 Construction of St Peter’s⁸ ⁹ 84–90 Newly built and consecrated St Peter’s Church¹³ 92 Baptismal font at St Peter’s Church¹⁰ 94 Aperture & altar at St Peter’s Church¹⁰ 96 Vault and tiling in the Andrew’s Chapel at St Peter’s Church¹⁰ 98–99 Interior of the sanctuary space at St Peter’s Church¹⁰

Bernt Nyberg and Sigurd Lewerentz in the Black Box¹⁵ 102 Contact sheet from photo session in the Black Box¹⁵ 105 The Black Box exterior in 1973¹⁵ 105 Bernt Nyberg and Sigurd Lewerentz testing chair prototype¹⁵ 107 The Black Box interior in 1973¹⁵ 108–9 Sigurd Lewerentz working on the Parliament House competition model¹⁴ 110–11 Parliament House model¹⁴ 112 Sigurd Lewerentz¹⁵ 116–17 Elevation drawing of the skylights at St Peter’s Church (ARKM .1973-05 )¹, ¹⁶ 122 Sigurd Lewerentz¹⁵ 138 Sigurd Lewerentz¹⁵ 140 Handwritten letter from Sigurd Lewerentz to Karl Sjöholm¹ 142 Handwritten letter from Sigurd Lewerentz to Hugo Lindgren¹ 144 Threshold floor details at Islev Church¹⁰ 148 Masonry bond St Mark’s, St Peter’s, and Islev churches¹⁰ 149 Islev Church & Höör Funeral Chapel¹⁰ 150 Threshold to the worship space at Islev Church¹³ 151 Masonry bond at the Eneborg workers’ housing¹⁰ 152 Steel structure at St Peter’s Church¹⁰ 153 Woman in the interior of Gerum Church, Gotland, Sweden

by Lars Kennerstedt⁵ 154 Masonry bond at the Höör Funeral Chapel¹⁰ 154 Masonry bond at the Exners’ house¹³ 155 St Hallvard’s Church¹⁰ 156–57 Exterior and interior of Islev Church¹³ 158 Chapter Hall, Sénanque Abbey, Provence, France⁷ 160 Chapel of the Resurrection axis and exterior⁷ 161 Contemporary church master builders, Sweden, Denmark, Germany⁷ 162 Chapel of the Resurrection⁷ 163 West facade of St Mark’s Church⁷ 100

Chapel of the Resurrection⁷ Tile mosaic floor at the Chapel of the Resurrection⁷ 164 Masonry at St Mark’s Church⁷ 165 Masonry, shallow pond, and low aperture at St Mark’s Church⁷ 166–67 Travel sketches⁷ 168 Window detail at St Mark’s Church⁷ 168 Shallow pond and baptismal font at St Peter’s Church⁷ 169 Aperture, altar, and masonry detail at St Peter’s Church⁷ 170 Masonry at St Peter’s Church⁷ 171 Watercolor study of the Chapel of the Resurrection¹ 171 Brick bench drawing at St Peter’s Church (ARKM .1973-05 )¹, ¹⁶ 172 Exterior wall at St Peter’s Church¹⁰ 174 Baptismal font edge, masonry bench, and masonry bond detail at St Peter’s Church¹⁰ 177 South facade at St Peter’s Church¹⁰ 178–79 Corner at St Mark’s Church¹⁰ 180 Conduit detail in the Flower Kiosk¹⁰ 182 Hedmark Musem¹⁰ 182 Interior of St Mark’s Church¹⁰ 183 The Flower Kiosk storefront¹⁵ 184 Door on the rear facade of the Flower Kiosk¹⁵ 185 Glazing details at the Flower Kiosk¹⁰ 186–87 Brochure for table and chair designed by Sigurd Lewerentz²⁰ 188 Portico at The Chapel of the Resurrection¹, ¹⁵ 191 Approach to the Chapel of the Resurrection¹, ²⁰ 191 Gap above at the Chapel of the Resurrection entry¹, ²⁰ 192 Interior of the Chapel of the Resurrection¹, ²⁰ 193 Southeast corner the Chapel of the Resurrection¹, ²⁰ 194 Site drawing of the Chapel of the Resurrection¹ 196 Structural steel detail at St Peter’s Church¹⁰ , 197 Exterior of St Peter’s Church¹⁵ ¹ 164 164

268

Exterior of St Peter’s Church¹⁵, ¹ Structure at St Peter’s Church¹⁵ 201 Interior of the Flower Kiosk¹⁵ 201 Exterior of the Flower Kiosk¹⁴ 202 Masonry at the Chapel of the Resurrection restroom addition¹⁰ 204 Early sketches of the Chapel of St Birgitta¹ 205 Approach to the Chapel of St Birgitta¹⁰ 205 Stairs adjacent the Chapel of St Birgitta¹⁰ 206 The Woodland Chapel¹⁰ 206 Approach to the Hill of Remembrance¹⁰ 206 The axis to the Chapel of the Resurrection¹⁰ 207 Interior of the Chapel of St Birgitta¹⁰ 208 Chapel of the Resurrection restroom addition¹⁰ 209 Gap between portico and wall at the Chapel of the Resurrection¹⁰ 209 Window detail at the Chapel of Hope¹⁰ 210–11 Comparison of the restroom addition and caretaker’s facility¹⁰ 212 Concrete detailing at the Flower Kiosk¹⁰ 213 Entry seqeunce to St Peter’s Church¹⁰ 214 Mosaic tile floor at the Chapel of the Resurrection¹⁰ 214 Masonry floor undulation at St Peter’s Church¹⁰ 215 Study models for the Church in Växjö¹⁴ 216 Evolution of material fragments¹⁰ 218–19 Plan drawings of five churches¹⁰ 220–21 Exit doors at St Peter’s Church¹⁰ 222 Peephole at the Chapel of the Resurrection¹² 225 Sprit level and brick from the Chapel of the Resurrection⁴, ¹⁷ 226 Masonry door lintel at the Twin Chapels¹⁰ 227 Window detail at St Mark’s Church¹² 229 Plan drawings of the grounds in front of St Birgitta³, ¹² 230 Floor tiles at St Mark’s Church¹² , 231 Brickwork at St Peter’s Church¹⁰ ¹² 232 Plan of the sanctuary at St Peter’s Church (ARKM .1973-05 )¹, ¹⁶ 198 199

Interior plan and elevation of St Peter’s Church (ARKM .1973–05 )¹, ¹⁶ 234–35 The bus stop at the Eastern Cemetery in Malmö¹² 236 Interior of the Chapel of St Gertrud¹⁰ 238 Early model of the crematorium at the Eastern Cemetery¹⁰ 239 Funeral Chapel at the Enköping Cemetery¹⁰ 240 Interior of the Chapel of St Knut¹⁰ 241 Door detail at the Chapel of Hope¹⁰ 241 Exit canopy of the Chapel of Hope¹⁰ 242 Ceiling detail at the Chapel of Hope¹⁰ 244 Interior of the Chapel of St Gertrud¹⁰ 245 Interior of the Chapel of Hope¹⁰ 246 Catafalque at the Chapel of St Gertrud¹⁰ 246 Columns at the Chapel of St Knut¹⁰ 247 Construction process of the canopy restoration⁶ 248 Section drawing of the canopy⁶ 249–53 The completed canopy restoration¹¹ 254, 257–65 Interior of the Church of St Peter in darkness¹⁰ 233

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

269

ArkDes, the Swedish National Center for Architecture and Design Danish National Art Library Malmö City Archive Stockholm City Archive Swedish National Heritage Board Johan Celsing Hansjörg Göritz Carl-Hugo Gustafsson Lars Gustafsson Matthew Hall Ioana Marinescu Nathan Matteson Ole Meyer Bernt Nyberg Karl-Erik Olsson-Snogeröd Matti Östling Lennart Peters Jarmo Sundman Ola Wedebrunn Unknown

E

A

B

G H

J

L

K

D

M

N F

O

E

A

R

C

B

P

Q T

S D

F

C

Lewerentz Fragments Published by Actar Publishers New York, Barcelona www.actar.com Authors Janne Ahlin, Claes Caldenby, Adam Caruso, Johan Celsing, Patrick Doan, Nicola Flora, Jonathan Foote, Paolo Giardiello, Hansjörg Göritz, Lars Gustafsson, Matthew Hall, Per Iwansson, Thomas Bo Jensen, Mariana Manner, Nathan Matteson, Enrico Miglietta, Ann-Marie Nelson, Gennaro Postiglione, Wilfried Wang, and Ola Wedebrunn Edited by Jonathan Foote, Hansjörg Göritz, Matthew Hall, and Nathan Matteson Graphic design by Nathan Matteson With translations by Per Iwansson, Andreas Förnemark, and Mariana Manner With contributions from Christine Hall (image editing); Mark Blumberg (editorial assistance); Andreas Förnemark and Eilís Finnegan (research and drawing) Printing by Narayana Press This publication was made possible by generous financial support from institutions including Aarhus School of Architecture; DePaul University College of Computing and Digital Media; Auburn University College of Architecture, Design, and Construction; the University of Tennessee College of Architecture and Design; the King Gustaf VI Adolfs Fund for Swedish Culture; and the Peter and Birgitta Celsing Foundation. © 2021 Actar Publishers. Each author retains the rights to their respective work, which is included in this volume with their permission. Drawings, illustrations, and photographs remain the property of the respective parties listed in the image credits on pages 267–69.

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, on all or part of the material, specifically translation rights, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilm or other media, and storage in databases.

For use of any kind, permission of the copyright owner must be obtained.

Distribution Actar D, Inc. New York, Barcelona.

New York 440 Park Avenue South, 17th Floor New York, NY 10016, USA T +1 2129662207 salesnewyork@actar-d.com ISBN : 978-1-63840-002-8

Barcelona Roca i Batlle 2 08023 Barcelona, Spain T +34 933 282 183 eurosales@actar-d.com

Library of Congress Control Number: 2021938111 Printed in Denmark Publication date: 2021

Janne Ahlin Claes Caldenby!

Adam Caruso Johan Celsing Patrick"Doan Nicola"Flora Jonathan Foote Paolo Giardiello Hansjörg"Göritz Lars Gustafsson Matthew Hall Per"Iwansson Thomas Bo"Jensen Mariana"Manner Nathan"Matteson Enrico Miglietta Ann-Marie"Nelson Gennaro"Postiglione Wilfried Wang Ola"Wedebrunn