OBR by Birkhäuser

Open Building Research

Paolo Brescia / Tommaso Principi

Birkhäuser Basel

Introduction, p. 4

One < > Many, p. 6

Dialogue with Roni Horn, p. 8

Common < > Public, p. 82

Dialogue with Michel Desvigne, p. 84

III

Museum < > Culture, p. 152

Dialogue with Giovanna Borasi, p. 154

World-City < > City-World, p. 230

Dialogue with Georges Amar, p. 232

Open Building Research, p. 296

Biographies, Bibliography, Credits, p. 340

Residential Complex, Milanofiori, p. 16

Unimore Campus, Modena, p. 40

04 05

LH1 & LH2, London, p. 30

Piazza del Vento, Genoa, p. 48

Children’s Hospital, Parma, p. 60 Lehariya, Jaipur, p. 68

Former Fair Area, Genoa, p. 94

New Galliera Hospital, Genoa, p. 114

08 10 11

Casa Vela, Genoa, p. 106

Railway Stations Area, Varese, p. 130 Central Park, Prato, p. 142

Pythagoras Museum, Crotone, p. 162

Terrazza Triennale, Milan, p. 186

16 17

Galleria Sabauda, Turin, p. 174

Riviera Airport, Albenga, p. 208

Mitoraj Museum, Pietrasanta, p. 220

Bassi Business Park, Milan, p. 240

MIND Innovation Hub, Milan, p. 258

22 23 24

Anámnēsis: Museum < > Culture, p. 228

Jameel Arts Centre, Dubai, p. 200

Anámnēsis: Common < > Public, p. 150

Waterfront, Santa Margherita Ligure, p. 122

13 14

Anámnēsis: One < > Many, p. 80

Ex Cinema Roma, Parma, p. 250

Michelin HQ & RDI, New Delhi, p. 266

VEMA, 10. Biennale Architettura, Venice, p. 276 Right to Energy, MAXXI, Rome, p. 284

Anámnēsis: World-City < > City-World, p. 294

Introduction

We have always understood architecture as

The chapters reflect the four themes investigated

interconnected to other worlds and disciplines.

transversally in the dialogues, which are then further explored in a number of OBR projects

Today, twenty years after OBR’s foundation, we

(6 per chapter for a total 24) with images,

felt the urge to respond to the challenges of the

drawings, and texts drafted during their

present day—from climate change to civil, political,

conception, unfolding in a certain pluralism of

and social regressions—and involve thinkers and

representation. Each chapter closes with an

professionals to join forces with us and commence

anamnesis, a recollection of the steps taken in

a dialogue exploring a number of key subjects

exploring the specific theme.

related to contemporary living. We believe in fact that it is our way of living that must determine our way of dwelling and not the reverse. The purpose of this book is not only that of discussing our activity, reflecting on what we have understood throughout our architectural practice, but most importantly of promoting a broader reflection investigating contemporary living from multiple perspectives, encompassing subjects such as art, science, landscape, and future mobility. This could only take place through a polyphonic conversation with exponents of disciplines other than architecture, bringing to the fore not only the subjects we chose to explore but also a necessarily wider conception of reality, especially of what is yet to come. Georges Amar, Giovanna Borasi, Michel Desvigne, and Roni Horn are the actors who participated in this collective dialogue. With them, we envisioned a sort of “imaginary team” working together at an ideal architecture project, not understood so much as an objective or a result, but rather as a common task, a collective, evolutionary, cooperative process. This book is an open weave of architectural research and building practice, which like warp and weft together create this publication’s narrative structure. The research section is structured in four themes that are relevant to OBR’s approach: the multiplicity of identities in a community, public space as a common good, places of culture, and the relationship between a global dimension and local specificities. The building section instead explores a number of significant OBR projects that have been completed or not, or are currently in the making.

Dialogue with Roni Horn

RH PB TP

Roni Horn Paolo Brescia Tommaso Principi

Your work has been an inspiring reference

for us over the years. We are deeply interested in

The actual is no longer popular: the virtual is

your awareness of what is in constant mutation, of

taking a strong role in society and in community

“universal variation, universal undulation, universal

now. I don’t feel critical of it, but I recognize that I

rippling,” as Deleuze would call it.1 Ever-changing

come from a different time. I think there is a lot of

phenomena, in your poetics, are related to the

personal responsibility involved in community.

question of identity. Identity as something mutable,

In a way, Iceland was a way to find the balance

constantly evolving. It cannot be grasped at once:

with what I was given as a person and who I

by the time it has been glimpsed, it’s already

wanted to be. I came to an acceptance of myself.

something else.

That’s the power of going to the desert, which is a

Working in OBR, we have oriented our research

fascinating setting to learn about yourself. It’s not

toward the integration of artifice-nature, to create

giving you anything but an extraordinary clarity,

sensitive environments in perpetual change, trying

because of the simplified, radical terms of its

to enhance—through architecture—different

language. Being in a very cold or a very hot desert,

individual identities that are part of a whole, thus

those qualities dominate in a way that dictates

promoting a sense of community.

everything else. These are the reasons why I

In your Portrait of an Image (with Isabelle

consider Iceland to be the most influential aspect

Huppert) [2005–06], you create a kind of unstable

of my education, more than any one person.

equilibrium between difference and similarity,

Another aspect of identity that I find fascinating

touching the very heart of the identity issue. In

and that I have explored in my work is androgyny.

your approach, can this idea of identity contribute

It was one aspect that I was handed as a child,

to a sense of community?

through my name. It is not common knowledge

that the spelling of R-O-N-I is in fact the I think that the idea of community can be

female spelling. The male spelling, which is

extremely problematic if based on conformity.

more common, is R-O-N-N-I-E. When I started

There is a tendency to consider the prevailing view

receiving mail for Mr. Ronnie Horn, I thought,

as normal, no matter how abnormal it may be. At

maybe I can inhabit that space too. There were

the moment, for example, I keep questioning my

a lot of elements involved, but it wasn’t all about

ability to continue being a member of American

sexuality or gender, it was about: “Why can’t

society, because its values and ideas of quality of

I be everything?” So, the idea of androgyny is

life are absolutely at odds with my own.

about integrating differences, not excluding

Going back to identity itself, I think it is something

them. When you’re androgynous, you are kicked

extremely complex, relational, and dialectical.

out of bathrooms, as if you were not supposed

I believe I have as many identities as the many

to be where you are. So, I created a milieu for

people, places, and things I know, at a minimum,

myself, which is very uncomfortable in the world

because these draw different things out of me: if I

to begin with. And I think that it prepared me for

am able to recognize them, that’s when communal

the discomfort that my work thrives in. It’s very

sharing happens.

important to have that resistance. Also, I think you

In this regard, Iceland has been important

need to be a little perverse, you know. That always

because it has allowed me to discover precisely

helps. Perversity is good. Identity is very much at

this. My experience of Iceland is not really

the core of how I see myself, identity as something

based on community, but more on a one-on-one

fluid, not fixed.

relationship, on a solitary dialogue. The content

of the actual is especially present in my sculpture.

of this dialogue has to do with my own shifting

identity year after year. Every time I come back,

research which has inspired us over the years is

there is some other point of connection that is

repetition. Many of your works, from You are the

affecting me strongly. I can never hold on to it.

Weather [1994–96] to Some Thames [2000], focus

But what I really learned going there was the

on repetition as a way to reveal identity. Again,

significance of the experiential. The importance

repetition is subject to differences, which are

Another of your recurrent fields of

generated by repeating an unrepeatable repetition.

movement, the wind, the waves, the light that

Your idea of repetition inspired the approach of

penetrates or reflects on it, etc. Without these

multiplicity that we adopted in one of our ongoing

relations, water is not. We can extend the same

projects in Jaipur, the Lehariya Cluster. In the

concept to human beings, existing through

absence of a real local construction industry,

their relationship with the other, but it is also an

our design intent is to reconnect contemporary

architectural topic: the built, in its static nature,

architecture to traditional craftsmanship,

exists and acquires meaning only in its dynamic

reinforcing the local roots and enhancing the

relation with the world and its inhabitants. We

individual identities of the community and the life

conceive architecture as an organism that acts and

of the people involved in the building process.

reacts to its reality, expressing what is infinitely

Combining parametric design with basic local

changing. This is why your narrative about water

construction technology, we pursue a sort of

is very inspiring for us. In our opinion your Another

transposition from the small scale of craftsmanship

Water (The River Thames for Example) [2000] is a

to the large scale of building. The color of each

great work of architecture.

of the facade’s ceramic baguettes, which are configured in a pattern inspired by the lehariya,

a traditional tie-dye textile from Rajasthan, have

that it’s really an active relation, a verb, more than

been chosen by their makers. In fact, the local

it is an object or a noun.

artisans, with their sensibility, selected all the

When I was working on Another Water, Still Water,

colors and their position in the pattern. As a result,

and Some Thames, I learned that everything

their involvement was not only in the production,

I was looking at when I was looking at water

but also in the design process, since the very

was also me looking at myself and everything

early phases of the project. The 60,000 ceramic

around me. Water includes everything, just in

baguettes therefore embody the meaning of

its nature. Chemically, but also optically. So that

multiplicity as handmade repetition, rather than

was something that meant a lot to me. I love the

mere industrial multiplication, to demonstrate the

paradox of it, how water can look so consistent

magnificence of local materials and iconography.

and yet include everything.

In other words, 1+1+1+1+… is very different from

There is a question I always ask myself: “When you

1x…

see your reflection in water, do you recognize the

One of the notable properties of water is

water in you?” And that just keeps coming back to Yes, totally. Instead of repetition, there

is “identity in difference.” I haven’t invented this,

me in different contexts. It says it all for me.

it’s a common phrase, but it is precise as it talks

about the opportunity that repetition gives you to

makes me think about the project we designed

observe the subtleties of difference. This forms

in Milan in 2005 for the Milanofiori Residential

a complexity that has its own inherent value

Complex.4

as a form of engagement, as entrance into an

This sentence is extremely powerful. It

experience. At what point does the difference

become a new identity? How wide is the range of

live well there. I really enjoyed the transition from

subtle differences before you cross a boundary?

inside to outside.

This deals also with the idea of relation

I remember that building. I thought I could

You absolutely got the gist. That’s exactly

with the other, which is another perspective that

the point. For this building we tried to create a

we like about your way of investigating identity.

sense of living starting from a sense of place. For

Your idea of water as “a form of perpetual

this reason, we decided to “open” the building

relation” is emblematic of this point of view.3

to the site, and let the site be part of the living

Water is a very “dependent” material, connected

experience. In other words, the facade, from a

to its circumstances. Water is defined through

mere vertical surface, takes on a third dimension,

its relationship with its container, its currents, its

that of depth, becoming a living space, where 9

01 Residential Complex Milanofiori

Project team

Chronology:

OBR, Favero & Milan Ingegneria, Studio Ti,

2010 end of construction

Buro Happold, Vittorio Grassi

2007 detailed design 2006 concept design

OBR design team:

2006 preliminary design

Paolo Brescia and Tommaso Principi,

2005 design competition (first prize)

Laura Anichini, Silvia Becchi, Antonio Bergamasco, Paolo Caratozzolo Nota,

Awards:

Giulia D’Ettorre, François Doria,

2014 Architizer A+Awards, finalists, London

Julissa Gutarra, Leonardo Mader,

2013 Premio Ad’A per l’Architettura Italiana, Rome

Andrea Malgeri, Elena Mazzocco,

2012 Green Good Design Award, Chicago

Margherita Menardo, Gabriele Pitacco,

2012 WAN Awards, Residential, London

Chiara Pongiglione, Paolo Salami,

2011 LEAF Awards, Overall Winner, London

Izabela Sobieraj, Fabio Valido, Paula Vier,

2011 Residential Building of the Year, London

Francesco Vinci, Barbara Zuccarello

2010 European 40 Under 40 Award, Madrid

OBR design manager: Chiara Pongiglione Artistic direction: Paolo Brescia and Tommaso Principi Client: Milanofiori 2000 S.r.l., Gruppo Cabassi Project management: Luigi Pezzoli Construction manager: Alessandro Bonaventura Construction company: Marcora Costruzioni S.p.A. Location: Assago, Milan Typology: residential Size: site area 30,000 sqm built surface 27,400 sqm

The Milanofiori area at the far eastern end of Milan

The bioclimatic winter houses that characterize

is characterized by a combination of functions—

every apartment have a double purpose:

offices, hotels, restaurants, cinemas, retail stores,

environmental, since they assure thermoregulation;

apartments—giving rise to a newly built cluster.

and architectural, since they extend the indoor

Following page: bioclimatic greenhouse system facing the park. (001)

space toward the outer landscape. With this The residential complex project is the result of a

approach the facade is no longer a mere shell,

competition in which the invited participants were

but takes on a third dimension, depth, becoming

required to envision a residential environment in a

a space of transition between inside and outside,

context that still had not found its urban identity.

where landscape fragments can be included indoors, while extending new ways of living

For this project we decided to pursue the sense

outdoors. In other words, the facade is no longer

of dwelling from the specificity of the place,

a two-dimensional layer separating the inside

characterized by a small wood that had survived

from the outside, but a three-dimensional buffer

the recent expansion of the metropolitan area

between indoors and outdoors, to be inhabited in

of Milan. That wood was representative for us

different ways, according to the season.

of that indefinite area between the city and the countryside. We thought of creating a symbiosis

By doing so, the project strives for a sort of natural

between architecture and that specific landscape

holism, a system in which the interaction between

so that from the synthesis of artificial and natural

the various levels, from public to private, produces

elements a quality of living could be generated that

a unique intensive landscape inside the living units

would favor the inhabitants’ sense of belonging.

that the inhabitants can personalize. The sense of dwelling that is evoked through

The application of this synthesis translates into

the garden system is one stemming from the

the “C” shape of the complex that embraces

original meaning of taking care, similar to the care

the public park and the facade of all 110 units,

a gardener devotes to a garden. Today we can

which has been designed as a public-private,

say that the facade has become a space that is

neighborhood-unit, community-individual

alive and lived, where the inhabitants are invited

interface. On the side facing the street, the facade

to practice their living dimension: a space where

takes on an urban character, with a design that

inhabitants can become the subjects of their way

clearly identifies the loggias of the single living

of living, and not objects of a residential model.

units, defined by the composition of the horizontal stringcourse and of the vertical sections, and by

It is interesting to notice how, when asked where

sliding wooden elements with different densities,

their apartment is, residents of the complex often

for total or partial light filtering. The facade

reply mentioning that element of their unit that

overlooking the public park, on the other hand, is

they personally decided to show through the

a continuous system of terraces and bioclimatic

“inhabited” facade: “I live there, where there is that

winter houses which create kaleidoscopic effects

table and that maple.”

given by the overlapping reflections of the outer public park with the transparency of the private

In line with the evolutions of contemporary living,

inner gardens.

the Milanofiori residences are sensitive spaces in perpetual evolution, an interactive organism

The geometry of the building is structured in slight

thriving on the dynamic exchanges occurring

section translations in the upper levels in relation

between people and the environment.

to solar exposure, with a slight tapering of the outer terraces, in order to assure greater privacy to the inhabitants.

Urban facade with double-height loggias seen from the external road. (002)

Loggias and sliding sunshade elements. (003)

Loggias framed by the structure corresponding to the dwelling units. (004)

Northwest facade overlooking the public park. (005)

North facade overlooking the public park. (006)

East facade overlooking the public park. (007)

External terrace in continuity with the bioclimatic greenhouse. (008)

Continuity of the external terrace, the bioclimatic greenhouse, and the interior spaces. (009)

07 Former Fair Area Genoa

Project team (Waterfront di Levante):

Chronology:

Renzo Piano (master plan donor), RPBW, OBR,

2022 detailed design and start of works

Starching, AG&P greenscape

2021 concept design 2020 preliminary design

OBR design team (Waterfront di Levante):

2020 urban operational plan

Paolo Brescia and Tommaso Principi,

2016 Blueprint Competition

Edoardo Allievi, Francesco Cascella, Biancamaria Dall’Aglio, Paolo Fang, Maddalena Felis, Giulia D’Angeli, Chiara Gibertini, Luca Marcotullio, Lorenzo Mellone, Silvia Pellizzari OBR design manager: Edoardo Allievi Client: CDS Holding S.p.A., CDS Waterfront Genova S.r.l. Project team (Blueprint Competition): OBR, Baukuh, Arup, D’Appolonia, Acquatecno, Oliviero Baccelli, Silvia Bassi, Margherita Del Grosso, Michel Desvigne, HMO, Mario Kaiser, Openfabric, Matteo Orlandi, Giulia Poggi, Valter Scelsi, Studio Viziano OBR design team (Blueprint Competition): Paolo Brescia and Tommaso Principi, Edoardo Allievi, Paola Berlanda, Francesco Cascella, Riccardo De Vincenzo, Paride Falcetti, Chiara Gibertini, Anna Graglia, Zayneb Hassani, Nika Titova, Edita Urbanaviciute, Giulia Zatti Construction company: CDS Costruzioni S.p.A. Location: Genoa Typology: residential, ateliers, offices, commercial, public services, sports arena, city park, public promenade Size: site area 122,000 sqm built surface 113,000 sqm

The project for Genoa’s former fair area was one of

Openfabric, Mario Kaiser, Valter Scelsi, Oliviero

the longest and most complex experiences of our

Baccelli, Margherita del Grosso, and Matteo

professional journey. The beginning of this story

Orlandi. Our proposal, in keeping with Renzo

dates back to 2013, when a private operator asked

Piano’s Blueprint, started from the voids, focusing

us to develop a feasibility study to rethink the

on the creation of quality in the open spaces by

disused volumes of the Fair of Genoa at the port

the sea, but also on the classic Genoese large flat

entrance. It was clear from the very beginning that

roofs affording surprising views of the city: views

we were in one of the most sensitive brownfield

mending connections between the city and the

areas of the city. For this reason, we felt it was our

sea. Our proposal also included Piazza del Mare,

duty to share a common vision with Renzo Piano

a public square characterized by a large canopy

who, with the 1992 Colombiadi and the 2004

providing shelter and creating a super-urban space

Affresco, had addressed the theme of the city-

at the water’s edge.

Following page: planimetry of the former trade fair area. (078)

port relation from a city perspective (and not the reverse).

Following the idea competition, which did not select a winning project, the City of Genoa

We decided to jointly elaborate a study to

announced a public call to select an operator

redevelop the areas behind the port in order to

capable of acquiring the decommissioned

give a strong urban quality to seafront Genoa

volumes, developing them according to the

where the expansion of the postwar port had

Blueprint guidelines. In parallel, the City of Genoa

weakened it by removing—rather than adding and

would build the public areas, including the canal

transforming—what once was the back of the port

port and connections to the city.

into a new front of the city overlooking the sea. In 2017 Renzo Piano’s vision became the Levante Just like the regeneration of the Old Port of Genoa

Waterfront. In 2020 OBR collaborated in the

in 1992 allowed the old city center to recover its

drafting of the urban plan on behalf of the CDS

view and connection to the sea, our study set out

Holding group, concessionaire of the private

to resolve the split between the city and the sea

areas, and curated the regeneration project of the

by means of a new canal between the Old Port

Palasport sports arena in the interface with the

and the Fair. Instead of occupying sea surface,

city. In 2021 Renzo Piano involved OBR in the

we envisioned the opposite process, with the

design of the residential lot. In 2021 the Mayor of

water returning where it once used to be around

Genoa, Marco Bucci, initiated work on the public

the old city walls, creating the port-plant island.

areas.

Furthermore, by working on the Fair’s brownfield area, we intended to reduce by half the volume of the abandoned pavilions of the Fair, and to realize a new prominence of the city on the sea with public and private functions: a canal port with a large urban park; residential, office, hotel, and retail buildings; dormitories and the renovation of the sports arena. Following the 2014 flooding in Genoa, Renzo Piano decided to donate his vision to the city as a free contribution to the urban, port, industrial, and social future of Genoa: the Blueprint. In 2016 an idea competition was announced, which we entered with a group that included Arup, Baukuh, D’Appolonia, HMO, Michel Desvigne, 95

Levante Waterfront, aerial view. (079)

Entrance of the Palasport. (080)

Levante Waterfront, view of the canal port from the west. (081)

Levante Waterfront, residences overlooking the canal port. (082)

100

50 m

General planimetry. (083)

101

Blueprint Competition: the canal port. (084)

102

Blueprint Competition: Piazza del Mare and the hotel. (085)

103

13 Pythagoras Museum Crotone

Project team:

Chronology:

OBR, Erika Skabar, Favero & Milan Ingegneria,

2011 end of construction

Claudia Lamonarca, Giuseppe Monizzi,

2006 detailed design

Giovanni Panizzon, SISSA Scuola Internazionale

2005 concept design

Superiore di Studi Avanzati

2004 preliminary design 2003 design competition (first prize)

OBR design team: Paolo Brescia and Tommaso Principi,

Awards:

Antonio Bergamasco, Giulia Carravieri,

2013 Ad’A, Rome

Dahlia De Macina, Chiara Farinea, Manuel Lodi,

2011 In/Arch Ance Award, Giovani Architetti, Rome

Paola Pilotto, Gabriele Pisani, Gabriele Pitacco,

2010 European 40 Under 40 Award, Madrid

Giulio Pons, Michele Renzini, Paolo Salami,

2009 Medaglia d’Oro all’Architettura Italiana,

Onur Teke, Massimo Torre, Francesco Vinci

2009 finalista, Triennale Milano 2008 Urbanpromo, INU, La Biennale di Venezia

OBR design manager:

2008 Plusform Award, Best realized architecture

Manuel Lodi

2009 under 40, Rome 2007 AR Emerging Architecture Award,

Artistic direction: Paolo Brescia and Tommaso Principi Client: Municipality of Crotone Manager Vittoria Cardamone RUP: Sabino Vetta Construction manager: Alessandro Bonaventura Construction company: Edilcase Location: Crotone Typology: museum Size: site area 180,000 sqm built surface 1,000 sqm

162

2009 Honorable mention, London

This project stems from the international

landscape is emphasized inside the building in the

competition promoted by the European

foyer and the café framing the outdoor landscape.

Following page: the Pythagoras Museum inside Pignera Park. (141)

Community for the creation of an 18-hectare park dedicated to the figure of Pythagoras in the town

The museum is accessible both from the lower

Kroton during the sixth century BCE.

level coming up from the city, as well as from the upper level coming down from the hill. A

Located on the outskirts of Crotone, this project is

spiraling promenade architecturale regulates the

part of a greater urban regeneration plan carried

interior distribution, accompanying viewers in a

out through the introduction of new public and

fluid and continuous manner up to the rooftop

cultural functions in the areas on the margins of

garden area that acts as an outdoor plaza. This

the city, creating a promenade connecting Charles

space is conceived as a belvedere overlooking the

V’s sixteenth-century castle and Parco Pignera

park and the city, a space open to socialization

tracing a clear connection between the city center

and where the limit between exhibition area,

and its outskirts.

square, and garden is defined by the use people make of it. The museum activity unfolds in a

In accordance with the local administration, the

program combining science, art, nature, history,

Park and the Pythagoras Museum are designed

philosophy, mathematics, and music, stimulating a

so as to become centers attracting international

multidisciplinary and research-oriented approach.

cultural tourism, contributing to the economic and social development of the city. For this reason, the

Pythagoras is an exemplary figure combining the

project acts on two levels: on a global level, by

classic culture of Magna Graecia and modern

promoting Pythagoras’s historical and scientific

scientific thought that through Fibonacci and

identity (Crotone was where he founded his

Johannes Kepler and then Andrew Wiles and

school), and on a local level, activating a process

Edward Witten, leads to today. But this is

of urban redevelopment starting from the outskirts,

no traditional museum. The display route is

by developing a concept of a community-rooted

constituted by hands-on installations designed to

museum.

be used by visitors who establish a very interactive relationship with them, therefore favoring

Our intention was to stimulate a sense of

autonomous learning and thought processes.

belonging and overcome the typical reverential fear of a museum perceived as an auratic space, rethinking it as a participatory space partaking in the life of the community. For this reason, one of our concerns was to allow the kids of the neighborhood who used to spontaneously meet in that area to continue to frequent that space and feel it as their own. So, we created museum spaces that would remain always open and accessible, such as the rooftop area and the belvedere overlooking the city. In our idea, the architecture of the museum had to contribute to the formation of a landscape that is morphologically consolidated to the ground. For this reason, we thought of a structure that is hypogeal and epigeal, integrated in the orography of the site, almost tracing the profile of the existing hill elevation while also projecting toward the city. This relationship between architecture and 163

The museum’s roof garden. (142)

View of the museum inside the park. (143)

166

The connection of the structure with the garden’s topography. (145)

The overhanging structure defining the museum’s entrance. (144)

167