2e, Lacaton & Vassal

The reason Anne Lacaton and Jean Philippe Vassal (L&V) work with existing structures comes directly from their conviction that architecture must be a socially conscious process. Their goals are to provide generosity and flexibility of space, have care for the user and for the climate. For Lacaton & Vassal it is intuitive that, if they are to achieve these goals within the boundaries of our economy, to rally behind the cry: “Never demolish, never remove or replace, always add, transform, and reuse!” 42

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it (Place Léon Aucoc)(Fig A)

When asked by the local council to carry out an ‘embellissement’ (embellishment) to a small triangular park in a leafy district of Bordeaux, Lacaton and Vassal’s made a quietly radical conclusion. In the hands of more selfish designers, such a brief would have inevitably contributed to the epidemic of bland sculptural benches and bizarre geometric paving slabs. However, after considering the park and speaking with the families and bench sitters who regularly use it, they concluded that the best way to improve the park was to do precisely nothing. The money earmarked for the overhaul would be better spent on replacing the gravel and for more regular litter picking and pruning of the lime trees.

42 Anne Lacaton and Jean Philippe Vassal,

Freedom of use. (Harvard Graduate School, 2015) 43 David Huber, The architecture of Lacaton and Vassal. In Artforum International VOL. 53, NO. 9 (Artforum, 2015), 343.

“Embelishment has no place here … Quality and charm already exists” - Anne Lacaton 43

(Fig A) Place Léon Aucoc in southern Bordeaux, as found and as left by the Architects.

45

44 Mathieu Wellner, Surplus: Anne Lacaton and Jean Philippe in conversation with

Mathieu Wellner. In Reduce, Reuse,

Recycle. (Hatje Cantz, 2012), 14.

45 Ibid, 13. Such a response shocked the City officials who, mildly offended, initially rejected the plan. The Architects persuaded the City by stressing that the actions they proposed (or didn’t propose) were as much a rejection of their own profession as they were of the brief. When met with a public space that is nice but feels like it could do with something extra, it is not unreasonable to assume in the current architectural climate that the problem is aesthetic44. Lacaton and Vassal show that even the smallest amount of consideration for what already exists can bear beautiful results (Fig B).

“Only a few minor changes were needed because the square already functioned so well. It was, and still is, very important for us to understand that, as a project it isn’t a refusal – It’s a project involving a conscious decision to do nothing.” – Anne Lacaton 45

(Fig B) Other views of Place Léon Aucoc.

46

Addition, winter gardens and balconies (Grand Parc)(Fig C)

(Fig C) Transformed section of façade.

(Fig D) Other images of the transformed blocks.

(Fig E) New layer of self-supporting winter gardens being constructed while the flats remain inhabited.

The principles that Lacaton and Vassal explored in their early projects contributed to the PLUS manifesto. Published in 2004 along with architect Frederic Druot, they challenged the French state’s bulldozer-driven regeneration schemes and offered a plan for an alternative. This would soon be tested by some seriously ambitious projects. Firstly in Paris (Saint-Nazaire) but most dramatically at the Grand Parc estate in Bordeaux. Consisting of 3 huge 1960s slab blocks, Lacaton and Vassal liberated the potential of these post war apartments by removing the facade and creating a new layer of winter gardens and balconies through which light, air and views can enter (Fig D). Crucially, residents were able to stay in their homes throughout construction (Fig E). Only half of the budget was used on the new envelope and the rest was dedicated to general improvements, counteracting the 30 or so years of maintenance neglect.

47

“As architects today, it’s interesting to engage in this question of economy and to push the limits as far as they go, for maximum of volume with a minimum of material and money.” – Philipp Oswalt 46

“We are much more interested in the principle of addition than in simply replacing what is there with something new. It isn’t a question of ‘one or the other’ but a question of ‘one and the other” – Anne Lacaton 47

The Architects’ concept of addition comes into its own at the Grand Parc. Rather than rearranging the internal apartment walls, L&V’s addition of an external balcony add a new room, that when viewed together with the existing apartment can make something greater than the sum of its parts (Fig F).

(Fig F) Isometric plan of the flats before (top) and after (below) the work.

46 Philipp Oswalt, Designing the Brief, (ARCH+, 2019) 67

47 Wellner, Surplus, 14

48 Oswalt, Designing the Brief, 66 For Lacaton and Vassal it is imperative that this space has a neutral and flexible programme. At the Grand Parc this is achieved through the layers of permeable material that make up the new facades. The inhabitant can slide and move panels of glass, polycarbonate and fabric curtain to create different layers of intimacy or exposure. Furthermore, the ability to access the new deck from almost every room in the house creates an alternative circulation route, making the experience of the flat more akin to a detached villa whereby you can opt to retire to bed via a turn around your garden48 (Fig G).

48

(Fig G) Selected images of the completed flats, inhabited by the same people as before they were restored.

Unfinished and immediate interventions (Palais de Tokyo)(Fig H)

Built for the 1934 Paris World Fair, The Palais de Tokyo has a monumental streamlined grandeur, dominating its site on the North banks of the Seine (Fig I). However its chequered history of reuse has resulted in an internal atmosphere

(Fig H) New stair installed into galleries occupying a barely changed rough space.

49

(Fig J) Selected images of the interior as found by the architect.

(Fig J) Monumental streamlined exterior of the The Palais de Tokyo

49 Wellner, Surplus, 18 entirely at odds with the exterior. Having been gutted for a full refit in the 1990s that never fished, the structure contains over 25000sqm of evocatively rough surfaces and slender concrete structure crumbling in the gloomy depth of its huge volumes (Fig J). It was exactly this found atmosphere that Lacaton and Vassal wished to preserve. This, combined with the puny budget they had to convert it into a contemporary arts venue, informed their light touch and piecemeal approach. Strategically placed lifts and stairs are combined with more temporal interventions such as demountable partitions and even a ticket office in a caravan (Fig K). This forms the majority of the new work, thus keeping a large proportion of the budget to spend on necessary repairs, making the space structurally sound and fire-safe so it can be open to visitors (Fig L).

“This was no classic refurbishment project. It followed the logic of a squat – a squatter seeking shelter in a 10’000-sqaure-meter factory building does not start wondering how to renovate the entire area. That squatter is looking for a place to bed down and feel safe. Over time, he or she might extend that space and maybe end up occupying 100 square meters. Than another squatter might arrive and so on” – Jean Philippe Vassal 49

50

(Fig K) Strategically placed lifts and temporal interventions.

(Fig L) Visual comparison between the space as found by the architect and as an occupied gallery.

Opening in stages and with an irreverent attitude to the flashy brand uniformity of so many arts spaces, the barely there renovation is a simulations challenge to the ‘signature architecture’ gallery and the cleansing effect of a traditional ‘white cube’ style intervention. Especially since the largest section of the space was opened in 2011, the Architects sought to maximise the flexibility of space, allowing the gallery and all of its rich programme to be carried out at once or to grow and shrink when necessary (Fig M). They aimed to achieve what had failed to happen at The Centre Pompidou, a space that would be freely explored and freely transformed by artist and visitor alike (Fig N).

50 Andrew Ayers, Fun Palais in The

Architectural Review N°1384, (AR, 2012) 51

“The architects invoked Cedric Price’s Fun palace, quoting Joan Littlewood’s promotional brochure in their explanatory text: ‘No need to look for an entrance – just walk in anywhere. No doors, foyers, queues or commissionaires: it’s up to you how you use it” – Andrew Ayers 50

(Fig N) Isometric diagram showing the free circulation in the proposal.

51

(Fig M) Other selected images of the gallery spaces in the building.

52