Unity of the Discontinuous: Alvaro Siza's Berlin Works

Author(s): Peter Testa

Source: Assemblage, No. 2 (Feb., 1987), pp. 46-61
Published by: The MIT Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3171089
Accessed: 25/01/2010 09:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Assemblage.

http://www.jstor.org

PeterTestais an architectin the officeof
AlvaroSiza, Porto,Portugal.He received
his Masterof Sciencein Architectural
Studiesfromthe Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.
1 (frontispiece). Alvaro Siza,
project for Frankeluferblock,
Kreuzbergdistrict, Berlin, 1979,
sketch
Peter Testa
Unity of the Discontinuous:
Alvaro Siza's Berlin Works
Current architecturalproduction is moving in many direc-
tions at once. With the demise of the positivistmythology
of the modern movement and its doctrinal belief in prog-
ress and functionalism, architecturehas become increas-
ingly uncertain of its grounding. While the conditions of
contemporaryarchitecturalproduction resisteasy summary,
two terminal positions stand out: a frenetic, rootless eclecti-
cism and recurrentappeals to order and origins. The very
existence of such opposing positions points to a basic di-
chotomy underlying cultural production in our time: Ar-
chitecture demands criteria- a grounding in disciplinary
principles and social practices. Yet the contradictionsof
modern society and our self-conscious historical perspective
do not allow for the certaintyof universalprinciples and
stable normative frameworks.
The work of Alvaro Siza as it has evolved over the past ten
years evidences a particularlyacute perceptionof these
contemporaryconcerns. What is decisive about Siza's ar-
chitecture is the precision with which he situateshis works
within the continuity of the discipline of architecture-
interpenetratedwith the contingencies and circumstantiali-
ties within which his worksare producedand used. Siza
probes for limits while refusing to accept them as absolute.
His effort is to.bring diverse and conflicting phenomena
together, while still driving towardthe fundamental. What
is at stake in any work by Siza is less a theological quest
for origins than the revelation of a complex circumstantial
reality- of a site, of a discipline, of a history.
47
 )

1I x~~~~~-
- _ N
`va*

*_ ~~~~~~ l~~~"
*_-~~~~~~~~~~~-
5
-~~~~~~~~?
_

~~~~~~~~--
6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~???..
@

.. ..-.

})l
J
I

a

It is hardly surprisingthat the multifacetednature of Siza's
architecturecomes most sharplyinto focus in his worksfor
Berlin, a city in which successive stages of construction
and destruction are inscribed. Drawing upon a substantial
body of earlier work and anticipatingmore recent produc-
tion, Siza's proposalfor the restructuringof three contig-
uous urban blocks in the Kreuzbergdistrictof Berlin,
commissioned in 1979 by the InternationalBuilding Exhi-
bition (IBA), providesa physical model through which we
may explore in some detail the issues and ideas involved in
his research. As in previous worksfor the cities of Oporto
and Evora and in current projectsfor Venice and the
Hague, Siza, in Kreuzberg,assumes existing forms and the
objective reality of the site as the point of departurefor
new proposals. Characterizedby a tension between the
form of individual buildings and the form of the city,
between a fragmentaryintervention of isolated pieces and
the systematic recuperationof a preexistingfabric, Siza's
proposalsbreakthrough the boundariesof a given spatial
organizationor conceptual system to reassertand expand
certain principles of architecturein a particulartime and
place.
Berlin: Conventions and Contradictions
The IBA approachesthe reconstructionof the city on a
block-by-blockbasis. Its objectives have developed in the
wake of previous urban renewal effortsthat have met with
strong opposition from local residents. In Kreuzbergthe
authoritiesestablished a programthat, in the wordsof one
IBA official, sought to "workwith and not againstthe ur-
ban form," in an effort to demonstratethat "urbanquality
is the outcome of an integrationwith an existing urban
fabric."'This is a programthat reflectsthe contradictions
of a system that has removed itself from the possibilityof a
global restructuringof the urban environment, but remains
committed to dealing with subsystemsand fragmentsof the
city. It is a programbased on a critique of postwarrecon-
struction projects, and implicitly suggeststhe renewal of a
preexistingorder in which it places positive value. This
orientation is reflected in the majorityof projectscommis-
sioned by the IBA, in which we find the repetitionof
former morphological patternsand, in particular,the con-
solidation of the conventional perimeterblock.
assemblage 2
Siza's proposalshave met with substantialresistancefrom
various sectors. Rejecting both a sham reconstructionand
an autonomous self-sufficiency,his proposalspursue the
contradictionspresent in the IBA'sreconstructionprogram
and in a city without a single or logical resolution. Consti-
tuted through a pluralityof contradictoryevents, Siza's
Berlin worksbreakdown barriersand hierarchicaltaboos
- revealingmany of the standardterms of the debate on
architecturein the contemporarycity as reductiveand
counterfeit.
Siza's proposalsfind supportin an analysisof Kreuzberg,
but also develop in responseto a more global understand-
ing of the historicallydeterminedcondition of Berlin. Of
Berlin, Siza has observed:
Berlinis a limitedcity. It wasdestroyedby the war,as so many
othercities,but wasnot systematically reconstructed.
The separa-
tion, the wall, madean urbanreconstruction planimpossible.It
is the non-realization
of thisplanthatis largelyresponsiblefor
the fragmentation the
[of city].
In Berlintherewasneithersystematic destructionnorsystematic
reconstruction. The dualityold city/ newcitydoesnot existin
Berlin.Herewe areobligedto slipourprojectsbetweennew
fragments and old fragments whichnevercomplementeach
other,whichmayneverbe reducedto a unity,but whichexistas
parallelrealities.2
In keeping with these observations,Siza summarizedthe
intentions of his proposalsfor Kreuzbergin the following
manner:
In Berlintheywantedto recuperate a blockof Kreuzberg to
housethe inhabitants.It wasnecessaryto takeinto accountthe
layout,analyzethe reasonsforthe fragmentation of thissector.I
soughtto assemblethese fragmentswithout hidingtheirreality,
andto bringthemcloserto otherfragments.It wasnecessaryto
use a system here. ... I chose that of the nineteenth century.3
The nineteenth-centurysystem of which Siza speaksis that
set of conventions that establisheda common set of refer-
ences for the speculativedeveloperswho built Kreuzberg.
Through this system the large blocks of the districtwere
subdividedinto more or less regularlots on which were
constructeda common residentialbuilding type of five to
six stories- forming a continuous built perimeterwith
commercial establishmentsincorporatedinto the ground
48
 Testa

3. Kreuzbergdistrict, circa
1920, aerial view

45Jb'

2. Kreuzbergdistrict, Berlin,
1978, sketch

Cn~YM VVo- t
' r^
't'

4. Kreuzbergdistrict, nine-
teenth-century apartment
block 5. Kreuzbergdistrict, Kottbus-
serstrasse,corner building

6. Berlinapartment house,
1849, ground-floor plan

49
 assemblage 2

a U , b U 0UUoLlUUe
I
000
000000DU00
ODI
I [.3 DO000000 D 000
DnI p 0OD
00 D00
0ooDooo0uao
00000DD 0 o0
00000
I n L 00000000000000

- D - LL,I
L[I LJ ;
I iL
I 1wi"r-
I L ui F-

I
rj3 U3 rj L-JCA

EJ1_ r LIL _
L LA
E3CE--
C--DJO cU aC
D . EAE L-r
nro c1 C. c--
oooE300 OO
3 Oc3 [- 3 L- L.-
_C_ C.
c. 3 .] Li L_
nnnlninnri

500 0 00000lo
10 000000
0 0 0 0100
H0 0l00 I0
J 070 0 0 0 0l 0
j0hnnn n
Tnln

c --
=_J
I d
-J?K
-
--= 01
?l

"'rD

Enn D En n cir 'EC

_ 'Ba LJ CaoLr O r-
non c7
clc. 1- O
c]vo iF ~C
car--n
v n bc
ro n. o co o
O _C. .C
i
En oTrs n o
-- o o O CDCZEJoE oooorr 1-1 C
=1-3 O - C - -a , - -

i !

0-
oaooDoooooo
'ooo~ - ol

inooooooooo

e f UUUUUUUUUUUL
OOOOOOOOODOO

000000000000
000000000000
000000000000

]p-- E
lTU 0F

i ........

00000000
00000000
0000000'0
nnnnnn
1 rnB-I
IF n
7. Alvaro Siza, project for
Frankeluferblock, Kreuzberg
district, Berlin, 1979, typical
floor plans and elevations

50
 Testa

* 0r ;floor along major thoroughfares.4Extensionscarriedout

....::.:
8"'''
blockcircaover F time, perpendicularto the street, have formed the
typical L-shapedbuildings and interiorcourtyardsof this
!:.i:~ .~ area.
Siza's insertionscombine toform a system derivedin part
from the typologicaland morphologicalcharacteristicsof
the nineteenth century, in some cases modifying the exist-
ing typology only slightly. Siza'sbuildings are all composed
8. Frankeluferblock,circa of simple volumes, with streetlevel porticosand, in most
1978,aerialview cases, a tripartitedivision of the facade;they continue the
conventional use of repetitivewindow openings;and, in
some cases, the plan layout with its U-shaped stairsaccess-
ing two units per floor closely
parallels that of the tradi-
tional buildings of Kreuzberg.Siza also redeploysthe
patternof cornerbuildings developed as special urban
episodes.
Siza adopts many of the nineteenth-centuryconventions,
yet subtle transcriptionsand significantdeparturescan be
.....:..'...n.. detected. He does not employ a neoclassical architectural
vocabulary;the formativedevices and typologicalelemefPts
found in Kreuzbergare abstracted.Transformationsin the
planning of the buildings include the elimination of the
typical half-storyground floor and half basement, which is
replacedby ground-floorporticos, and the combination of
closed and open room arrangements.But the most signifi-
cant departureis enacted on the level of the relationof the
building to the block and the reinterpretationof the spatial
structureof the block itself.
block,view
9. Frankelufer
showingopening Frankelufer:Two Worlds
In the block of Frankeluferwe may identify the basic ele-
ments of Siza's strategy.In this large block markedby a
fairly continuous perimeter, Siza's interventionsinvolve the
addition of new buildings and the partialstructuringof
public space within the interiorof the block. Groupingto-
gether the four buildings proposedfor this block, we find
not only that each refersto its particularsituation, but that
a line of referenceexists from one to another:each one in
some way implies the other. Moreover,the outlines of for-
mer, now destroyedstructuresand traces of old property
lines, walls, and fences are superimposedwith existing
constructions,together forming a networkof referencesand

51
 assemblage 2

36
-
34
. 11 r ` 2
32
30 ~28
z 26 V

E -l
DD
lmnarnrDnr000000D aD
ooooo
ckuloo [u L nnn 1n n nnnnlnnnn1DooOD Do Gnoonooonnn0
iE Unnn
on0PDooD-ooDDD
r
00o0 nnnn
nnnnnn cnnnn
oooooo -n n
n nnnn A
nf n HPI
ooooor
i0~S000O00Uj0
U 00000O O
nnnf n II o 0DID
c[fnnn[E U000000 n lnn M nGnnnor=
n 0 nBoUlo
0--
Fjinnnn_ fo flHi J o O = o
n^n00
IImTU n
Fnn0nn0n0r I0- 0no1i nnnD Tn 01 n
i 111 3
n00lI oonc

10. Alvaro Siza, project for

Frankelufer block, 1979,
ground-floor plan and street
elevation

52

00000000DDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Ba BF I DB] DD
n DD DD ]DO DD
nnBnnnnnnnninn
11. Siza, project for Frankelu-
fer block, building B, 1979,
street elevation, plan of typical
floor, and inner block elevation
alignments that suggest themselves as a contextual matrix
within which Siza locates his constructions.
Siza recoversthe depth of this large block for use as dwell-
ing with his isolated, fragmentedbuildings set back from
the street. Adjacency, parallelism, and complementarity
with former and existing structuresare the means by which
Siza seeks to reconstructdismemberedbuildings and renew
a disfigureddistrict. If his interventionsare developed out
of an understandingof the enduring and transposablena-
ture of typological schemes, they are not moribund types
but actual buildings, complete organismswith a life of
their own, resonate with an urban community. Aligned
and askew, Siza's insertions discretelyintroduce a geomet-
Testa
12. Siza, project for Frankelu-
fer block, 1979, sketches
rical order that begins to give structureto the interiorof
the block while simultaneously relatingthe interiorspaces
to the street space and the city. Joining here, separating
there, Siza juxtaposestwo conflicting urban orders:that of
the city as a continuous fabric and that of a heterogeneous
collection of object-buildings.
The large, L-shaped building B focuses many of the issues
involved in Siza's project for Kreuzberg.We may read this
structureeither as a reversalof the typical Kreuzbergcon-
figuration, now facing into the block and set askewto the
street, or as a fragmentof a former courtyardstructure.
Siza's construction is detached from, yet congruent with,
the existing street-frontbuilding. The proposedbuilding re-
sponds to its double orientation with through access on the
53

street side and a portico that extends around the building
in an interplaybetween front and back. The rearfacade
presentsanother front to the interiorof the block with a
regularfacade that is excavatedto form a shallow parabolic
niche. The classical hemicyclical niche is employed here
to center the new construction within the heterogeneous
order of the block's interior.
In this construction the relation between a public front and
a privateback may appearto be inverted, yet on closer
examination, it is apparentthat the street side remains
dominant in this and all of Siza's proposals.However, the
interplaybetween front and back, street and block ac-
knowledgesthat inner block constructionstoday exist as
fragmentscut off from a continuous system of enclosed
courtyards.Large blocks such as Frankeluferdemand a
reinterpretationof a once unified and coherent system.
Siza accepts the contemporaryambiguous condition and
develops a dual reading in his buildings. This may be fur-
ther illustratedby considering the plan organization.The
wing perpendicularto the existing street-frontbuilding is
organized in a traditionalway, with its rooms facing into
the "courtyard,"its corner BerlinerZimmer,5and its blind
partywall allowing for later contiguous development. The
adjacent wing may, however, be read in two ways. The
street side is still dominant in terms of the location of pub-
lic rooms, yet the living spaces of the dwelling units may
be oriented either towardthe street side or towardthe
block side. This two-sidednessis most apparentin the end
unit where living and dining spaces run through the depth
of the building.
In Siza's building for Frankelufera conventional form is
transformedthrough a shift in the relationsof building to
block, a shift that consciously detaches this form from the
domain of strict tradition. In this simple and carefullycal-
culated gesture, Siza inserts one world into another, estab-
lishing a dialogue that resonatesthroughoutthis work.
The interventions Siza proposedfor this block do not cre-
ate a new condition but simply interpreta latent possibility
within the urban structureof Berlin. The devastationof
the war wrenched open the block structure.The resulting
fragmentationhas combined with postwarspeculation,
changes in the urban economy, and demographyto trans-
assemblage 2
form both the use and the meaning of the interiorspaces
of the city. The resultingporous quality is today typical of
Berlin streetswhere structuressituatedwithin the block
have a changed status, now participatingin the streetlife.
In these spaces we find the prewaruse of gardens, out-
buildings, workshops,and tenements combined with a new
tendency to build in the interiorof the largestblocks. In
proposingto build residentialstructuresin the block of
Frankelufer,both on the perimeterand within the block,
Siza is not inventing a new patternof occupation but con-
solidatingand giving form to a preexistingorderand an
emergent informal one.6 What is exceptional in Siza's pro-
posals is that he maintains voids in the perimeterand ap-
pearsto elevate the everydaylife world of the interiorof
the block back to its public status in the city. In so doing
Siza questions our notions of propriety,inheritedfrom the
nineteenth century, and the articulationsbetween society
and the space it inhabits. This is not effected by imposing
an abstractorder on the existing situation but by acknowl-
edging a realityof use, which Siza seeks to adopt posi-
tively. In the block of Frankelufer,Siza does not simply
disregardnineteenth-centuryurban conventions, but insists
on the copresence of another less defined and informal set
of relations. In this processwe might suggestthat Siza is
seeking to rebuild the nineteenth-centurysystem of Kreuz-
berg by bringingolder conventions into alignment with
changed social and materialconditions.
The ideological implications of this operationare complex
and highly chargedbecause a certain social stigma is at-
tached to the interiorof the blocks of Kreuzberg.The
street side traditionallyhas been assumed to be a privileged
domain, while the back and interiorcourtyardsand spaces
have been associatedwith tenements, servants'quarters,
workshops,and small industrialenterprises.The Biirger-
hduser(bourgeoishouse type) designed around 1825 by
Schinkel providesa simple illustrationof some of the so-
cial biases associatedwith this system. Schinkel'shouse
type follows a basic patterncommon to the urban houses
in wealthier districts,which, in contrastto the Berlin
apartmenthouses, did not providethrough access to the
yard or interiorof the block. Schinkel'sdesign is insular
and disallows the use of the site for productionfacilities. In
addition, the kitchen and servants'quartersare located at
54
 Testa

ei^r;
Ef^E. // 7 }

I
-, r... / ?.t.-.';_._

i W.'~:
.. . .t.._\ .\ .s

*R' .,V^V
I

:: 14. KarlFriedrichSchinkel,
'-:'".!:'B:r..' . __ . . .
project for bourgeois house
_ _ X 6type,1825, interior perspective,
ground-floor plan, and upper-
IHHH~B I i flour plan

13. Kreuzbergdistrict, Berlin,

circa 1920, aerial view

55
 assemblage 2

15. Alvaro Siza, project for a

residential building on Kott-
busserstrasse,1980, ground-
floor plan and street elevation

':-

-; the extremityof the building. Such social distinctionsare

programmaticin almost every aspect of the spatialorgani-
zation, interiorlayout, and vertical distributionin the
buildings of the district. In adoptingand transgressingthe
Ma^yyass1: ?ooo El
E.DDIilii I "nineteenth-centurysystem"Siza is engaging not simply in
1t1;Z[n
E7 nn formal manipulationsbut in the structuringand restructur-
. n-nnnn -nr ing of social space, its use, and its meaning.

Kottbusserstrasse:
Siza's Modernism
If an analysis of the block of Frankeluferallows us to es-
tablish the major characteristicsof Siza's proposalsat the
urban level, the small residentialbuilding on Kottbusser-
strassesuggeststhe manner in which these intentions are
I! synthesizedinto a single building. Along the streetfront of
/ Kottbusserstrasse a highly irregularvoid has developed,
exposing the backs and sides of existing buildings to the
street. Siza suggeststhe continuity of the streetwall by in-
sertinga planar fagade more or less in the center of the
open lot. The body of the building, however, develops by
interactionwith the adjacentbuildings, assuming their
alignments even as it assertsitself volumetricallyas a free-
standingobject. Siza's building appearsto be constructed
and deconstructedthrough a dialogue that sustainsitself on
the tension between the interiorand exteriorof the block
and between the individual building and the city. Here, as
in all of Siza's interventionsin Kreuzberg,complementary
and conflicting aspects of urban space, building, and
dwelling are set in motion. From this perspective,the for-
mal articulationof each building reflectsa search for an
architecturalfigure capable of holding these conflicting
worldstogether.

While multiple and opposed conceptions of the city make

up the space of Kreuzbergtoday, we might also understand
Siza's operationsin terms of the confrontationof pre-
,-- modern and modern categoriesand conventions of urban
building and architecture.The excavationof the Kottbus-
16. Siza, project for Kottbus- serstrassefacade implies the copresence of front, back, and
serstrasse, 1980, sketches
side, but may also be understoodin terms of a syncretism
of the frontalityassociatedwith the classical traditionand
the oblique multifacetedforms characteristicof modern-
ism. This conceptual cleft - which breaksthe regular
window-patternand shattersthe overlappingand extended

56

cubic volume of the first floor- introducesthe three-
dimensional nature of modern architectureinto the tradi-
tional, continuous street wall. On several levels, Siza con-
verts supposedlyincompatible phenomena into copresences
in a tense relation that values and establishesdifferences
ratherthan resolves them.
Siza's construction merges with its setting yet proposesthat
we view these same surroundingsin a new way. The grey,
blind walls of adjoining structuresare veiled or partially
exposed, extending our sensibilities and inducing us to be-
come more acutely aware of our surroundings.Without
any nostalgia for the past, this work points to the aesthetic
richness alreadypresent in an environment that here be-
comes the architecturalexperience. In this small example
we may begin to understandSiza's projectsfor Kreuzberg
in terms of modern and premodernworldviewscritically
examined and interlocked. This interpretationleads us be-
yond the simple opposition of two urban realms in which
this operation finds its rationale. It may illuminate both
the manner in which Siza rationalizesformal decisions in-
volved in this work, and the underlying modernism of his
architecturalresearchprogram.
In an effort to gauge Siza's departurefrom both the nine-
teenth-centuryarchitectureof Kreuzbergand an orthodox
modern architecture, it is useful to contrastSiza's proposals
for Kreuzbergwith Van Doesburg'sseminal statementcon-
cerning the formal assertionsof the "new architecture."In
1924, in De Stijl, Van Doesburg wrote:
The new architectureis formless ... it does not recognize fun-
damentaland unchangingpatterns,it shunssymmetryandthe
frontalapproachdevelopingits many-sidedplasticnaturein space
. . . and it does not distinguisha frontfroma rear,rightor left,
and if possible even up or down.7
In the building on Kottbusserstrasse,as in all his proposals
for Kreuzberg,Siza drawsdistinctions between front, back,
and side, as well as up and down, yet we find simulta-
neously the presence of architecture's"many-sidedplastic
nature in space." Moreover, Siza does seem to recognize
what Van Doesburg terms "fundamentaland unchanging
patterns."While it may be argued that Siza understands
the structureof Kreuzbergas a conventional system rather
than as a set of immutable rules, it must also be seen that
Testa
these conventions refer to fundamental patternsthat under-
lie the city as an urban construct, forming a set of relations
whose formal antecedents reach back beyond the nine-
teenth century, structuringthe space of the city in terms of
blocks, streets, and squares. By reinforcingthe block struc-
ture where it is weakest, particularlyat the corners that
define urban squares, and by suggestinga relativecontinu-
ity of the streetwall, Siza reassertsthis fundamentalpat-
tern of city building. Nevertheless, within Siza's heterodox
approachthese fundamental patternsdo not appearas fixed
and unchanging. The proposalsfor Kreuzbergaddressthe
need for both historical continuity and change.
In Siza's hybrid constructionsof modern and premodern
categoriesconfronting one another, it is not surprisingthat
we may sense parallelswith Adolf Loos's architectureand
urban buildings for Vienna. The correspondencesbetween
Siza's proposalsfor Kreuzbergand Loos's work, such as the
proposalfor the Allgemeine VerkehrsBank of 1904 or the
well-known Michaelerhaus of 1909-11, are not superficial.
For example, despite its apparentlydissonant architectural
vocabularythe Michaelerhaus, too, is grounded in the
transformationof known types and conventions. It is a
construction that develops multiple relationswith all the
elements in its setting, inflecting towardthe squareon
which it is situated. Both Siza and Loos are concerned
with establishinga relational structurefor architecture,and
we may find in Loos a precursorfor an operationthat
seeks to recover the thread of historical continuity while
acknowledgingchanging cultural and materialconditions.
Both architectsare consciously constructingnew world-
views out of old ones.
The worlds to which they refer, however, are different, and
the nature of this difference is found in Siza's acceptance
of incompleteness in urban space and in the forms of his
architecture.Loos's project for the Schwarzwaldschuleof
1911-12 providesa limited but neverthelessrevealingcom-
parison. In contradistinctionto Siza's proposalfor Kottbus-
serstrasse,the easily comprehensible form of Loos's project
appearsmore clearly as a mutation of classicism. While we
find a strikingsimilarityin the elimination of figurative
elements, in the combination of rectangular,square, and
horizontal openings, and in the use of three-dimensional
57
 assemblage 2

17. Adolf Loos, project for All-

gemeine VerkehrsBank, 1904,
photomontage

18. Loos, Michaelerhaus,Mi-

chaelerplatz, Vienna, 1909-11

.T0~0 g--o0o0
-D--F--F--T--F-i-7 0DD003OO
0000?? r -- I -1 Ir - ,, - 1 1 0000 00g
0000 00 F--
0 r--qF--]C 0000
- - 1 --- 0000 0
U0000E00n I 11IzrI
11
IFI11 I --1 nno0 JDIOo0
11rnnn
n
L-L]l - 17l
FI I' I r-_
1-1 ULLL- n 1nll
- 00 ?l
HH i
1-1 I 1F ''
u u u u Lm u u u u Uu u UI?' H u
ODfOOOO
L LU[Luu a C z
EILIEJEU oo00
UL00000
19. Loos, project for Schwarz-
waldschule, 1911-12
ruIRo?
__CDDGDi7~ FEuu[1000oo
] D-0o0o

20. Alvaro Siza, project for

Frankeluferblock, corner build-
ing, 1979, plan of typical floor
and elevation

L]HHF]F]F] nnnnnnnnnnnn,
r II7L.nnn-nni
F] H
F]FH]
'riji-nnnnnn13
HF]PF]
F] I ,jF-.
. F1
O nB B ..
LiFF]PFl . nnnnnnpnnnnnnn
.Lnnn-l. I.
F]F] -I1--- 21. Siza, project for Kohlfurter
[IH] E
block, Kreuzbergdistrict,
corner building, 1979, plan of
typical floor and elevation

58

projectionsbeyond a planar facade, the incomplete form of
Siza's project representsa far more complex condition.
The interplaybetween a static symmetricaland frontal ar-
chitecture, and a dynamic asymmetricaland oblique for-
mal expression, is carriedmuch furtherin Siza's project,
which is not only radicallyasymmetrical,but also frag-
mented. Unlike Loos's project this constructioncannot be
understoodall at once, and it is not immediately evident
how it has been derived. While Siza does not fully remove
a conventional identity from this form, he nevertheless
suggestsan unstable and fluctuating relationshipwith its
surroundingsand with the traditionthat disallows such a
relationship.
While it might appearthat Siza and Loos are here mirror-
ing each other in forwardand backwardprojections, other
significant differencesexist both on the level of their ap-
proach to a preexistingurban structureand the manner in
which their architecturedevelops spatiallyand plastically.
Where the corner building on the Frankeluferblock in its
superpositionof cubic forms may appearLoosian, the
dynamic and plastic forms of the corner buildings for
Kohlfurterrecall the work of Hans Scharoun and Eric
Mendelsohn. The expressiveflair of these constructions
and the differentiationof forms throughout Siza's proposals
for Kreuzbergsuggest a strategyof "particularizedcomposi-
tion" that is the hallmarkof expressionism.But while it is
true that Siza treatseach site differently,his proposalsare
not simply a collection of individual gesturesnor a strategy
in which the unique incident or unrepeatablesite condi-
tion is emphasized over any notion of continuity. In the
proposalsfor Kreuzbergthe "incidents"acquire meaning
only within a largerframeworkto which they consciously
and constantly refer. By the adoption of a basic theme
found in the repetition of simple volumes and a limited set
of elements that are inflected in responseto their particulai
circumstances, Siza's proposalsharbora degree of rational-
ization antithetical to the subjectivismand stylistic inven-
tions of an expressionistarchitecture.The significant
parallel between Siza and Scharoun or Mendelsohn is
ratherto be found in their common attempt to form exte-
rior space through the juxtapositionof plastic and incom-
plete forms in opposition to the unifying compositions of
Testa
nineteenth-centuryurbanismwith its assumptionsof
harmony, unity, and closure.
An unstable condition emerges from Siza's insistence-on
accepting both the nineteenth-centuryurban system of
Kreuzbergand the disaggregatedand heterogeneous order
of postwarBerlin as the bases for his projects. By pursuing
the contradictionsinherent in this condition, Siza intro-
duces a degree of relativisminto the process of urban con-
struction that was foreign to nineteenth-centuryurbanism.
For example, within Siza's proposalsonly the corner build-
ings of the perimeterblock form an unchanging pattern;
we are not providedwith an absolute measure of openings
into the block. In contrastto the nineteenth-centurysys-
tem, which ensured a relativelyuniform standardin the
public domain of the street and providedrules requiring
just a limited degree of interpretation,Siza only provides
principlesand no clear set of rules. Siza's proposedinter-
ventions do develop a clear set of elements and do find
supportin former and existing spatial and social configura-
tions, yet these have been substantiallymanipulatedby the
architect;preexistingconditions are not seen as determi-
nants. This process is most evident within the block where
former conventions pertainingto the streetspace do not
prevail and where a heterogeneous order is presentedthat
varies greatlyfrom block to block. It would appearthat in
Siza's interpretationsthe emergent nature of this inner
block language disallows a simple and definitive solution.
In this way Siza's proposalsfor spatial organizationremain
suggestivelyschematic and open to furtherdevelopment.
Conclusion
Divergent readingsof the city emerge and various architec-
tural traditions, including the conflicting driveswithin
German modernism, find themselves face to face within a
synthesis that everywherereveals its own contradictions.
Clearly such a dialectical approachto urban construction
is distant from the unifying and absolutistorder underlying
modern urbanism associatedwith CIAM's theories of the
city. Siza's approachalso appeals to a differentunderstand-
ing of architectureand contemporaryurban problems than
the so-called contextual proposalsof the 1970s, as put
59

22. Robert Krier,project for
the reconstructionof Stuttgart,
1973
23. Alvaro Siza, project for
Kohlfurterblock, 1979-80
24. Siza, project for Kottbus-
serstrasse, 1980, sketch
assemblage 2
forwardby architectslike Rob Krier.We might contrast
Siza's Berlin workswith Rob Krier'sproposalsfor the re-
constructionof Stuttgartof the early 1970s, which offer the
image of the integralcity, accomplished by piecing to-
gether fragmentsof the city and by subordinatingeach ele-
ment to the overall structure.An examinationof Krier's
project revealsa strikingabsence of the contradictionand
conflict that characterizesthe true beginning condition of
any site in the contemporarycity. In contrastto architects
such as Krier,Siza does not cover up the conflicts between
diversearchitecturaltraditionsand between the values of
the past and the values of the present. The transformations
of the urban space of Kreuzbergare no longer those of the
historicalavant-garde,but neither are they based on an
ahistoricalconception of a closed and finite body of archi-
tecturalknowledge.
Contradiction,ambiguity, superposition,and clashing are
not seen as values in themselves. Siza's workdoes not rep-
resent the normativeprojectionof some new style, and
does not simply accept the fragmentarystate of the city as
a permanentor even desirablecondition. It is appropriate
to reconsiderSiza's statementscited at the outset of this
discussion:"We are obliged to slip our projectsbetween
new fragmentsand old fragmentswhich never complement
each other, which may never be reduced to a unity, but
which exist as parallel realities."Siza thus acknowledges
the contemporaneousand disjunctivenature of the city of
Berlin. Yet he also writes that he "soughtto assemble these
fragmentswithout hiding their reality, and to bring them
60
 Testa

closer to other fragments."This statement qualifies the pre- Notes Figure Credits
vious one, reflecting a basic contradictionin the intention This article forms part of a book- All sketches and drawingsby Alvaro
of bringing fragmentscloser together without denying the length study on the work of Alvaro Siza courtesy of the architect.
Siza undertakenwith the supportof
separatenessthat characterizestheir fragmentation.This the Graham Foundation and the
3, 13. R. Wolters, Stadtmitte Ber-
lin (Wurberg:Verlag Ernst Was-
positive contradiction may be somewhat clarifiedby con- National Endowment for the Arts. muth Tubingen, 1978).
sidering yet another statement made a few years earlier, in The author wishes to thank Stan-
1977, in reference to the same issue: ford Anderson, Kurt Forster, Sherri 4-6, 14. D. Rentschler and W.
Geldersma, and Wolfgang Rudorf Schirmer, Berlin und Seine Bauten,
It is an essentialproblemto be capableof tyingtogetherdissimi- for their assistanceand critical re- vol. 4 (Berlin:Verlag von Wilhelm
larthings,as the citytodayis in realitymadeup of verydiverse view of earlier draftsof this paper. Ernst und Sohn, 1974).
fragments.In a city the problemis to forma wholewithruins, 1. BernardStrecker,Internationale 8. IBA photograph, International
buildings of differentperiods, fragments... The city is not
Bauausstellung,Berlin. Building Exhibition of the city of
necessarilycontinuous, but much more complex. Searching to West Berlin.
2. Alvaro Siza, "Un Immeuble
makeof its piecesa wholeis necessaryto developourmethodol- 9. Courtesy of Alvaro Siza.
8 d'Angle a Berlin," Architecture,
ogy....
Mouvement, Continuite (AMC), 17-19. B. Rukschcio and R.
The tension between the idea of "searchingto make of its ser.2, 2 (1983):16-21. Schachel, Adolf Loos (Vienna: Resi-
3. Ibid. denz Verlag, 1982).
pieces a whole" and the conviction that the city "may
never be reduced to a unity"condenses Siza's understand- 4. A more detailed descriptionand 22. Robert Krier, Urban Space
documentation of the urban system (New York:Rizzoli, 1979).
ing of the city as an artifactformed by superpositionsand
transformationsthrough processesof constructionand de- of Kreuzbergis found in J. F.
Giest, Das BerlinerMietshaus,
struction. This understandingunderlies the proposalsfor 1862-1945 (Munich: Prestel-Verlag,
Kreuzbergbut also providesthe artisticimpulse found in 1984).
Siza's work. In this view, architectureis about both differ- 5. In the Berlin apartmenthouses,
ences and continuities developed through an open formal the BerlinerZimmer, located in the
system capable of engendering multiple relations. corner formed by the street front
and rear wings, generally served as
In seeking to rationalize his formal decisions Siza estab- a dining room.
lishes a "meta-game,"which develops its own immanent 6. Siza was also commissioned to
logic, constructedin response to a philosophy of interven- develop proposalsfor a smaller and
tion and derived from a global analysis of Berlin as well as less fragmentedblock in another
from the architect'spersonal beliefs and preferences.Set part of Kreuzberg,where he pro-
within this matrix of facts and ideas, the architectural posed the insertion of a primary
school and workshopsin the inte-
choices are also directed by a set of principlesand aesthetic rior of the block. In this case, resi-
norms that are the result of historicaland cultural accumu- dential structureswere limited to
lation and not simply the inventions of the architect. The perimetersites.
"meta-game"Siza develops mirrorsthe conflicting and plu- 7. Theo Van Doesburg, "De archi-
ral aspects of our environment but also allows us to begin tectur als synthese der nieuwe
to comprehend the nature of the conventions by which we beelding," De Stijl 6-7 (1924).
structureour reality. From this perspective, Siza's worksfor 8. Alvaro Siza, "Entretienavec
Berlin, a center from which modern architecturedevel- Alvaro Siza," Architecture,Mouve-
ment, Continuite (AMC) 44 (1978):
oped, attain an anticipatorycharacter,a hope in the cul- 33-41.
tural dialectic of architecturalpractice.

61