A Conversation with the Winners of the Guggenheim Helsinki Design Competition

Transcription

1 A Conversation with the Winners of the Guggenheim Helsinki Design Competition Nicolas Moreau and Hiroko Kusunoki, the husband and wife architectural team who practice in Paris under the name Moreau Kusunoki, are the winners of the Guggenheim Helsinki Design Competition. Moreau, who is French, and Kusunoki, born in Japan, proposed a museum made up of multiple sweeping structures and a glass topped tower, all clad in shining black wood and connected by open areas that flow into the city space. Here, Moreau and Kusunoki talk to the Guggenheim about their winning concept. 1. Tell us a little about yourselves and your practice. How long have you been established in Paris? We founded Moreau Kusunoki in 2011, and we now have 7 to 10 collaborators in the office. We are currently working on a museum in the center of Cayenne in French Guiana; the plaza for the future high court of Paris, designed by Renzo Piano; the University of Savoie s engineering school in Bourget du Lac, France; and also some restaurant projects. Before setting up our practice, we started our careers in Tokyo in Nicolas worked for SANAA and Kengo Kuma, Hiroko for Shigeru Ban. We both worked on a large range of projects including the Louvre Lens; contemporary art center the FRAC in Marseille; and the Nomadic Museum in New York City. In 2008, we moved to Paris, and Nicolas cofounded and directed Kengo Kuma s European office. Hiroko worked for Hala Warde / Atelier Jean Nouvel, Habiter Autrement. 2. How would you describe your philosophy as architects? We are still in the process of defining it! We try to listen and observe and do things simply and honestly. 3. What influences, cultural or otherwise, do you feel operate within your work? Our cultural duality is legible in all of the projects we conceive. Our work is intended to be timeless, and yet to establish a dialogue with the past and build links with the future, while creating a feeling of intimacy. 4. Is there an earlier project of yours that you feel is relevant to your design for Guggenheim Helsinki? Our work on the new Theatre of Beauvais and the University of Savoie engineering school, as well as the Budapest National Gallery, shares some similar approaches with our design for Guggenheim Helsinki. Those projects were conceived as a composition of several pavilions with in between spaces where people are invited to stroll in and out, creating interstices of circulation between the interior and exterior. 5. When you first saw the competition brief, what were your initial impressions about the requirements for the new museum building?

2 The brief was general enough to let us interpret part of the program. It was interesting to be able to work on the program itself it allowed us to question the relation and the use of the spaces functions. 6. What did you feel was the most significant challenge in the brief? The most important question we asked ourselves as we reviewed the brief was, How to can we make the museum transparent? How can we create porosity between the museum and its surroundings to allow a free flow of visitors on the site? Those were our goals throughout the project. Also, the site borders the sea, so the recommendation was to avoid creating a basement. As a result, the operation areas of the museum are necessarily located on the ground floor. We decided to integrate those areas into the visitor experience. 7. How did your first site visit affect your thinking about the project? Did it change your approach at all? We visited Helsinki in 2009 and stayed at Palace Hotel, which overlooks the site. When we went there again last year for the organized site visit, we were able to meet and talk with the city s inhabitants, and their vision definitely nourished our project in many ways. We felt that people in Helsinki might enjoy the free areas we proposed. It made us more confident about our conceptual direction, which is to place the visitor and his or her experience at the center of the museum. Also, being at the site helped us to measure the volume and the correct positioning of the tower in our design. 8. What was the most important element you considered as you thought about how to engage with the urban space of Helsinki? Openness and transparency on the ground floor and the promenades between the structures were the most important elements. There are markets, shops, and museums around the site, so we can imagine having very rich outside activity nearby. Thus the character of the ground floor is the key to our project within the urban context. 9. Your design brings together a collection of connected indoor and outdoor spaces. What drew you to that approach in place of more singular, unified format? This is an interesting question, because it s also a question of attitude about our process. We developed different options before deciding to do these particular fragmented volumes. Homogenous or massive volumes appeared to be too hermetic in relation with the surroundings, and we wanted to create continuity between indoor and outdoor spaces. Museum galleries need a particularly controlled atmosphere in term of hygrometry and light. That is why most of the galleries walls have to be opaque. Also, the fragmented approach allows the combination of controlled and opaque rooms (the art galleries) and the in between spaces that provide promenades and views of the surroundings landscape. Our concept is intended to invite the public to enter into dialogue with the art, the architecture, and the site.

3 10. I m interested in the way you use the space between the pavilions more than merely creating connecting walkways, you have created a flow among the structures. Can you talk about the thinking behind these in between spaces? We wanted to leave the in between space undefined as much as we could. In our plans, we only gave an imaginary scale and distance that we estimated to be appropriate; those await activation by future users. As we were making the drawings by hand, we had great fun thinking about all the possible activities that could take place in these spaces. Some of them are visible in the axonometric view presented in the competition panel. We re very much looking forward to enriching this space together with the people who use it. 11. How mutable do you feel your design can be without becoming categorically different? Actually, the position of the tower, of boxes, forms, height we revisited and dramatically changed those from the way they appeared in the Stage One submission. That is an advantage of this type of composition: it allows for many possibilities. The exercise of reorganizing the layout between Stage One and Two was very meaningful. It rationalized and at same time enriched the project. 12. Do you consider your design to be vernacular? It was quite natural for us to reflect the Finnish traditions and culture in our concept. Vernacular constructions are very interesting, since many of them are still well integrated within their environment. We want to bring together traditional building methods with contemporary architecture for example, the charred wood for the facade. 13. Tell us more about that choice of material. How did you come to select charred timber? We selected this material at a very early stage of the competition. The use of charred wood is strongly anchored in the traditional timber construction in Finland. There is also a culture of charred timber called yakisugi in Japan. It is a traditional technique to reinforce the wood and make it more resistant to water and fire. It is very beautiful as well, especially when it has aged and developed a shiny patina. Wood may not be as strong as concrete, but it s in the cycle of nature, and harvesting and re planting trees makes the forests stronger. We really like this approach of co existence, rebirth, and the smart use of simple materials. Charred timber is a material in line with our philosophy, and it seemed like the perfect fit for a building by the sea. Together with our material experts, we aim to use Finland s timber resources in the best possible way. 14. You have spoken before about the need to get back to nature with architecture. How does your proposed design achieve that goal? Our design reflects the notion of back to nature in a comprehensive way, from the use of Kerto Laminated Veneer Lumber, to our exploration of the full potential of charred timber, to the renewal of resources from Finnish forests. The organization of space also

4 creates a strong relationship with the museum s natural surroundings. The majority of volumes are on the ground floor, with multiple means of accesses to outdoor spaces, and the upper floors are accessible from the roof terrace. This allows for easy maintenance and creates continuity between inside and outside. 15. Can you share a few details about what makes your design sustainable? The general horizontal layout simplifies maintenance, maximizes the heat gain from the sun, and allows for as much natural light as possible from the skylights in the galleries. Also, the envelope performance has been carefully designed with triple glazing and efficient insulation layers in order to minimize as much as possible the consumption of heating energy. The use of natural materials is another key factor in making the design sustainable. 16. What role does technology play within your design? Technology must be integrated, but it shouldn t be the core of the project. We just want a simple and smart system. 17. In what ways do you think your design would exist in dialogue with Helsinki s other significant buildings and spaces? In terms of materiality, the design will offer a rich contrast with the white Helsinki Cathedral and with the granite and brick commonly used for the city s 19th century buildings. In terms of urban continuity, the museum s grid is inspired by the city s urban fabric, and the village composition creates a natural prolongation of the harbor promenade. Also, the bridge that connects Observatoriebergets Park to the museum s rooftop would extend access to the harbor. The museum s tower also echoes other vertical elements within the cityscape: the steeples of Saint Henry s Cathedral, the German Church, and the Unspenski Cathedral, as well as the domes of Senate Square and the city s smokestacks. 18. The tower you have designed incorporates the same volume as Frank Lloyd Wright s rotunda. In what other ways did the Guggenheim s buildings in New York and Bilbao factor into your thinking for this project? Indeed, the vertical gallery pays homage to master architect Frank Lloyd Wright. Our design for Guggenheim Helsinki incorporates variously proportioned exhibition spaces,as New York and Bilbao do, to display exceptional art works and also to facilitate the exchange of pieces among the Guggenheim s museums around the world. In terms of philosophy, we were inspired by the approach of the BMW Guggenheim Lab, which showed another way to shape the relationship between art and life, inviting the public to participate in defining the museum and the space itself, a unique approach to bring art into urban life. 19. In your opinion, what is the most crucial way in which designing a museum differs from designing any other type of building?

5 The roles of a museum are diverse, and the forms of art are also diverse. The way those roles and forms evolve should not be limited by the form of architecture. At the same time, when people encounter art, that moment is very intimate. We hope this one onone moment will be engraved in people s memories about the space and the time they spent there. Most people today are looking for a unique experience when they go to a museum. Art is part of that experience, but architecture also has to play its role in creating that special moment that the visitor is expecting to feel. That is why museums are so unusual compared to other buildings. 20. What do you hope visitors will take away from the experience of your building? An idyllic moment. 21. Last but not least, how does it feel to have won the Guggenheim Helsinki competition? From the bottom of our hearts, we would like to thank the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation and the city of Helsinki for offering us a once in a lifetime challenge. It seemed like an extremely ambitious target for us and that s why it reminded us to dream. This victory gave us enormous confidence and certainly will continue to encourage us. We are so delighted to share this emotion with our team.