|
|
| A HOUSE WITH ADDED VALUE OR ARCHITECT: Andris kronbergs Laima Slava I seem to know only one architect of middle age, the mentioning of whose name since he first gained recognition with his projects at the beginning of 1980s, still always creates a positive response full of respect. It might seem even suspicious were he not ANDRIS KRONBERGS. | |
|
He began his career in mid-1970s as an architect at the "City Project", already ten years later he became deputy of the chief architect of Riga (till 1996), but the design and planning bureau "Arhis" is the business-card of his many successful projects also today.
Andris Kronbergs' latest and largest clients are impressive - the airport "Riga" and the Bank of Latvia, implementation of whose desire by way of new premises/buildings has strengthened his status not only among the elite of the practising architects in Latvia but also in the mind of a wider public. The list of his accomplishments is surprisingly long, and it includes the work done in early youth (1976) that was largely praised by architects yet never fully finished for the lack of resources - the residential district Mežciems in Riga; as well as multiple storied dwelling-houses in Riga, for instance, on the corner of Miera St. and Klusā St. (1989), the colurful 7 office building in Palasta St. (1998-2000) has become an integral part of the cityscape, and so have the reconstructed popular buildings and houses, like the café "Kolonāde" (1994-1995), the hotel "Metropole" (1991-1992), the historical transformation of the house on Teātra St. into the hotel "Mantess" (1991), functional and user-friendly designs of interiors for German-Latvian bank in Jēkaba St. (1993), editorial office for the "Diena" newspaper in Mūkusalas St. (1998) or the recent project: the gallery "Daugava" in an old store-house in the old town. A special part of the list is comprised by small private houses that require an individual approach with radically different solutions that, as it turns out, do not rule out high architectural achievement. There is a tremendous number of works - also the ones that are still in the project stage and non-implemented. Although I have been mentioning over the years the name of Andris Kronbergs with a deep respect, he still remains a personality enwrapped in mystery - silent, listening to you benevolently, without any trace of conceit and someone who is quick to work, whose own trail of thought can apparently be understood only by those that have been initiated into the language of architectural signs, i.e., the professional reasons why his works offer such pleasant solutions. Therefore his colleagues, architects Juris Poga and Andis Sīlis have been asked to characterise him. Looking from my own vantage point of a user of architecture, I am attracted by what I am able to evaluate directly - i.e., the scope of his basic position, the sense of large-scale criteria that one feels when confronting the buildings designed by him, the pleasant feel in the interiors of his buildings, and a certain essential but hard to formulate sense of harmony with which his works seem to merge with the vicinity. Unlike many architectural samples over the past 10 - 15 years in Riga, standing in front of which one is overtaken by a sense of humiliatingly helpless protest, a sullen sense of compromise, the "points of application of force" by Andris Kronbergs either in the historical or any other part of Riga make me feel like in a museum when you all of a sudden feel an inexplicable force and energy of life flowing at you. And thus, richly endowed with an aura of reticence, perhaps outwardly the most quiet one among the generation of architects that are so very attractive in the public manifestation of their work, the name of Andris Kronbergs unmistakably carries the weight, volume and constructive resistance of an iceberg that is concealed in his reticence. Considering what should be included in our first issue devoted to the city, the presence of Andris Kronbergs, his views, seemed to be the safest background when contemplating the images of Riga on a large scale. Since architecture is the very foundation of arts - I was taught it at the Academy of Art. Building our "house of art" here in the city without the beam from the lighthouse of clarity about the architect's position and perspective is impossible. And besides, Andris Kronbergs did not really refuse to talk. Can you name a characteristic entity that conveys the specific features of the language of architecture? How does the sense of proportion emerge in our minds that is one of the factors that could comprise national features in architecture? It is determined by the environment in which we live, our immediate surroundings, primarily nature. Differences in proportion ratios are certainly different for people who live in a desert or by the ocean, and for those who live in a place like ours - among little hills where one can see only certain dimensions, horizons, some sort of boundaries. Our sea is large too - as if large, but from any place in Riga sea bay you can see the two capes. You can never be at a certain point and see nothing at all. In a way you become restricted by two points. What should the city be like in your opinion? Which are the beautiful cities? Those with a historical centre, and the larger in size, the more historical, richer, more lively it is, one can see development in the context of a longer epoch. It is also important that the city should not be frozen within a certain time, that the new things would emerge, that the process has not been disrupted and that people have managed to find ways how everything coexists and does not interfere with each other. That is quite rare. Usually there are clashes in large cities and in our city, too. It is not a simple issue. Many huge cities where everything seems to live in harmony, have serious functional, social and other problems. It's city planning... What is the role of the city in your life now? I need the city. I like its turmoil. Perhaps one might even endure a certain discomfort created in it - noise, difficulties of bonding and so on. But there are other values instead: possibilities of a dynamic way of life and activities, of contacts - of all that humans need. Yet on the other hand, certain time is required for one's own self. In a quiet environment. City is not quite suitable for it, then you want to go outside it, at least to the seaside. These requirements change considerably during the life-time. I would find it hard to live without the sea. Where do you see the reality that might be closest to your ideal? I have immediately liked some cities but the reasons for it are different - for instance, the mood... I liked Florence immediately with its Renaissance miracles, Milan is an interesting city as well. We say that Riga is a green city, - that's what we think. But Milan, in fact, is so very green around its centre, so full of chestnut-trees, lilacs, cherry blossoms, apple trees. Stockholm is also beautiful with its marinas, small regions, where apartments can be by the very water. There are also some unpleasant places in Stockholm, for example, its centre where they built very big, fairly blind blocks that look pretty bad. Marseilles is beautiful with its port, densely built hill. Each of them creates a special feeling... We are talking here about sensations but not about city planning. Is it not the city planning that creates these feelings? Not only. The city planning has to be evaluated in a longer period, in the historical perspective. Why have some managed to succeed more in this harmony, historical continuity? I believe that the key to the good feel is the harmonious sense of continuity. When the criteria are lost, also the essential links between what exists today and previously, when it all slips away, incongruities and discrepancies appear. Or something unique has been created. It is possible to build something very unique in a historical place - like Louvre pyramid that in fact does not fit essentially to the style of the location. If that has been done with a sufficient tolerance, with understanding, there are no clashes. In the same way we do not see a discrepancy between a good car and a street in the old town or an remarkable house. Since it is a value in itself. It happens today in everything - in fashion, thinking: good things can take place next to each other. It might seem that there is too much of everything, we cannot formulate the styles. All arts are intermingled in a total mishmash. The created value per se and quality is important. Do you see also something new? Something new emerges constantly. It has immensely changed our idea of what a building is. A building used to be a shelter with walls, fairly massive - a castle. We protected ourselves from the outside world. Today the buildings convey a different message; they say: we want to become closer to the environment, we will bring people closer, too. Buildings have become transparent. The way of thinking and perception has changed. People communicate extensively, e.g., in the internet, but there is no eye contact any more. It creates a need for direct, natural human contacts. We are very open "through the wires", but very secluded in direct human contacts. Architecture to my mind has become more open and this is a novelty. Which of your work do you consider successful? Perhaps we might not talk about me? (A deep sigh) Certainly I like the new building of the Bank of Latvia a lot, because huge effort and energy have been invested in it, I have a good feeling about the airport, I had a wonderful client there, with whom it was possible to work like one should with a client - working at a commonly important issue and then the result suits both and everyone else. It happens with small projects too, when you have good rapport with the client, then you can get absorbed in the work, develop the feeling for the site and so on. Then you have that good feeling. It is the same with the artists - one has to have a kind of a love affair with the work and if you can manage that, then you feel it from within. For example the striped house in Jūrmala, Bulduri, Birznieka-Upīša Street. Small, attractive, made of simple materials. We, architects, have the advantage that nothing ever happens in one and the same place, you can make the same programme elsewhere, and you will never have the same result because conditions are different, people are different, nature is different. It makes you start thinking anew. I always try to begin anew, as if nothing of the kind has ever been done. And thus you find something bit by bit. How does this time influence the city and what can the architect do? City is, after all, the result of the architect's work. Yes and no. It is influenced by many other conditions too, people, groups of people, politicians. Since the formations have changed many people have a confused scale of values and they still are not clear about it. It cannot happen at once, ten years is a fairly short period of time. We still live in the time of change. For the city to develop, it should be planned thoroughly. This is not the task only of architects. Economy has a great role there, also the politics - what is the direction taken by the state, what are its priorities. Daily things also should be planned and yet the city is planned with a view into future, forecasting things‑- and what is most important - these plans must be implemented, one should not abruptly deviate from them. In Riga it has happened even with the sites where such plans were designed - for example Krasta Street. A plan is a local law that needs to be observed. Each design of the street demonstrates a characteristic situation in our society: even if we have a plan, we somehow manage to retreat from it. Its cause could also be poor quality of planning in those earlier days. Often the pressure of money, economics is so big, that many things are sacrificed. Money exerts its pressure everywhere in the world. There is much chaos in development of every city. In Riga, which is a small territory, we might simply feel it more radically. It is true that we perceive things very sensitively even if it is nothing tragic, but that is good, it is typical for Europeans to delve into things, also in details and purely human things. That is a positive feature. But the difference between us and, as they say, Western countries is the level of democracy. And a time will pass before public at large will have interest and opportunity to get involved in the city planning. When society stops being indifferent to these things, it will start taking care of what seems important to it. Isn't it still so that the architects' professionalism is an invincible value, isn't a powerful and open personality often a decisive factor in creating the features of a city - like Bertschi in Liepāja and Huysman in Paris? I don't know. Certainly that personality can have a large impact upon society. If a messiah would come, one city planner, inspirer who could convince everyone of the correctness of his conception... But it seems to me that nothing like that is possible today. The point is different. Everyone who lives here should get involved in this process and make a common effort in creating the city as they want. It is very complicated. That is the democracy with two sides. The downside is, that the process is very long, complicated, organizationally intricate, people must be educated first to be able to get involved in this process because they need to understand it all. I see the discussion of these issues in newspapers and magazines. Interest in buildings and style is larger than it was in the dailies and evening newspapers about five years ago. That means that people feel that this is something they should get involved in. So far so good. Some more time will pass and people will understand even more how complicated those things are and how important it is to talk about those issues. To get the society involved by essence but not formally, in understanding the projects on large scale is one of the possible roads. The second option is to make public closer with the decision makers, to achieve that the decision makers would be unable to take decisions that are not in the interest of society or is in someone else's interest more than in the interest of society. Articles about some infringements and violations appear very rarely. In Western countries it always brings a certain result. The last five years have been marked in the world by a museum boom. Nothing like that is to be seen here. I believe it is the same priorities issues. Do we, as a state, plan to have educated, cultural society or only those that can buy and sell? What do we want, what is the strategy in the state? 5-10 million is not the main obstacle for building a house. The state has no six million? That is nonsense. If someone tells me that, I simply refuse to believe. The same can be said about the National Library - the race has been going on for 15 years. It seems that at last we have understood. It is important to determine priorities in order to understand what shall we have in about 15-20 years, what will the next generation be like. Judging by your latest big project, the Bank of Latvia is the only one that takes a serious care for its future, image and prestige. The Bank of Latvia has its own approach - about ideology, future, its own style, they have a book of style that many do not have today, they take care for their colours, their staff, educate them. It is a conception - to take care of the environment and people, to filll their premises with works of art, for the people to see them daily, would use them and feel their value. It is not like that everywhere. The city does not have such a conception today either. Do we need to fill the city with art or not - that is a simple question. We argue whether a shop should be built on one of the street corners, but we don't talk about such issues. Perhaps we do, but I simply don't know? We have offered projects free of charge to the city. But it seems no one needs anything. There is still no memorial to the barricades in the city. But that was an important event in the life of our state. At least I perceived it as an event. I believe I am not the only one. And over the past ten years we have been unable to convey it to anyone... It is not only politics but also culture that people are able to unite for a certain cause. It is a nation's culture that it can unite spiritually in the name of a certain cause. It is spiritual activity and not only political. It is all right besides us. One can easily lose it all in the system of values when one is trapped only in selling and buying. Everything seems scary and precarious in that sense today. This could be quite a decisive moment when society is hesitating - in which direction the scale will go this time, and that could be for a long time... What can an architect do here? First, do the job diligently. That is the simplest way, that is not simple at all. To try to understand the essence of the problem. As deeply as possible at the moment. From all the aspects - the location, function, human needs. Architect's work is sufficiently serious not to be afforded to do it flippantly. You cannot throw it out or switch off like a TV set. It needs gaining an insight, perceiving this work not only as a mere money earning tool, craftsmanship, but treating it as art. One always needs to add something not to have merely a house but to have an idea that would give added value to the house. It is very essential. Only then one can start talking about architecture whatever it is like. Which part in the centre would you reconstruct? Citadele region needs reconstruction today where there is one high-rise; all the port area needs reconstruction. The embankment must become lively, that requires large scale reconstruction at both banks of the Daugava river. That will be the future of the city. When the islands will develop more extensively, it will open the whole new possibilities for the city. The river will become alive. That is 20-100 year perspective. What worries you most that happens in Riga today? What are you afraid to lose most? Every site must be carefully examined. We are very upset about every house built in the Old Town, that is understandable, but those misfortunes or fortunes are born everywhere else too - in the periphery areas, for example. Those people and those thoughts are born there, that come to the city centre and do good or bad things there. Either they are yelling at night in the Old Town or go to the museum. If we do not take care of the periphery, we shall not achieve anything in the centre either. I have again returned to the formal issue of the strategic planning of the city. What will happen to the city? Would everyone run to live in the centre? That is social planning and it is solved in the world differently. Some put together different strata of society for them to educate each other, to keep an eye on. Others are planning ghetto areas for the rich and the poor. In the world you can see the social areas with buildings designed by famous architects, but all the walls are covered with graffiti. If only people of one stratum live there, it gives no solution. Does anyone think about it here at all? Now we have the first wave of social differentiation and we separate: expensive, cheaper, completely cheap part. What will come of it? Does anyone think about it? This again is a city planning - one very serious part of it. | |
| go back | |
