The temptation of possible houses - Interview with architect Șerban Sturdza

Șerban Sturdza: One chapter are the plans, the memo, the opinions that are part of a documentation and another are the physical reality, the desires, the possibilities, the conflicts that deform, to a greater or lesser extent, the pre-established reality. There is a difference, a deviation and an overlap, greater or lesser, from the initial documents, a difference which, of course, is within the law, because there are corrections during the construction site through observation notes, site notes, additional administrative acts and so on.

Any architect will probably be able to explain, standing in front of a house that he has built, how big the difference is from the initial project and how many frustrations he had to go through during the period in which the project became a reality. In that perspective, there is a certain way of behaving on the building site that is less free or more free. I think, in my case, the chance, which I consider to be very great, was that I had some quite important projects in the period before 1990, where the freedom I had was great. It's a paradox. The site belonged to the state and was less controllable than what is done today on a site either belonging to a state that is more structured according to capitalist rules or to a private contractor who keeps a close eye on his work. My good fortune was that I had a few sites that lasted a very long time, opinions were very divided, the clarity of the theme was questionable. Then I took the liberty to try to see if I could design certain portions, not big issues, details, without drawing. That is to say, to design in much the same way as a sculptor or a painter who thinks, makes a few sketches and then improvises. The fact of improvising architecture, volumes is something that I think would be very normal, but it's not part of the logic of what design means, from the Renaissance to now. To make a project that has a certain structure and to translate it into reality is the normal rule, but to stand in front of an open space and say "make a wall there, go up like this, let's put a wall here, let's make a gap here, I'll come back after I think about it, go down the other side" is not in the nature of things.

If you say, "It would be better here. How do you, Mr. Mason, feel about that? Can you do it?" and he says: "Well, let me try", and you try it on the spot, it's a complicated exercise. It puts you in a difficult situation: how do you decide something so important on the spot, without having an eraser, pencil, pencil, paper, or a computer. On the other hand, it's enormously satisfying because you can see how things come into being without the drawing and the project getting between your thoughts and reality.

The conclusion I've come to is not that one way of doing things is better than the other, but that things come out differently, even though you are the same person. In the sense that a previously designed space is a rational, simplified space based on a starting point and a destination, whereas in an improvised space that does not have a system that the plan, elevations, sections give you, the mind is driven by the succession and seduction of the immediately previous gesture. Then space is born from near to near, organically, with justifications of a different kind. I won't discuss whether it's better or worse, because I can't tell, but something else emerges.

Șerban Sturdza: On the one hand you have the drawing boards, the memorandum, the endorsements which are part of the documentation, and on the other hand, you have the actual reality, the desires, possibilities and conflicts which distort the pre-established facts to a larger or smaller extent. There is difference and deviation from, as well as a larger or smaller overlapping with the original documents, which difference must at all times comply with legal regulations, because corrections are constantly brought throughout the works via observation notes, building site notes, administrative addenda, and so on.

Any architect standing in front of one of the buildings designed by him will probably tell you about the considerable difference between the original and the final design, and the frustrations he had to put up with during the process of materialization. From this perspective, there is a certain way of acting on the building site, more or less freely. I was fortunate enough to handle several quite important projects before 1990, in the context of which I enjoyed a lot of freedom. There is a paradox here. The building site was owned by the state and was less controllable than any building site nowadays, whether it is publicly owned by a state more closely structured by a number of capitalistic rules or privately owned by an entrepreneur who carefully monitors the works. It was my luck to be in charge of several building sites which lasted for a long time; the opinions were divided, the clarity of the brief was questionable. Then I took the liberty to see whether I was able to design several portions, details, without drawing first, i.e. to design more in the manner of a sculptor or painter who thinks, outlines a few sketches, then improvises. To improvise architecture and volumes would be fairly normal, in my opinion, but the truth is that it is not in keeping with the logic of design, as such term has been understood from the Renaissance until present. The usual rule is to create a design with a specific structure and to transpose it in reality; to stand in front of a vacant space and say "build a wall there, go up a little, let's put a wall here as well and a gap here...no, we'll put the gap here after I think it over a little more, let's rather take from the other side a little" is not in compliance with the logic of things.

If you say: "Here it had better be this way. What do you think about this, master stonemason? Do you know how to build it?", and he says "Well, let me try", and actually he tries it on site. This may turn out to be a strenuous exercise. It puts you in a difficult situation: how do you make such important decisions on the spot, without pen, drafting paper, rubber or calculator? On the other hand, it is enourmously satisfying to see things materialize without having the drawing and the design interfere between your thought and reality.

The conclusion I have arrived at is not that one way of doing it is better than the other, but that things come out differently depending on the method, although you are still the same person. Basically, a space designed in advance is a rational, simplified space, relying on a starting point and a destination, while with an improvised space which does not benefit from a system consisting of layout, elevations, sections, the mind is led by the succession and the seduction of the immediately preceding gesture. I cannot state for sure whether it is better or worse, but it is something else.