Public favorites

Thematic dossier

Arch. Constantin GORCEA - recommends
arh. Irina FILOFI and arh. Cătălin TRANDAFIR

Public favorites

This interview responds to the Romanian Union of Architects' intention to make an issue of the magazine ARHITECTURA about the National Architecture Biennale 2018: 100 Years of Architecture in Romania, to emphasize that we can mark a new beginning, a new period in Romanian architecture and not just that a 100-year period has ended. A special issue with the young people of the Biennale, in which architects, jury members or organizers, present young participants they have noticed.
Even though I was president of the jury for "Diplomas. Arhitecți in devenire", which included projects from the last five years, I have chosen to present the young architects Irina Filofi and Cătălin Trandafir, authors of the WERK Restaurant project in Hunedoara, which won the ASAR - Association of Romanian Architectural Societies - Award.
My interest in this project that brings back to life buildings that belonged to the old Iron Works in Hunedoara is also due to the fact that, after realizing the rehabilitation project of the old Waterworks (Wasser Werk) in Suceava, a project awarded the prize in the "Architecture of Cultural Heritage" section at BNA 2014, I have a special sensitivity for what it means to make the most of the industrial architectural heritage.

Constantin Gorcea: How did you come to this project that proposes to valorize the existing heritage? Although the field is of concern to the world of architects, it remains a rather rare theme in actual practice in Romania. Did you convince the beneficiary to preserve the valuable part of those existing buildings and to subordinate the concept of modernization and extension to the original industrial atmosphere, even though he might have preferred to demolish the existing and make something new? Or did the beneficiary himself come up with this proposed intervention?

Irina Filofi: We approached this in the way we approach any project. The logical scheme is the same, the difference comes from the number of constants and variables involved in the process, from the ramifications generated by them. We started with the detailing of the topic data, with repeated discussions with the beneficiary, but emphasizing the desired effect rather than the way he thought he would like us to achieve it. The only requirement of the beneficiary was that the street frontage should be retained, sensing that the existing space was not large enough.
A thorough study of the site followed, from plot level to the relationship with the former industrial platform and the city. Excavations, soundings and excavations went hand in hand with historical documentation. Thanks to the proximity of the Castle of the Huns, we found several period images from which we were able to identify the stages and years of construction and other aspects of identity. From here we were able to fix the first constants, the primordial elements. By eliminating the parasitic constructions, we were left with the two valuable buildings. Taking into account the requirement to create a restaurant with seating for at least 200 people, it became clear that the existing buildings in their present form did not have the necessary capacity. Thus the need for expansion became a defining component of the project. We identified the spaces needed to function and then structured them into public and auxiliary. Between the original buildings, we created a transparent interstitial space that functionally unifies the two buildings, solving the need for public space. The second new area hides the complementary functions, a bar with terrace restrooms, the attic with offices, technical spaces and access for supplies. The new volume runs linearly along the eastern boundary of the site, becoming a decorative backdrop for the courtyard. The arguments that convinced the beneficiary were economic and functional. The difficulty was to find a way to meet the pragmatic requirements with tools that were also aesthetically pleasing. For example, the metal structure of the extension between the two old buildings connects to the reinforcing structure of the longitudinal walls of the existing large body, thus eliminating a longitudinal axis of columns. The structure becomes less present and at the same time more economical. Another example would be the perforated brick double façade. This satisfies the aesthetic as well as the functional component by creating a corridor for the waiters, while at the same time allowing for later reconfigurations of the kitchen, access voids, ventilation, all behind the 'curtain'.

C.G.: To what extent did the documentation, trendy solutions or notable examples lead to the shaping of the ultimately realized proposal? How much do you think is your own creation in your project?

I.F.: Through documentation, we try to identify the right way to ask our questions. If the question is formulated correctly, the answer is unequivocal. The viability of choices can only be achieved through strong motivation. Form without substance (fashion, trend) cannot connect to this type of system.
Cătălin Trandafir: I have always appreciated contextual, individualized architectural solutions. When we visit architectural projects, we look at the final result, but our discussions are mainly about what determined that result. It is similar to the skilled engineer looking at a crack in the attic and talking about the quality of the concrete in the foundations. Sure, architecture goes beyond this simplification, with juxtaposed, multi-layered reasoning and justification. But the discussion becomes a muscle-taxing analysis that forces you to organize your thoughts. It's the way that, over time, we've trained ourselves not only to look at architecture, but also to approach it in our projects. I would say it looks like any rational model: define, identify, evaluate and implement. It sounds typical, but I think that's where the generalization stops and the proper structure, let's call it the originality comma associated with the rationale comes in. How we define the need, how we identify the resource and how we evaluate it are processes that involve the personal filter - the accumulation of internal and external factors, objective or subjective, coagulated into a precisely delimited response, such as the architectural response. It is how a particular, if not original, construction can result.
How does fashion relate to this ordering of judgments? As far as we are concerned, we have a sort of antipathy to what is meant by collective habits (not tending to the habit itself). Conversely, I find it hard to believe that we are not influenced, even indirectly. I find it hard to believe that one can express oneself in a completely timeless way.

C.G.: I noticed extremely valuable solutions and details of execution related to the integration of space between old and new buildings. What was important to you, what do you think came out and what do you like in your project?

I.F.: In a project where every gesture is justified, every detail is essential. The moment the logical thread is broken, this break becomes obvious.
It was very important for us, almost obsessive, to restore the integrity of the old buildings, to recreate the original urban scale and to have a human, friendly relationship with both the user and the passer-by.
C.G.: You were the winners of the ASAR Award - Association of Romanian Architectural Societies. What did this appreciation from architectural practitioners mean to you? How do you cope with success!

I.F.: We are always honored by the appreciation from our colleagues. In general, awards do not seem to be a driver of success in the market, but rather a validation of a choice already made. More often than not, the potential client gets to know us through referrals, the documentation of the office's work is just an additional check.

C.G.: What suggestions do you have for the organization of BNA exhibitions-competitions as a competitor?

C.T.: I think that we can understand the competition-exhibition from two premises. The first is the traditional one, in which the BNA and its sisters symbolize the profession's gala of honor - an event created by architects, with architects and about architects.
The second is the perspective in which the BNA addresses the general public, a kind of catalog of portfolios, best practice, education and so on. The architect is interested in both: the first as a crowning of past effort, the second as an assurance of future effort.
The effect of exhibitions can be somewhat quantified, but apart from the quality of the organization or the show itself, it is dependent on the architect's positioning in society. We have more and more well organized architectural events, but the average of their success will be equivalent to the position I mentioned earlier. The first suggestions that come to my mind are of a pragmatic nature, having a visual tool at hand, we can push architecture very easily to the general public through digital means, compared to the traditional, physical format. The second seemingly trivial issue is the trophy. The trophy must exist in duplicate. It seems important to me that, in addition to the architect, the trophy or the physical format of the award should also reach the owner/beneficiary of the project recognized with an award. The rationale is obvious and has to do with the promotion the guild needs.

C.G.: The answers are like your architecture - surprisingly simple and clear, avoiding the pitfalls!

ARCHITECTURE MAGAZINE SUMMARY, NR.2-3/2019
BNA 2018 600 For the Future