THE VISION OF MANUEL DE SOLÀ-MORALES_harvard gsd.pdf

8/12/2019 THE VISION OF MANUEL DE SOLÀ-MORALES_harvard gsd.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-vision-of-manuel-de-sola-moralesharvard-gsdpdf 1/36

THE VISION OF

MANUEL DE

SOLÀ-MORALES:ROOTS FOR A

TWENTY FIRST

CENTURY URBANISM

10

OCTOBER

2013

Harvard

GSD

Piper

Auditorium



The construction of urban theory in the eld of urbanismand urban architecture calls for a rened conceptualformulation and a socially valid practice; above all,it needs the time to develop. In this process, the

emergence of gures capable of generating “new visions”is commendable: Manuel de Solà-Morales, Barcelonaarchitect, was one such. He was one of the rst Spanishstudents of Josep Lluís Sert at Harvard, he founded theLaboratori d’Urbanisme de Barcelona, and he creatednew concepts and introduced innovative practices fortransforming urban design in Europe.

The symposium taking place at the GSD on 10 October

tables a critical discussion of his theoretical and practicallegacy with a view to understanding the roots of today’surbanistic discipline as one of the pillars for addressing themajor challenges facing the city and urbanized territories inthe 21st century.



10 OCTOBER 2013

THE VISION OF MANUEL DE

SOLÀ-MORALES:ROOTS FOR A TWENTY FIRSTCENTURY URBANISM

1. Introduction / 6:30 pm

2. Presentations to the Symposium / 6:30 pm 2.1. Rafael Moneo (pg.4)

From Ideas to Urban Projects

2.2. Joan Busquets (pg.11) Building an Urban Theory

2.3. Marcel Smets (pg.19)

Insights I gained from Manuel3. Building Creative Realities / 7:30 pm

Moderated by Alex Krieger

Lorena Bello

Jean Louis Cohen Felipe Correa Alexander D’Hooghe Marion Weiss Mirko Zardini

4. Reception in the Portico Rooms / 8:00 pm

Manuel de Solà Morales - Life’s Work (pg.27)

PROGRAM

HARVARD GSD PIPER AUDITORIUM





5

Manuel de Solà-Morales

Rafael Moneo

From Ideas to Urban Projects,

way Catalan society – was engaged.In architectural terms, the debate inBarcelona of the late 1950s centeredon city-building and the principles andideals of the modern movement. Soit’s no surprise that MSM chose Romeas a place for further training, and theofce he joined – the studio of LudovicoQuaroni – was probably ideal for thepurpose, given that a young Manfredo Tafuri was still working there at the time,and that the master, in talking abouthis career, was using the city of Romeas inevitable referential framework. This immersion in history which Romerepresented would soon be balanced bya stint in America that would bring hima master’s degree in city planning at thisschool, the GSD, then with Josep LluísSert at the helm. The very young MSMreturned to Barcelona with an academicbaggage provided to him by Romeand Cambridge, and his intellectualrestlessness led him, attracted tosociology, to enroll at the Faculty ofEconomics, graduating in 1966. Andeventually he demonstrated his capacityas an architect in the housing project onCalle Muntaner, a valuable contributionto residential architecture on theEnsanche which today must be seen asperfectly representing the discussion onarchitecture and city that so interestedarchitects of the ‘Barcelona school’.

Society was quick to recognize hismerits: he won competitive examinationsfor a chair in urban planning at theBarcelona school in 1969, when he

had just turned 30. In making teachingthe foundation of his future career hewas showing a serious commitmentwith knowledge. In the conviction that

I have never met anyone with betterpersonal attributes and academictraining for a professional urban planningpractice than Manuel de Solà-Moralesi Rubió, and what I would like to dotoday is explain this. For the benet ofthose not fortunate to have known himpersonally, I will talk about who MSMwas, and for those of us who did havethe good fortune of having him as afriend, let this be yet another opportunityto reminisce on his person and his fruitfulcareer. Being here at the GSD – a schoolalways keen, and in a very special waytoday, on the question of the educationof professionals who are to act oncities – warrants paying special attentionto MSM’s training and dedication toteaching before turning to the part heplayed in the development of urbantheory, and his actual contributions as aprofessional of the architecture of cities.

A son and grandson of architects, MSMbegan his architectural studies in 1956and graduated in 1963. A brilliant studentin secondary school, MSM arrived atarchitecture school with a solid educationin the humanities, reinforced by his broad

reading – fruit of his intellectual curiosity –and an inborn knack for languages. Andsince we focus on his training, it’s goodto remember that architectural studiesincluded two years of Exact Sciences.Math was therefore very much a partof his architectural education. So wasmusic; during his school years, MSMattended the Conservatory of Musicand became a more than skilled pianist.

During the troubled years that MSMwas at university, he was active in theintellectual and ideological debate inwhich Spanish society – and in a special



6


Soon MSM was involved in a series ofprojects and competitions that enabledhim to see with greater precision what

he intuited from his vantage point as auniversity professor. The ComprehensivePlan for Tolosa showed him – witha close insider’s view not usual incommissions of this kind – how growthhad happened and anchored itself onthe territory of a middle-sized city. MSMwas interested in the time continuityof the city, in its history, not only fordocumentation purposes, not only to

lay down rules upon which to placehis work, but to identify those criticalmoments during which – whetherthanks to causes we are unaware of, orto contingencies bordering on chance– the city changes and the concept ofevolution is of no use in explaining itsgrowth. We have to look for reasons ofa different order. The continuity of thecity does not mean a strict evolution. We

have to allow for the leaps, the slashes,the unique urban circumstances thatinterventions inevitable involve. To identifythese moments and the conditions thattogether led to the ‘urbanistic invention’taking place, is what MSM sought to dowhen auscultating the city.

In this run-through of his work, it may not

be necessary to mention other specicprojects of those years – Aranjuez,Zaragoza, Granada. But we do haveto mention how studying other citiesallowed him to verify his observations. The form of the city does not go by theunitary organic vision of the Renaissancetheorists. Nor by the radical ideas ofutopian thinkers and the avant-gardes.Nor was the form of the city dictated

by the abstract mosaics into which thestandardizing plans tried to reduce it.Cities result from the concatenation ofisolated urban episodes dictated by very

the territory of architecture was the city,MSM would put the best of himself intostudying the city. And considering the

school the ideal place from which toexplore how cities grow and how wecan take part in that growth, he set upthe Laboratory of Urban Planning, whichmust be seen as the armed wing of hischair. I believe that his years of workingin the LUB were crucial. In the view ofMSM, who was fully aware of his worth, itwas no time to prolong the authoritarianstructure of chairs, and so he decided

to surround his own chair with agroup of new graduates with sharedinterests. And instead of sticking to theidea of urbanism as an instrumentalpseudoscience willing to collaborate withthe administration in the bureaucratizedauthoritarian management of the city,the LUB concentrated on nding a moresatisfactory and reality-based explanationof urban growth. The LUB addressed a

whole series of objectives that implieda possible new urban science, such asto inject meaning into terms like urbanand territorial morphology, to understandthe complexity of the metropolis in theprocess of learning how the outskirtscome about, to explore grids andpatterns with Barcelona’s Plan Cerdà asreference… All this puts to question theguidelines set by the masterplans, which

are judged as mere successions of staticmodels that the city does not respect.From the LUB, MSM assumed leadershipin the teaching of urban planning in Spainby accepting the publisher Gustavo Gili’soffer to take him in as an advisor; a rolethrough which he would put in the handsof students and professionals all the textsby colleagues of his abroad that drew hisattention, and naturally also the work of

the LUB, well documented by books like The Forms of Urban Growth.



7


fabric with its seafronts and riverfronts. The projects for Genoa, Thessalonnica, Trieste, Antwerp, or Almere, and even the

later ones for Saint Nazare, Groningen,Porto, or Arnheim on the Rhine, mustbe seen as coming from the experiencehe acquired in the previously mentionedprojects. In all of them, the city tries torestore its connection with geography,without forgetting how it got engagedwith and linked to the urban fabric in therst place.

But the project for the Moll de la Fustawas also the beginning of MSM’s closerapport with his city, Barcelona. Itwas with laudable devotion that MSMresponded to Barcelona’s condence inhis professional competence. Nothinggave MSM more satisfaction thanrecognition coming from his own, fromCatalonia, which he had fond feelings

for and served energetically. This is whywe must look at Moll de la Fusta, inretrospect, as the fuse of what has beenBarcelona’s urban planning program inthe past twenty years, specically withregard to its efforts to engage with andbring the sea back into its fold. Andthough MSM was not directly involvedin these projects, his opinion and advicewere much taken into account by

those responsible for urban planningin the city. This love for and interest inBarcelona comes to the fore in the book Ten Lessons on Barcelona, where MSMintroduces us to the urban history ofthe city by explaining its surprising anddiscontinuous development throughtime. His method here is not simply achronological account, but rather theidentication of those singular moments

where the city, through specic urbaninterventions, resolves particularproblems arising from its growth. In thisbook MSM shows us ten urban episodes

specic circumstances that have beenaddressed by urban design interventions.Hence the urban planner must be alert to

the new demands of the contemporarycity, and act on them, give direct answersthrough urban design. We could talkabout an entire methodological proposalthat is an alternative to conventionalcomprehensive plans, and that hasbeen materialized in projects like Barriodel Poble Nou-La Ribera in Barcelona.But though attracted to isolatedactions, MSM did not forget about the

importance of congruence betweenroadways and urban form, as illustratedby his interest in urban schemes, hisstudies of grids as structures shaping thecity. The maximum aspiration of an urbanplanner was to resolve the architectureof the city through the urban plan. Andthe project in Lakua, Vitoria, can illustratewhat this attitude can lead to when thecontemporary city comes face to face

with housing. Unfortunately, it was nevercarried out.

All these studies and works of MSMin the1960s had a strong impact onSpanish architecture. He who had beenwelcomed as a brilliant and precociousmaster at the start of the decade was, atthe end of it, not only a renowned scholar

of urban planning but also a veteranprofessional. And while Spanish societywas having its transition from dictatorshipto democracy, MSM receivedcommissions as important as the Moll dela Fusta in Barcelona and the Plaza dela Marina in Málaga. Both these projectsgave him the opportunity to show theextent to which an understanding of thecity, when a result of addressing specic

urban problems, corresponded withreality. In this he anticipated what wasin future to be one of his most frequentareas of work: contact of the urban



8


an urban masterplan can. In L’Illa, MSMshowed how his reections on Barcelonaempowered him to address a large plot

where the Cerdà grid was still present,but with the Diagonal prevailing to thepoint of becoming the project’s spinalcolumn. In La Sang, replacing an urbanresidential fabric with another one of adifferent typology gave rise to a complexstructure that is incorporated into thecity with admirable discreetness. Thisalso happened in the Intermodal Stationof Leuven, where MSM confronted

one of the issues that most obsessedhim: reconciling transport systems withthe new scale that the presence of thestation in the city warranted. Projectsof medium scale have an importantimpact on the city, and are proof that thecity is built as much by architecture asit is by urban design and the authorityof regulations. The urban planner thatMSM undeniably was became an

architect, and this is evident in projectslike Maquinista, Terrassa, and theSant Andreu Barracks in Barcelona.Or in the ambitious Montigalá projectin Badalona, where he proposed theoutskirts be absorbed and incorporatedinto the center through a sophisticatedand respectful process that would leadus to speak of ‘realism’, and of howmuch MSM believed that the city’s

urban problems could be solved whenwe accepted its immanence, its owncapacity for development.

That MSM in his mature years came tothink that the solution to many urbanproblems fully rested in the eld ofurban design or isolated architecturaloperations, is evident in his contribution,

as curator, to the 2005 exhibitionCorners. By treating the notion ofthe corner as a category in itself – assomething able to bear all the aesthetic/

with a vividness and immediacy thatmakes us feel like spectators, if not theactual authors, of the development of

projects so specic that they seem tobe more in the architect’s than in theurban planner’s hands. And maybe now’sthe right time to go back to what I saidat the start about his training. Nobodywithout his training – so broad, with suchcapacity to take so many different factorsinto account, and identify such specicmoments of urban history – would havebeen able to dissect the city the way he

did. And so MSM makes it stark clearto us that the content, the agenda, thepurpose behind those episodes we havecontemplated in the ungraspable magmaof the city, rest not only in the hands ofurban planners and architects. MSMshows us that behind them – clamoringfor, demanding, wanting a given urbanproject – are sometimes individuals,and at other times institutions or wide

segments of the population. It would bea mistake to say that the methodologicalsignicance of these isolatedinterventions on the city are devoid ofideological content.

MSM, who had suggested that specicurban problems were very often solvedwith the help of architecture, had the

chance to verify this when he took onthe obligations of an architect, puttinghis feet on the ground and taking onthe challenge of contributing to thecity’s development as an architect. This was a grand gesture and proofof courage: the autoritas of the urbanplanner giving way to the risks that anarchitect’s intervention always involves.In projects like L’Illa in Barcelona or

La Sang in Alcoy, MSM showed howisolated actions – which must still beseen to be strictly architectural – cancontribute to city-building as much as



9


enable you to understand cities in all theircomplexity. Also be aware – and this iswhere MSM’s human and professional

greatness resides – that someone whoknows a lot about cities can be asked toact upon them, with the attendant risksthat practicing as an architect involves. This is what happened to MSM, and Ican vouch for the sense of responsibilitywith which MSM accepted thischallenge. I would even say that MSMsometimes practiced the professiondramatically, given the demands with

which he worked and the criticaldiscernment with which he regardedeverything he did. MSM devoted himselfto his profession, rst as an urbanplanner and later as an architect, withfull passion and admirable integrity. This is of course nothing new to thoseof us who knew him and were witnessto the earnest ethical commitmentwith which he lived his life. For MSM,

contributing to the development of thecity – using the knowledge he had asan urban planner, and accepting therisks that came with operating as anarchitect – was something that wentbeyond personal satisfaction, in orderto achieve the greatest accomplishmentin our discipline, that of seeing our workbecome useful to society. In MSM,theory and practice were so closely

connected that they appear inseparable. And as such a testimony of how anarchitect in today´s cities should be,something I hope that I have conveyedto you today in revisiting the work ofManuel.

RM

Translated by Gina Cariño

ideological load of an urban proposal –,MSM alluded directly to the role of criticalpoint that any crossroads plays in the

larger scheme of things. It is at the criticalpoint where a corner is that the meetingof opposites is formally or architecturallyresolved. The corner notion hasmetaphorical value, and it reminds usthat cities are always willing to change,swerve, and grow with inevitable andwelcome unpredictability. And the samething could be said of infrastructuralelements in the city. “Infrastructure?

Architecture?: Two Examples” was thetitle of the last text of his that I read whilehe was still alive; I was still able to lethim know how much I’d enjoyed it. TheRamps of Algiers and the Cliff of Tajoare the two examples he gives to tellus, regarding the Ramps, that having“command of the slope is not only anact of infrastructural service, but also achoice of good architecture, an urban

project,” and that the Cliff of Ronda is“an achievement of infrastructure andan architectural proposal.” The happyending of the infrastructure is that itbecomes architecture, and ultimately city.By discussing Ronda and Algiers in theseterms, MSM was telling us what hisprofessional ambitions were, what kindsof projects he liked working on.

Coming to the end of my talk, I feel Ishould make it clear that everythingI’ve said comes from my own personalinterpretation of MSM’s thinking. This ishow my comments should be taken, andI would like to encourage you to look atMSM’s writings and works yourselves,as I do not want to distort his ideas inany way. To close, if there is a message

to be gleaned from MSM’s career, it’sthat if you want to be an urban planner,you have try to have a broad training,with no set limits, of the kind that will



10


Manuel de Solà-Morales and Rafael Moneodebating Illa’s project in Artà (Mallorca), 1986.



11


It is interesting to note that much ofthe theoretical framework of present-day urbanism is rooted in the dynamicperiod of the seventies and eighties. The phenomena of urbanization in the21st century may be different, but whattruly is new are the ways we perceiveand relate with them. The point is thatwe are working in an increasingly prolictheoretical framework that has its roots

in a new way of understanding the cityand with new ways of combining ouracademic and professional work toimprove the processes of urbanizationthat are massively—and oftendramatically—inuencing the lives of anever larger sector of the population.

It is this possible continuity in theongoing body of theoretical thinking thatsuggests the relevance of discussingthe conceptual contributions of Manuelde Solà-Morales (MSM) and his workin creating the LUB, the Laboratorio deUrbanismo de Barcelona, starting in1969.

The personal inuence of JosepLluis Sert, Dean at Harvard, andhis multifaceted approach, and theinspiring City Planning Programme withits multidisciplinary focus, along withcollaboration at Ludovico Quaroni’sstudio in Rome, enabled MSM to see thefull scope of the eld of urbanism and theurban project, and the potential of thewealth of theory of the time.

MSM’s contribution to creating a newurban theory for the LUB could besummarised by some singular landmarksin this methodological trajectory:

Joan Busquets

Manuel de Solà-Morales, building an Urban Theory for the LUB,

1. From the functional city to the city asprocess: the form of urban growth

A basic element is understanding thecity in terms of the relation betweenspace and time, rather than seeing it as anished design: this involves interpretingthe specic processes of its physicalproduction: the forms of urban growth. The city is therefore explained in terms of:

old town, new town extension, suburbangrowth, garden cities, housing estates,self-built areas, etc.

In these forms, the order of the actionsor projects on the site, urbanization andconstruction, is especially signicant tothe production of urban forms but alsoto the way the various agents intervene. This is where the urban designer comesin as mediator and part of the process

in general, but it is also important tohighlight the relative autonomy of theircontribution within the creation of theurban form, that is the space of theproject, which may take very differentforms.

2. The struggle for urban space as astructural cause of the city

Another element to note is anunderstanding of the structural causesof growth and urban transformation,as a way of guiding the involvement ofother disciplines that also study urbanphenomena, such as economics,politics, ecology and so on, andenhancing project discipline. Urbanismhas to prioritise the material productionof the city rather than its physicalappearance, however important this

is, which means giving the project’sparts and their interrelations a speciccontent that makes it an instrument ofthe social process. Here, the inuence of



12


dialectic materialism as an interpretative

basis of society comes to the fore:the inuence of Althusser, Harvey,Preteceille and particularly Lefebvrehas an added value in research into thestruggle for domination of space anddesign strategies to control them. TheLa Ribera counter-plan for Barcelona’sseafront was a singular test in the earlyseventies, reinterpreting the city to seethe intent of that speculative project

and generate possible alternatives. The social conict involved in a politicalproject that aimed to eradicate localresidents from the coastline producedguidelines for thorough investigation

that probably paved the way for a whole

new look at the waterfront, today themost emblematic project in the new,democratic Barcelona.

3. The method as synthesis of researchand theoretical practice

In urbanism and urban architecture,methodological innovation became acommon and highly productive approach

since the sixties. MSM inspired theLUB not to add them just becausethey were in vogue, but not to let thempass without reective investigationthat may allow integrating part of them.Methodology is inseparable from theresearch that interprets and reconstructsother experiences in the process, withoutincorporating them as independent parts.

By way of example, in the contributions

of Aymonino and Rossi, morphologicaland typological components wereseen as powerful descriptive sources,but they were not applied directly

Barcelona and its forms of urban growth. Thecity is explained in terms of: self-built areas,

garden cities, old town, suburban growth, newtown extension, housing estates, etc.



13


with a propositive aim and had to be

rechanneled. At the same time, the interest in makingurbanism a scientic subject led to thedevelopment by Stuart Chapin andBatty, among others, of modelling toenhance functional diagrams, and thedevelopment of the forms of computergraphics represented at the time byNegroponte or Steinitz were enticingsteps that have achieved a prominence

in the discipline that is now irreversible. They have been followed by manyothers, bringing us to the proliferationand richness of different methodologiesin recent decades.

Ideological discussion plays an importantpart in urbanism. Rather than adoptingthe imposition of functionalism, aprogressive approach means trying toensure that the human dimension servesto develop the advances offered bytechnology.

4. The autonomy of the urbanistic project

is key to dening the disciplineWhen considering forms of growth, it isimportant to highlight the value of modelprojects from which we can learn andgenerate new projects. This calls forideas for the urbanistic project that arecapable of producing an improved cityand recognises the need for innovationas a transformative value. An outstandingexample is the research promoted by

the LUB to re-examine Cerdà’s projectfor Barcelona and present it as aparadigm project: without this project,it is impossible to understand the city’sevolution. It is also a clear example of therelative autonomy of the project and itsinnovative contribution to 19th-centuryEuropean urbanism.

But the autonomy of the project is notindependent of the need to addresskey disciplinary questions, such as thebrief, topography, ownership and theenvironment, or understanding how

Past, project and present viewsfrom The La Ribera counter-planfor Barcelona’s seafront.



14

The representation of the city and the urbanterritory as an element of reflective knowledgeis capable of combining scales and producingnew bases for investigation.

The concept of palimpsest is accordingly usedto understand how history and urban projects

in the city can pave the way to innovative newideas.


time operates in the development of theproject. In this respect, the responsibleproject must respond correctly to thespecic circumstances of its setting.

5. The project in urban history: aparticular source of knowledge

History is a vital and convincing tool forunderstanding the city. MSM showed usthe repercussion and the role of certainproposals and previous projects inurban history. They can provide anotherreading of it and, above all, help us tounderstand the correct scale and thenecessary orientation to move the cityand it territory forwards. The past doesnot dene the future but it helps to castlight on it. He showed us how historyand urban projects in the city can pavethe way to innovative new ideas. Projects

establish “moments where urbanismintroduces its own forms”.

The project is like a text, a narrative

form, which is added to the ones thatalready exist in the city. The conceptof palimpsest is accordingly used tounderstand this deliberate superposition.

6. The “design” as abstraction of the cityand a powerful innovative reading

The representation of the city and theurban territory as an element of reectiveknowledge is capable of combiningscales and producing new bases forinvestigation: Urban designer must do agreat effort on it.

An interpretation of the territory at thelarger scale was tabled on the occasionof the Congress of Catalan Culturein the 1970s, at the dawn of Spain’snew democracy. It gave way to newcartographies, in which intentionedrepresentation introduced a design of themap, seeking the architectural expressionof the territory to dene its identity.

The Atlas of Catalonia, selecting 15



15

regional units drawn at a scale of1:10,000, transformed a map into adesign. It showed how geographybecomes topography, the forms of landregistry are agricultural layouts, and thecity becomes plot division, monumentsand public spaces; economic activityconverted into urban territory.

The shift from geographical mapto “design,” calls for a personal

interpretation that is impossible usingconventional information. These days,we’re used to Google, which is anextremely powerful tool that brings thecity closer all over the world, facilitatingits reading, and it is this spreading ofinformation that brings us back to thepersonal—and, if you like, diverse—synthesis that allows us to move beyondthe oversimplication or mistakes of

generic and banal interventions in ourterritories. The praxis of the LUB remindsus of the need for specic interpretationsand interventions that are rooted in reality.


7. Spreading urbanistic knowledge iscentral to consolidating the disciplinaryeld

The importance of conveying urbanisticknowledge was a pillar of the theoryframework of the LUB, based at theUPC’s School of Architecture. Youngarchitects were well trained in forward-thinking projective designing, concernedwith observing and evaluating forms,

and capable of relating image andfunction, but they had little training inunderstanding the real city.

The spreading of knowledge began withselective translations of seminal texts tomake them easily available in the culturalenvironment of urbanism that wasdeveloping. The event with the largestscope was the publication by GustavoGili of two collections: the 21-volume

“Urbanistic Science” and “Materials ofthe City”, in 7 volumes, about the citywith explanations of cases of planningand relevant analysis. They constituted a



16

The 21-volume “Urbanistic Science”,“Materials of the City”, in 7 volumes and URmagazine with 10 issues in an A3 format

Moll de la Fusta in the Barcelona ’92 Olympics where MSM rework the overall face of the city with hisproposal for rescaling its heavy road infrastructures.


library of new classics of urbanism.

Then, in the eighties, UR magazine with10 issues in an A3 format to reproduceplans of the city and its parts was aplatform for publicising the work carriedout by the LUB and key issues ofcontemporary discussion.

8. Barcelona as a space of knowledgeand application

Barcelona for MSM and the LUB was aspace for experimentation and the point

of reference for the comparative study ofother examples. The city became a greatreal-life workshop and testing ground toexperiment with these glimpses of newurban theory. The principles were thecombination of multiple scales, recourseto both prospective and history, and thecombination of instruments to rehabilitateand enhance with tools to transform



17

“Cities, corners” exhibition put forward thetheme of the corner as a key for addressingdiscussion of urban quality and urbanity in themost varied contexts.

and create, turning these exercises into

applied research projects. For example,MSM’s intuition when reconstituting theseafront informed his project for the Mollde la Fusta wharf in Barcelona, as well asthe capacity to rework the overall face ofthe city with his proposal for rescaling itsheavy road infrastructures.

The personal work of MSM in TenLessons of Barcelona, published in 2008,involved a reworking of the academic

brief of explaining the city and itsevolution from ten specic viewpoints.It represented a far-reaching body ofreection that goes beyond an eruditeinterpretation of the past to introducea highly topical diagnosis of pressingissues for our territory.

9. The global city requires us to think

about the new conditions of urbanityIn 2004, “Cities, Corners” put forwardthe theme of the corner as a key foraddressing discussion of urban quality

and urbanity in the most varied contexts.

Once again, the creative or “projective”hypothesis was to study cities and modelcases of urban planning with a view toformulating a framework. The exhibitionshowed how urbanism has a culturaldimension that goes beyond technologyand invades the media, and is reected inparadigm scenes created by the cinema,painting and other arts. This exhibitionlooked at the global city, presenting

corners as a condition of urbanity thattranscends the individual culture andinterests all cultures. In cities, cornersinduce the “coincidence” of differentpersons: the physical intersection isas present as the social exchange. Itopposes the corner as a generic, multipleevent to the square or street as a socialcondenser, capable of explaining the newforms of urbanity in the 21st century.




18

10. The urbanistic project as a productiveresearch method

In February 2007, the exhibition andthe discussion of the “X Lines” researchproject brought MSM back to the GSD.His presentation was a preview of hiswork A Matter of Things, published in2008, explaining his reasonings andprojects, giving us an insight into theevolution of his ideas and experiences,over and above specic projectattributes. The book is an excellentcompendium of his professional projects,

which illustrate his commitment tointroducing new “looks”—strategic,compulsive or anxious, as he denedthem—to create urbanity in differentfragments of European cities. It is aproverbial effort to introduce a newlanguage into the interpretation of thecity—he speaks of “urban things” andthe distances between objects—toexplain in new ways the strategies of

each project and the instruments used intheir respective execution. They includethe principle of achieving the greatesteffect using minimum intervention; hismasterly efforts to rescale infrastructuresand his search for new forms of urbanorganization that are not simple replicasof the past are prime examples.

--

Manuel’s greatest contribution wasprobably his work to nd a “differentmethodological way” and to construct itsequentially by means of his theoreticalwork in the world of academia andpractical simulations in the form ofprojects, researches and competitions,bringing the most rigorous self-criticismto the endeavour.

The cultural renovation of urbanismin the 21st century is leading to athorough reformulation of its principles;new issues related to sustainability,

new communication technologies andthe new demands of the economy,among others, dene a scenario

that is sometimes disconcerting andrelated to a weak, changing theoreticalsystem, and the redenition of thediscipline is both ambiguous and lackingin structure. In the methodologicaltrajectory proposed by MSM thesecurrent issues must be able to enrich theurbanistic scope –like other disciplinesdid before- to get stronger working eld. The search for a new rationality that is

more than simply a response on thepart of individual intuition is required,and the scientic stability provided byurban architecture and the discipline ofurban design that give it epistemologicallegitimacy is always desirable. In thiscontext, these reections on an urbantheory for the LUB, inspired by MSM,hope to contribute to an updating of thedisciplinary eld that is as urgent as it is

vital.

JB

Bibliography:

Solà-Morales, Manuel de, et alter.: «Barcelona:Remodelación capitalista o desarrollourbano». Ed. G. Gili, Barcelona, 1973.

Solà-Morales, Manuel de: “Les formes delcreixement” LUB, Editions UPC Barcelona,1993. (Updated version of the 1971 Courseprogram).

Laboratori d’Urbanisme de Barcelona: UR-Urbanismo Revista. Issues 1 to 10. BarcelonaUPC, 1995-2002.

Zardini, Mirko: «Manuel de Solà :DesigningCities» Lotus, Mlano, 1999.

Solà-Morales, Manuel de, et alter: «CitiesCorners». Lunwerg, Barcelona, 2004.

Solà-Morales, Manuel de: «Matter of things».

NAI, Rotterdam, 2008.Solà-Morales, Manuel de: «Ten lessons onBarcelona».ED. COAC-LUB, Barcelona, 2008.

http://www.lub.upc.edu/




19


Marcel Smets

Insights I gained from Manuel,

In search of a dialogueIn the introduction to the book NAi-Publishers brought out in 2008 withthe compilation of his work, Manuelde Solà-Morales characterized hisprojects as “true interpretations ofthe cities and sincere proposals fortheir transformation” . He added: “Theissues they undertake to address aresingular, and demonstrate an attentionto questions beyond the realm of usualprofessional practice; questions that, fortheir engagement with practice, are alsoalien to the purely verbal discourses of somany critics and architects.”

The hint contained in this passage mademe change the original intention of thiscontribution, to give an overview of themany layers in Manuel’s built oeuvre.Given the 20 minute deadline, I wanted

to prevent myself of entering into anelaborate interpretation which riskedturning into “a purely verbal discourse”.Instead, I preferred honoring Manuel byconcentrating on his two projects I wasclosely associated with. This choice, Ihoped, would allow me to escape fromtelling my own story. By concentrating onthe essential insights that the discussionover the making of these projects had left

me with, I believed I would integrate myfriend and master in a sort of dialoguetransferred to you. My original idea ofconveying the multifaceted meaning ofManuel’s architecture and urban designwould keep on standing, but while onlyreferring to the Antwerp Islet (1990-93)and Leuven Station Square (1996-2002)projects, my interpretation would besustained by his words.

Choose the right site for a feasibleintervention

The city is made by successive

interventions of manageable size.Urbanism should therefore stop withadopting grand or lengthy schemesthat exceed the client’s capacity ofimplementation. Too many uncompletedplans have been abandoned due tochanging societal priorities or a shiftingeconomic context. They only gatherthe aws of an overstretched idea.Solà’s projects on the contrary, address

identiable interventions that can berealized in a time concordant with thelocal decision-making and buildingprocess. They tackle an “intermediatescale”, a notion clearly linked tofeasibility: their size is big enough toaggregate the interrelated componentsand give way to a coherent urbanfragment, yet small enough to getachieved in a foreseeable time period. Ascale also that enables the interventionto transform the meaning of the city as awhole, while remaining recognizable asan addition of its own.

In the Antwerp Islet project clearlyidentiable urban actions (the Falcon-Nassau axis, the Montevideo districtand the Cadix square) form the buildingstones of gradual redevelopment. They are not consecutive phases of acomprehensive scheme, but appearlike incremental mosaics improving theexistent built fabric. Each operationis an urban project in itself, grafted onprevailing characteristics and addingto their potential urbanity. The sameobservation is valid for the LeuvenStationsplein project, a crucial centralpiece in a wide-ranging redevelopmentscheme. Manuel’s intervention radicallychanges the quality -in terms of ows,

connections, public space- of theinterchanging trafc modes around thestation. But in doing so, it strategicallyuplifts the development potential of the



20


adjacent areas and articulates a newlinkage between the historic city and itsearly 20th century expansion.

Think the project of the piece as a meansof transforming neighboring areas

By specifying different pedestrianlinkages between Leuven and KesselLo (the suburb separated by the broadbundle of railway tracks), but also bypositioning the head station platformsas a generous footpath leading towardsthe intended seat of the Flemish Administration, and already announcingthe rectilinear park along the futuredevelopment on the Southern side inthe lay out of the Station Square; theLeuven Stationsplein project reallyreveals Manuel’s comprehension of“urban acupuncture”. “To act withpunctures, pressures, injections is todistribute energy through the skin. Itis the epidermis of the urban fabrics

that enables us to transform internalmetabolisms of its organism”

However, the effect exerted by thestrategic intervention on the attractionof the surroundings is not only of aprogrammatic nature. Undeniably, theprovision of parking spaces, the easyaccess to and fro the railway platformsand the many destinations they logon to, the dynamic organization of

the bus station and its improvementon the uidity of local transportation,the expansion of meeting and leisurefacilities; served to elevate theprogrammatic appeal of the initiallyrather gloomy station surroundings. Butbeyond that, it was really the extremecare with which these programmaticintentions were converted into a clearlyarticulated setting that made investorsand people believe in the prospect of

overall change in the Leuven Station area. As Manuel says: “It is the urban matterthat transmits to us, at its most sensitivepoints and its most neutral zones, the

qualitative energy that accumulatescollective character on certain spaces,charging them with complex signicance

and cultural references and making themsemantic material, social constructions ofintersubjective memory.”

Create specic environments bytransforming the present

According to Manuel de Solà-Morales,the urban project should derive itsspecicity and its innovative force fromscrutinizing the multifold aspects thatform the character of the existing site. This –intuitive- investigation to assessthe meaning of what he entitles as “thesyntagmata of the language of urbanspace”, need not lead to morphologicalreproduction. It should rather becomethe outset for incorporating thesemulti-facetted characteristics into apersonalized transformation of theavailable urban material, in order to

produce a new and original setting. Thesingular character of the interventionthus stems from a dialogue with the site:it reveals a reaction provoked by thesounds and signs the site expresses.Speaking about his work, Manuelwrites: “This assiduous gaze becomesthe starting point for resolutions, whichthough distinct in every case are alwaysbound up with the city that lies beyond”

In the Islet project, the incidentaladdition of towers maintains theoverpowering impact of the huge watersurfaces that the assortment of docksproduces in this location. The irregularplacement of the buildings refuses thehabitual domestication that water frontrevitalization projects too often seemto ambition. Instead, Manuel’s distanttowers grafted on the existent textureof the urban blocks, emphasize the

prevailing emptiness. On the scale ofthe harbor, they create urban densitywhile embracing the vastness of theopen spaces. On the scale of the block,



21

Stationplein Leuven, Square and new intermodal station, 1999




22


they combine the variety of uses alongthe street with a drastic intensicationof activity on the inside. The same

combination of old and new is achievedin the layout of public spaces, where thered carpet pavement indicates a pathamong the timeworn cobblestones,providing uid passage through theoriginally rough and spacious deliveryroads.

In the Leuven case, Manuel’s closereading of the larger site leads him toreview the implantation and volumetric

arrangement of the fragment. Heprompts to endorse the direction of thetracks as prevailing alignment for allpresent and future buildings, and turnsthe original position of the bus stationin order to establish the corner edicethat would strengthen this vision. Thecareful implantation of the latter not onlydetermines the overruling rectangularform of the station square, it alsoidenties the asymmetrical position ofthe station in the overall longitude of therailway site; and distinguishes the civicquality of the station square from thedynamic nature of the bus movements inthe arm-pit of the corner building.

Produce urban architecture byexhausting the conditions of the site

It has been Manuel Solà’s great strength

to do away with the difference betweenarchitecture and urban design. Whetherwe are talking of ower markets, ofcebuildings, concert halls or sportsamenities, road curves, parking’s,tunnels, underpasses, dikes, quays orriver fronts; they are all ‘materials’ ofthe urban landscape and constituentsof city life. As such, they do not onlydeserve equal care and attention fromthe designer; their intricate relationship

also governs the complexity thatmakes our daily environment. Thisdissolving division between ediceand infrastructure transforms all

building activity into architecture. Butit also withers away the distinctionbetween monument and daily practice,

between common substance andspecial objects. Without preeminentconception, all constituent pieces ofthe urban setting can thus be adaptedto the conditions of site and function,and in that sense become a truly urbanarchitecture. An architecture that is notconsidered as individualized edice, butneither meant to become trivialized ordisappear. A gesture that but stems fromcarefully addressing the multi-facettedrequirements of the urbanity it ought toserve.

The design proposal for the towers inthe Islet project illustrates this attitude.For climatic reasons, their facades arefairly closed to the South and opened upto the North. This dichotomy voluntarilyproduces another perception, dependingon the standpoint of the observer. The towers look like ofce buildings-emblematizing the city- when viewedfrom the harbor; but appear like silos –emblematizing the port- when perceivedfrom the city. In the Leuven project,infrastructure and architecture not onlymerge seamlessly, their conceptionalso pairs at marvel with the site. Thelongitudinal prole of the tunnel e.g.works closely together with the incliningterrain. Its variable vertical position is

reected in the single and double levelsof the adjoining parking. The pitched roofof the administrative building emphasizesits paramount perception of “corner”,whereas the big “window” in its southfaçade makes it look as if the trains arriveinto the square. The precast awnings setthe frame for continuing the alignmentof bars and terraces on the squaresurroundings.

Here and there, Manuel is even turningthe inherent difculties of the site intohis favor. Instead of repositioning thewar memorial and offering himself more



23

Stationplein Leuven, 1999. Fragments




24

Antwerpen, Stad aan de Stroom, 1993


freedom for organizing the parkingunderneath, he chooses to reinforce theglobal silhouette of the remembrance

column by locating two of the entries tothe parking on either side of its triangularbase.

Accentuate existing and potentialmovement to generate a dynamic of ow

In many of the present-day situationswhere Manuel de Solà-Morales wasasked to intervene, movement (ofdifferent user categories) played animportant role. Instead of separatingthese ows and simplifying the briefby conceiving spaces for particularcategories, he always searched forspatial solutions where the combinationof ows would contribute to the senseof urbanity he sought. More often suchendeavor resulted in the development ofunaccustomed spatial typologies whichpermitted him to eliminate the dangers of

conicting trafc ows without breaking



25


up their spatial continuity. After theMol de la Fusta, inventing overlappingand interpenetrating trafc patternsbecame one of his trademarks. In manycases, his intervention lead to doublingthe use of the same –often centralarea- by providing spatial continuityunto the vertical stacking of conictingmovements.

In Antwerp, the sequence of conferenceand market hall on the peninsulabetween Napoleon and Willem docks,followed by the cluster of towers andthe elongated new structures parallel tothe Kattendijk dock, initiates a privileged

itinerary between the old town andthe new district. The ow is generatedby means of successive visual andfunctional attractions that interrelatewithout being part of a single spatialdevice.

In Leuven, all elements of the multimodalprogram spatially interconnect: theparking extends over and becomes partof the tunnel, the pedestrian underpass

runs through and ows over in theparking, the parking opens up to theoverlying square, the underpass directlylinks bus and train platforms, judiciously

placed stairways unite parking and cityand transform the underground into analternative walkway. In their interrelatedconception, light-wells, peep-trough’s,duplex and balconies, widening ceilings,sloping oors, changing viewpointsand surprising perspectives appearabundantly. They create an itinerary ofarchitectural promenades that elevatesthe stroll through this trafc exchange toa splendid urban experience.

Enhance the public realm to establishmeaning for the urban project

All of Manuel Solà’s projects areultimately geared towards theenrichment of the public realm. In hismind , such objective clearly exceedsthe refurbishment of public space. Italso involves collective spaces –evenif they are privately run- , and beyondthose, even the public predispositionthat buildings should ensure in order tohave urban quality. Hence, concept andintegration of public amenities are amplypresent in Manuel’s work, but also hiscareful attention to the publicly orientedground oors of his buildings is rather



26


manifest. They substantiate Manuel’svision of the city as a place founded bythe disparate activities of miscellaneous

individuals, aggregating for purpose andfor pleasure. In his mind, city dwellers arenot to be considered as customers, oras a gures producing animation in theurban space, but as citizens worthy ofconsideration and respect.

As they are basically occupied withconguring public space and creatingplaces of collective use, both theLeuven and Antwerp projects evidently

demonstrate Manuel’s emphasis on thepublic realm. In an even more subtlemanner, this concern comes also tothe fore in many of the choices madefor the internal organization of thestructures. In the Leuven bus station,the spaciousness created by the highcanopies not only confers a sense ofdignity to the platforms, but opens up avisual relationship between the commonparts of the administrative building andthe waiting passengers beneath. Thebalcony initiating the staircase from theunderpass into the parking on the otherhand, works as an overhanging publiclanding, a space of sudden wonder,inciting passers-by to admire thegenerous dimensions of the Piranesianparking hall. In the Antwerp Cadizdistrict, the former logic of the 19th blockis resumed into a modular structure, in

order to complete the remaining housinggrid. The typology enables ground oorworkshops and stores to extend deepinto the block, and creates the conditionsto combine a high-ranking dwellingquality on the upper oors with anintense public life on the pavement.

Manipulate slight slopes to bridgesubstantial level differences

Bridging levels with slopes and ramps

is a recurrent practice in Manuel’swork. Most likely, his extreme ability toassess the important impact of minimalgrades on the larger city scale stems

from designing infrastructure. He oftenstressed the importance of combining“kilometers” with “centimeters”, and

spoke of the great effects that minuteconsideration of precise dimensionsenabled to achieve. The Leuven projectis one of the many examples where thislesson was magnicently put to practice.By prolonging the gentle natural north-south inclination of the adjoining areaover the originally horizontal surface infront of the station, Solà reached manyobjectives at once. For one, he wasable to shorten the northern ramp of thetunnel which authorized him to combinethe crossing of the buses above with anintersection at grade for residential trafcfurther up. With regard to the underpass,it smoothed out the vertical connectionwith the bus station. For the horizontalplatform of the dead end train trackon the other hand, it accentuated anincreasing difference with the oor of thebus station, and created the impression

of panoramic dike. On the “stationsplein”nally, it enabled to construct an urbanplinth prolonging the station into thesquare, just by playing out the horizontalplane against the slope.

In the underground however, stackingthe parking entrance and exit above eachother in such a minimal vertical sectionrequired real vision and mastership.“Can you imagine how difcult it must

have been to accommodate the beamand its linkage to the overhanging oorwith the necessary height of this parkingentrance?”, an unknown bystanderonce rhetorically asked. “And canyou envisage, how incredibly hard itmust have been to think out such achallenging solution..?”. When I told himafterwards about this encounter, Manuelproudly smiled. He had every right to doso…

MS



27


Life’s Work

Manuel de Solà-Morales,

• Research prize. Fundación March, 1970.• Puig i Cadafalch prize. Collegi Ocial

d’Arquitectes, 1980.• National Urbanism Prize. Ministerio de

Obras Públicas y Transportes, 1983.• Ciutat de Barcelona prize. Barcelona City

Council, 1986.• FAD 1st prize for Architecture. Foment de

les Arts Decoratives, 1994.• Award for European Architecture.• Mies Van der Rohe Fundation, 1995.• 1st prize, III Bienal de Arquitectura

Española. Consejo Superior de Colegios

• Architect. ETSA Barcelona – UniversitatPolitècnica de Catalunya - UPC (1963).

• Master of City Planning. GSD HarvardUniversity (1965).

• Ph.D. in Architecture. UniversitatPolitècnica de Catalunya (1965).

• Degree in Economic Science. Universitatde Barcelona (1966).

• Full Professor of Urban Planning. ETSAB- UPC (since 1969).

• Founder and Director of Laboratorio de

Urbanismo de Barcelona (since 1969).• Director of Departmento de Urbanismo yOrdenación del Territorio (DUOT) (1983-1993).

• Director of ETS Arquitectura deBarcelona ETSAB. (1994 -1997).

• Visiting Professor at the University ofLisboa, Cambridge (UK), Central de

Venezuela, Rotterdam, Católica de Chile,Harvard Graduate School of Design,Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Aarhus,Ferrara, Roma, Milan, Coimbra, Delft,

Naples, Sao Paolo, Nanjing, Melbourne,Berlin.

• Over 200 lectures to Schools of Architecture, Universities, Congresses,

• Symposiums, Government Institutionsand Architects’ Associations.

• Académicien de l’Académied’Architecture de la France, (2002).

• Doctor Honoris Causa. KatholiekeUniversiteit Leuven (2004).

de Arquitectos de España, 1995.• FAD 1st prize for Architecture. Foment

de les Arts Decoratives, 1999.• Narcis Monturiol scientic merit prize for

contributions to research. Gener-alitat deCatalunya, Barcelona, 2000.

• Grand Prix Européen de l’Urbanisme.Special Jury prize. Ministère del’Equipement, des Transports et duLogement. Paris, 2000.

• Vlaamse Ruimtelijke Plannings

Prijs (National Prize in Urbanism ofFlandes), Ministerie Van de VlaamseGemeenschap, Brussels, 2001.

• Premi Catalunya d’Urbanisme. SocietatCatalana d’Ordenació del Territori,Barcelona, 2005.

• Rey Jaime I prize. Generalitat Valenciana.Fundación de Estudios Avanzados,2008.

• Creu de Sant Jordi. Generalitat deCatalunya, 2009.

Academic Profile

Awards

Steering Committee

• Ciencia Urbanística collection, EditorialGustavo Gili (1967-1980). 21 vols.Spanish translations of some of the mostimportant international texts on urbanism.

• Materiales de la Ciudad collection,Editorial Gustavo Gili (1974-76). 7 vols.Monograph studies of major cities.

• Laboratori d’Urbanisme collection.

Collecció d’Arquitectura, Edicions UPC(since 1993). 8 vols. Editions of doctoraltheses supervised by the professor.

• UR – Urbanismo Revista. Founder andeditor of the magazine. LUB. (1985-1992). 10 issues. A publication on currenturbanism in Spain and internationally,large format, with high-quality content,design and nish. Texts in English,Spanish, French and Italian.

• Arquitecturas Bis. Editor (1974-85), 52issues.

• Quaderns d’Arquitectura i Urbanisme.Editor (since 2004), 12 issues.

• Monograas académicas. Editor. ETSAB– UPC (1968-1985)



28

Manuel de Solà-Morales as student at HarvardUniversity, 1966.


Research

• Founder of Laboratorio de Urbanismo deBarcelona (1969)

• Director of Laboratorio de Urbanismo deBarcelona (since 1969)

• Director of lines of research Modelística,La enseñanza del urbanismo, La

Urbanización Marginal, Los Ensanches,Barcelona, Territorio y comarcas,Las Formas de Crecimiento Urbano,Proyecto y Ordenanza, El Urbanismode las ciudades, Teoría del ProyectoUrbano, Periferia and Intersecciones.

• Director of more than twenty Ph. D. Thesis.

• Member of Editorial BoardsEnvironmental + Planning (London,1974-83), Diseño Urbano (México).

• Lotus Internacional (Milano). Editor(1970-2007).• Cities, Corners. Curator of the exhibition

and catalogue (Forum de las Culturas,Barcelona 2004). Major thematicexhibition occupying an area of morethan 2,500 m2, expressing the values ofdiversity, peace and sustainability.

• Joan Rubió i Bellver. Arquitectemodernista, Curator of the exhibitionand catalogue (Collegi Ramon Llull,Barcelona 2008). Exhibition on the work

of Modernist architect.



29


Moll de la Fusta, Barcelona. 1981-86

New Civic Port, Badalona. 1988

• Member of the Commission responsi-blefor the Master Plan for the Metro-politan

Area of Barcelona (1965-67).• Coordinator of the General Metro-politan

Plan (PGM) for Barcelona (1968-70).• Consultant on General Plans for major

Spanish cities: Las Palmas de GranCanaria, Málaga (Premio Nacional deUrbansimo 1985), Madrid, La Coruñaand Córdoba.

• Director of General Plans for variousCatalan and Spanish towns: Terrassa

• (Premi Catalunya d’Urbanisme prize

2003), Manlleu, Torelló, Banyoles, Tolosa.• Director of urban development plans inBarcelona (Les Casernes-Sant Andreu,La Sagrera, 22@-Poblenou, Plan dela Barceloneta–National Urbanismprize,1983), Badalona, Santa Coloma,Olot, Aranjuez, San Sebastián, Reus (ElCarme), Terrassa (Torressana).

• Poble Nou-La Ribera sector. 1stprize,1971.

• Terminal in El Prat. Mention.• Renovation of the historic centre Coso 2,

Zaragoza. 2nd prize,1970.• Renovation of the central area of SanMatias, Granada. 2nd prize,1975.

• New residential district, Lakua, Vitoria.1st prize, 1977.

• Plaza de la Marina, Málaga, project1981, construction 1985-89.

• Renewal of the Moll de la Fusta,Barcelona, p. 1981-82, c.1982-86.

• Plan for the harbour front of Thessaloniki,p.1986.

• Renewal of Bahnhofplatz, Salzburg,Mention,1987.

• Reuse of underground galleries.• Sottonapoli, Napoli, 1988.• New Civic Port, Badalona, Barcelona,

1st prize, 1988.• Multifunctional project L’Illa Diagonal,

Barcelona, 1st prize, 1988.• L’Illa Diagonal building, Barcelona,

c.1989- 93.• Transformation of the quays in the port

of Antwerp, Stadt aan de Stroom, 1st

prize, 1990.• Redenition of the harbour front ofKaaien, Antwerp,1st prize, 1990.

• Proposals for the transformation of

Projects Planning

Illa Diagonal, Barcelona. 1988-93



30


Alexanderplatz. Berlín. Berlin Morgen. Byinvitation, 1991.

• Alexanderpolder neighbourhood,

Rotterdam, 1993.• Renewal of La Sang neighbourhood, Alcoi, c.1993-02.

• Winschoterkade, Gröningen, .1994,c.1995

• Construction of the Ville-port area,• Transformation and renovation of the• seafront of Thessaloniki, Waterfront-• Cityfront,1st prize, 1996.• Sottocorso. Renewal of the Cantieri

Navale, Genoa, p.1996-97.• Plan for Public Spaces in the central

sector of Almere, p.1996-98.• Urbanization of the Ville-port area, Saint-Nazaire, Nantes, p.1996-02.

• Square and new intermodal station inLeuven, p.1996-99, c.1998-02.

• Plan for the transformation of Porto Vecchio, Trieste, p.1998-99.

• Plan of the Rijnboog Arnhem sector, Arnhem, p.2000-04.

• Passeio Atlântico in Porto, p. 1999- 01,c.2001-02

• 22@ mixed activities sector, Poblenou,

Barcelona, p.2001.• Urban frontage of La Maquinista,

Barcelona, p.2001-03.• Ciberdistrito Herrera technological area,

Santo Domingo, 2002.• Petit Maroc renewal of the port of Saint-

Nazaire, Nantes, 2002.• Special Plan for the Almaden mining

complex, Huelva, 2002.• Scheveningen seafront, The Hague, p.

2002-.

• Renewal of the Vallbuena sector,Bajomuralla, Logroño, 2003.• Laying out of the Torressana social

housing district, Terrassa, p.2003- .• Transformation of the central Operaplein-

Rooseveltplein area, Antwerp, 1st prize,2004.

• Laying out of Les Casernes-Sant Andreu,p.2005- .

• Renewal of the Barri del Carmeneigbourhood, Reus, 2006- .

• Prat Nord 6+6, El Prat de Llobregat,

2008.• Residential project in Lleida (Are SUR8-9-24), p. 2008-2009.

• Residential project in Montesa factory’s

Ville Port, Saint Nazaire. 1995

Winschoterkade, Gröningen. 1994-95

La Sang, Alcoi. 1993-02



31


site, Esplugues de Llobregat, 2008-2009.

• Urban transformation of Gravendijkwall

avenue, Rotterdam, 2009.• Urban Center Renewal in Antwerpen,Operaplein, Anvers, c.2004- .

• Porte des Gaves, Pau, c.2010- .

Scheveningen, The Hague. 2002-12

Passeio Atlântico, Porto. 1999-02

Stationplein Leuven. 1996-02

• Muntaner-Avenir Building, Barcelona(1964-67, with M. de Solà-Morales iRosselló).

• Rico-Camps House, Sant Cugat del Vallès, Barcelona (1970).

• La Miranda House, Sant Hilari de Sacalm(1975).

• Pericot-Cosp House, Sa Tuna (1990).• Illa Diagonal, Barcelona (1993).• Residential buildings in Alcoi (1998).• De Lijn Bus Station, Leuven (2002).• Estufa Building, Porto (2002).• Social Housing U03 Casernes, Barcelona

(2010).• Agulles Residential buildings, Torresana,

Terrassa (2010).• El Carme Facilities Building, Reus (2011).

Projects - Architecture

• Cala Ratjada Deck Chair(1974).• Urbatas (1993).

Projects - Architecture



32

Manuel de Solà-Morales at the “Harvard GSDCities X Lines Exhibition”, 2005.


• Barcelona: remodelación capitalista odesarrollo urbano en la Ribera Oriental,

Editorial Gustavo Gili, Barcelona, 1974.• Les traces dels carrilets gironins.

Propostes d’aprotament, LUB, COAC,Girona, 1982.

• Manuel Solà. Proyectos Urbanos 1986-1991, Revista Geometría n.14, Málaga,1992.

• Les formes de creixement urbà,Edicions UPC-LUB, Barcelona, 1993.

/ Las formas de crecimiento urbano,Edicions UPC-LUB, Barcelona, 1997.Hiri-hazkuntzaren ereduak, EditorialUniversidad País Vasco, Bilbao, 2008.

• Manuel de Solà: Progettare Città /Designing cities, Lotus, Electa, 1999.

• Ciudades, esquinas / Cities, Corners,Fòrum Barcelona 2004-LunwergEditores, 2004. / Ciutats, cantonades /

Villes, carrefours, Fòrum Barcelona 2004 / Lunwerg Editores, 2004.

• Joan Rubió i Bellver, arquitecte moderista(editor), COAC, Barcelona, 2007.

• Deu lliçons sobre Barcelona / Ten

Lessons on Barcelona, COAC,Barcelona, 2008. / Diez lecciones sobreBarcelona / Ten Lessons on Barcelona,COAC, Barcelona, 2008.

• The city. A matter of things, NAI,Rotterdam, 2008 / De cosas urbanas,Editorial Gustavo Gili, Barcelona, 2008.

• Prat Nord, Edicions de Cantonada,Barcelona, 2009.

• Urbanitat Capil.lar (editor), LunwergEditores, Barcelona, 2009.

• Cerdà / Eixample. Manuel de Solà-

Morales, Edicions UPC, Barcelona,2010.

• Monograph studies: Sobre metodologíaurbanística, 1968 / La ciudad y los

juegos, 1968; Análisis factorial de lascaracterísticas urbanas del área delBesòs, 1969 / El Área Metropolitana deBarcelona, Monográco Cuadernos de

Arquitectura, 1972 / La enseñanza delUrbanismo, 1973-4 / Los Ensanches,1976 / La identitat del territori català.

Les comarques, Atles Laboratorid’Urbanisme, 1977 i Quadernsd’Arquitectura i Urbansime, Monogràc2 vol., 1981 / L’art de ben establir, 1984

/ Ciutat funcional i morfología urbana,

Bibliography

1994 / El Projecte Urbà: una experiènciadocent, 1999.

• More than 50 chapters in bookspublished in various countries on a widerange of urban themes, and translatedinto various languages.

• Monograph publications about hisarchitectural and urban projects likeMelding town and track, the railwayproject at Leuven, Marcel Smets ed.2002, Passeio Atlantico, Polis ed.Lisboa, Marzo 2002. Formas Urbanas,Concreta ed. Lisboa 2003, UrbanidadCapilar, la transformación urbanísticade los Cuarteles de Sant Andreu,Lunwerg, Barcelona 2009, and recentlySaint-Nazaire, ville port: L’histoired’une reconquête, Place Publique,Nantes, 2010 y Prat Nord, Edicions deCantonada, Barcelona, 2010.

• Exhibitions devoted to his workFundazione Angelo Masieri, Venecia,1987; The Eijlande, Amberes, The Singel,1990; Berlin Morgen, Berlin, 1991;

Alexanderpolder, new urban frontiers,

AIR Rotterdam, 1993.



33




34


Dean Mohsen Mostafavi and Rahul Mehrotra, Chair of the Departmentof Urban Planning and Design, have been instrumental in theorganization of this symposium. The symposium is coordinated by JoanBusquets, Martin Bucksbaum Professor with the invaluable assistanceof Felipe Correa, Associate Professor.

Thanks to the team of Laboratori d’Urbanisme de Barcelona for its

assistance in the preparation of much of the graphic material, to theStudio of MSM for loaning archive material, and to Rosa Feliu for herphotographs and slides show.

Special thanks to the Loeb Library for its organization of the displaytables presenting MSM’s materials, and to Dan Borelli for helping in thevideo with images of MSM’s projects in the same library.

Santiago Orbea and Miguel López Meléndez, MAUD’2014 students,brought their enthusiastic collaboration to the production of thisbrochure; Francesc Baqué, architect from BAU, contributed in

formatting it, and Nick Rock from NY designed the symposium posterand image.

Thanks to Ben Prosky and Shantel Blakely for their helpful and efcientorganizational support.

CREDITS



35


“The urbanistic form can at times be that of the whole urban fabric,

that of the major morphological orders or that of the primary structure

of the city. Sometimes, too, it is the areas of growth, the extensions

and suburbs that have served to create urban forms of their own; in

other instances, however, it is the smaller-scale civic elements that,

due to their location or form, assume certain urban transcendence.

But whatever their size, moment or function, urbanistic forms

endow the city with that wealth of signication that human thought

is capable of producing in its endeavor to master an economic and

social process –urbanization- and give it a chosen form and image.” (MSM from “Ten lessons on Barcelona”, page 20.)

“At times cities are analyzed as territories of purely dynamic abstract

ows and relations, without signicant material or position, as a

pure phenomenon of mutation, transit and ephemeral frontier. It is

said that contemporary city is virtually independent of both physical

support and political life. However this technocratic illusion ignores

the fact that, precisely to the extent that relations and ows congurethemselves as collective spaces, it is the position and form of these

spaces that allow many people to enjoy certain margins of freedom

within the system, and enable our cities to be places of maximum

opportunity for individual autonomy, difference, acceptance, and the

vindication of rights of justice.”

“At the corner diverse façades and people coincide, producing

agreement, innovation and stimulus: The corner is thus a metaphor

for the city as a whole, in that it is a synthesis constituted on the

basis of diversity. Contrary to the thinking of a misguided urbanism, it

is not the idea of order that shapes the city, but the idea of difference:

difference plus coincidence dees the corner, and that is also a

denition of the city”

(MSM from “Cities, Corners”. Page 13)



Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	luca-filippi
View:	509 times
Download:	44 times

THE VISION OF MANUEL DE SOLÀ-MORALES_harvard gsd.pdf

Documents