Lecture by VR of MVRDV

The Near Future in the Netherlands – Flood City

Like the first of the two part lecture series, this lecture also began with a thought provoking study on urban planning and architectural design in the future, in the Netherlands. Instead of a platform to showcase the office’s built work or simply explain their design philosophies like most guest lecturers, such a projective, proactive approach of design to kick start the lecture was indeed refreshing. FLEX is a proactive study to the underestimated problem of global warming. With a consensus seemingly in the Netherlands that the water level in existing rivers will continue to rise beyond the height of the present dykes level, MVRDV made an extrapolation of the volume of water that is going to flow through the Netherlands and presented it in an analogical-simple-to-understand-graphical method (just like their FARMAX study mentioned in the previous lecture.)
So they began a very diverse study on the various methods, conventional and unconventional, as solutions to their hypothetical ‘problem’. From the scale of the Netherlands, they identified the location of their solution and then proposed three methods to respond to the increase volume of water. They also proposed solutions in the architectural scale. It ranged from the conventional dense built-up areas around the proposed railway station, an extension to the existing city to the atypical solutions like polder-cities (low rise houses evenly distributed in the flood plains that will flood once every twenty to fifty years thus creating an almost surreal flood landscape.) and dyke row houses.
A matrix of all the possible solutions and their pros and cons was subsequently done. Albeit a hypothetical study- the pros and cons was nonetheless pragmatic and realistic, ranging from ecological to economical impacts.

This portion of the lecture probably revealed some short-sightedness, narrow mindedness and reactive nature of our discourse back in Singapore. There is hardly any open discourse (that I know of) on future population growth, rising sea levels linked to the urban or architectural field. Surely there is a limit to the extent of land reclamation and also, there can only be a limit to the number of 40 storey HDB flats one can have in a housing estate. The private architecture scene is also seldom involved in state urban planning or studies. Despite the fact that URA is probably filled to the brim with scholars and what not, I am sure that more heads think better. Maybe the traditional methods of urban planning is good for a bi-annual, 5 year or even 10 year plan but which urban-architectural body is there to ensure that our city state is not antiquated and unable to function as well say 50 years later? Rather than criticizing the ‘ugly’ HDB flats or the apparently poor communal spaces of HDB housing, who in the fraternity managed to propose a convincing alternative? Who gave a similar graphical extrapolation of facts and came out with architectural solutions? We either have academic papers filled with statistics and charts (that will not be easily understood by the layman) or have sleek, conceptual designs (that are competing to be in your next issue of design magazine on your coffee table.)

Projects Galore – Re-visit of old typologies, creative responses, diverse geographies and the deceivingly simple parti.

The second portion of the lecture was quite simply a showcase of MVRDV’s work. From Amsterdam, Madrid, Copenhagen, Tianjin, Beijing to Busan – projects dotted halfway across the globe. Extremely diverse in context, the result is obvious- an almost equally varied palette of architectural responses. But what struck me the most (not that I was not aware of this before the lecture) is that MVRDV is exceptionally apt in creating simple diagrams-images to present their driving ideas and design. From analytical, dry facts to design parti to design processes to plans and sections and finally perspectives, the images are always clear, to the point, particularly easy to relate to and cogent.

The effect? It makes the audience believe they could have thought of it too! It makes design seem so simple and sometimes to an extent, too pragmatic (lacking the poetic subtlety). It makes you wonder whether these so-called design processes were engineered when the design was out. (This is the typical train of thought in a student’s mind but arose more so because of our inherent inability. How often do we have problems representing our design processes and ideas graphically and simply?)

Soon, Mr. De Reijs was almost not talking. Instead, it was his images doing most of the ‘talking’. His verbal presentation was in fact a mere supplement. In architecture school nowadays, from NUS to TU Delft, you see students who talk a lot and little to show. No doubt design can be a complicated, non-linear process but to document your thoughts and further analyze it should be the level we are gunning for.

MVRDV’s projects are undoubtedly visually seductive. But architecture nowadays seems systematically reduced to stylish aesthetic objects, maybe the academia should reflect and perhaps study these contemporary works by contemporary architects. Are the designed spaces and forms really working the way it was meant to be? Do we have to wait till the people from MVRDV to die before we analyze their work? Is architecture really like art in that sense? Are we content to post-rationalize and evaluate when they are no longer around? Is architecture reduced to simple images, seductive renderings in Architecture Review? Architecture is at the moment a one month design/ half baked/ rushed job in offices around the world. Who is going to step in and say, ‘Hey, wait a second. Is everything we are doing now the right thing to do?’

Projects to chk out:
Busan Cinema Complex, Busan
Gemini Residences, Copenhagen
NUURT NE9EN, Amsterdam
Mirador, Madrid
FLEX- Rivierstad (Hypothetical)
FARMAX (Hypothtical)
CBD Crown (Beijing)

For dee, sio and yaoks:
Maybe can read their latest book. "5 minute city- Architecture and Im(mobility)