Architecture and context in Escola da Cidade of San Paolo
Interview to Ciro Pirondi* by Carlo Pozzi

I would like to begin by speaking about one of your masters, Vilanova Artigas. How important is this story of “making the support point sing” in your projects? For example, in the Milton Braga homes, is there a relationship between the structure with only a few resting points on the ground and the architectural form?
I believe it is in direct relationship with the education of an architect in São Paolo, which is based on the concept of a school of Engineering and Technology. The so-called “Paulist“ school has it origins in a polytechnical education; the architects of Rio de Janeiro were instead trained by the school of Fine Arts. Artigas was an engineer-architect; as a result, the idea of structure, of technique, of the support point was a fundamental part of any project for him. This is why he liked to quote Auguste Perret’s idea of “making the support point sing”, by which he intended that any project must begin with the physical structure.

Let’s speak in more general terms: can it be said that Post-Modernism had no influence on Brazilian architecture? Did this guarantee the continuity that we now observe between modern and contemporary architecture in Brazil? While in Europe we were witness to various ruptures: the historicist, the high-tech, etc.
During the 1980s and in part the 1990s, Post-Modernism had a strong influence on Brazilian architecture, primarily in Rio de Janeiro and Minas Gerais, and to a lesser degree in São Paolo. This is because Vilanova Artigas created a School of Architecture, not only in the physical sense, but also with the intention of strongly redefining a way of thinking, with an ideological base founded on fighting against and resisting the dictatorship. Associated with the aesthetic question and the idea of construction there was also a political reflection that developed very strongly in each of us, and which we still possess. When the “post-modern wave” arrived in São Paolo, it found some resonance with a few architects who produced a considerable amount of work, and who successively changed their language once again: they have no problem changing continually. However, a few members of my generation, from Alvaro Puntoni to Milton Braga, those who are currently making architecture in Brazil, remained linked to the ideas of Modernism, those of Artigas, of Paulo Mendes da Rocha and Lina Bo Bardi.

Is this idea of structure related to politics perhaps the idea of a “poor”, “pared down” architecture, without post-modernisms, though also devoid of the curves and waves of Niemeyer?
Artigas and Lina used to say: we work with concrete, extracting it from wooden formwork; we cannot pretend that labourers polish it and paint everything.

Thus the béton brut of Le Corbusier…
Yes, but above all it was a political choice: for us it was more economical, and it continues to be more economical, because the cost of labour is economical; building in a way that, after the structure is complete, the architecture is already available for use.

Is the influence of Le Corbusier even greater than that of an Alvar Aalto, for example? It would appear that you are closer to Chandigarh than Brasilia.
As I see it, they are two distinct projects. Many architects speak about resemblances, but for me they are very different.

Paradoxically, does the use of béton brut unite the “Paulists” more with the architecture of Chandigarh than the fantastic and sinuous forms of Brasilia?
Brasilia was above all the people’s desire to build, to occupy that space. It was a national desire. Everyone, thousands of people, wanted to go there and build it.

Important evidence of this original enthusiasm remains in Juscelino Kubitschek’s hut. Let’s talk about Paulo Mendes da Rocha: the choice not to create a true office, but to allow for the passage of young architects, offering them space, what type of teaching is this?
We are the result of this teaching. We all worked with him: the result is the Escola da Cidade, where we work together. It is the attempt to contribute to the transformation of our country through the school, training architects with a social vision. From Vilanova Artigas and from Mendes da Rocha we learned that we must work together: Alvaro (Puntoni) worked with Angelo (Bucci), Martha (Moreira) with Milton (Braga). I am currently working with Ruben Otero on the favelas and a number of schools in a town near São Paolo; with Alvaro we are building the Museum of Paper. We do things together: this is the teaching of Paulo Mendes.

This is impossible for us [Italians] to imagine, because there is a great deal of rivalry between architects. Does Mendes still teach with the school?
Not any more. However, his wife and son still do. He visits all the time though.

Regarding the research of Mendes and yourselves, it appears to me that we can speak of the centrality of geometry, both at the scale of architecture and of the landscape, as in the project for Montevideo Bay.
Let’s make one thing clear. We tried to overcome this moment, seeking to define our own vision, using new materials. However, the influence of Artigas, Mendes and Niemeyer is very strong.

The idea of the School is wonderful. Speaking of the use of materials, with regards to your small homes, do you always use local materials, or are you beginning to feel the effects of globalisation?
There is an important tie to local materials: mixed structures using wood; at present in Brazil wood is very strong (present); Ruben Otero has just completed a hotel with a concrete skeleton and a very beautiful wooden structure. Stone as well: I am completing a project that plays with stone. For Puntoni’s house on the Morro do Querosene the concrete blocks were realized on site.

Let’s talk about the role of climate and verify whether it favours a greater level of “freedom” in architecture, allowing for new relationships between interior and exterior.
I want to be clear that in Latin America, and Brazil in particular, we normally have a great deal of space: it is thus possible to immerse a project in a landscape that constructs our architecture. Brazilian architecture can be crossed without being entered: Milton Braga’s Vila Romana has an open relationship with its surroundings, with great freedom.

Thus these works of architecture are without self-referential qualities, but rather projected towards a strong relationship with context?
They move towards context, above all when given the opportunity for surrounding open space. The home of Paulo Mendes, his home, is an important reference for all of us: what separates the piazza in front of it from the spaces of the home is simply a slight natural step up created with vegetation. It is possible to move from the piazza to the house, without moving inside, and arrive in another street: it is an urban role, and a collective idea.

The school’s programme proposes “pieces” (volumes) that are assembled differently from time to time: is this not a form of self-referentiality and separation from context?
The relationship with context is above all in the design of the public space, with a pool, a street… In Brazil it is possible to walk in the street and encounter a ramp that moves upwards, and another that moves downwards, and you are inside a building: this is harmony with context. What matters is that you walk!

Let’s talk about your projects for the favelas. Are there chances for architecture in these agglomerations, or are we simply dealing with the recovery of civil conditions?
It is above all the recovery of civil conditions in which people understand, through the improvement of the spaces in which they live, a new dignity of existence. We transformed a small space that was a meeting point for drug traffickers: it is now used by hundreds of children who come there to find books. It was once impossible to simply walk past this area. There is no new architecture: architecture was opening a window and changing the air. It is the new use that underlines the symbolic role: the recovery of an architectural space that moves towards a social transformation. This does not imply that we do not try to make architecture; on the contrary, the best that we can. Ruben and myself are building a 28 flat apartment building in a favela, as well as a 70-meter long building capable of uniting all types of public demonstrations; we have restored the soccer stadium, and we are building a market.

We keep talking about architecture, about its role in the transformation of the city, but we never use the term “urban planning”. What relationship exists between architecture and urban planning in Brazil today?
My opinion is that we are dealing with a schizophrenic separation. Terrible cities have been built that require architectural transformation: even the construction of a small house, if it is well done, is urban planning. In the favelas we are designing a Master Plan that will affect 80,000 people, making architecture at the scale of an urban project, with a public plaza, for example.

It is almost as if I am hearing the teachings of Oriol Bohigas, when he claimed that in Barcelona it was necessary to create a master plan made of pieces of architecture.
It is a very clear idea. This is also the role of individual works of architecture in the city proposed by Aldo Rossi. If we had thought about the city this way before, we would not have created such disarticulated cities.

The production of single-family homes in Brazil reveals a great deal of freedom. What characteristics do your clients possess to permit such a level of experimentation? The clients of the single-family homes deigned decades ago by Mario Botta in the Canton Ticino were very wealthy.
Here things are different: this freedom is implicit in popular culture. I designed a single-family home for an extremely simple family: they allowed me to work in total freedom, proposing spaces of shade, which alternate, that would normally not have existed. They learned that it was a better way to live. It is very difficult to design for a wealthy family, which would tend to impose its idea of social prestige, for example proposing the villas of Miami. Normally a population, not poor but middle class, loves these proposals, if they are explained carefully.

What is their level of culture?
The level of culture has a great influence on their choices: if it is relatively low or high, it is possible to work well; the problems arise when dealing with an intermediate level, with those who think they know architecture, perhaps because they are a musician or someone familiar with literature, when in reality they know nothing [about architecture]. Alvaro and myself designed a home for a wealthy gentleman, the owner of a refrigerator factory; he was extremely rich but with a very low level of culture; however, he was very free and respected us, leaving us to design without obstacles, without intervening even in the choice of materials.
Alvaro ed io abbiamo progettato una casa per un signore, proprietario di una fabbrica di frigoriferi, estremamente ricco ma con basso livello culturale: però era molto libero e ci ha rispettato, lasciandoci progettare senza intralci, senza intervenire neanche nelle scelte dei materiali

A quiz to conclude: propose three works of Brazilian architecture that you hold to be fundamental.
A small hotel by Lucio Costa in Friburgo, near Rio de Janeiro, realized at the same time Oscar Niemeyer was constructing Pampulha. It was a moment of division in Brazilian architecture. Lucio Costa’s idea was modern and regional at the same time: local materials such as wood and stone, everything could be found on the mountain where he was building. Niemeyer’s work indicated other directions, that gained more following in successive Brazilian architecture, on which had a “brutal” influence, even on Artigas and Mendes. Are you familiar with Paulo Mendes’ answer when, for Niemeyer’s 100th birthday, he was told “You only make straight lines, Oscar makes curves”? Paulo responded “I make my straight lines with envy for his curves”: he has always shown the maximum respect for Niemeyer. Niemeyer’s masterpiece is, for me, the cathedral in Brasilia. A more contemporary work is the home of Marcos Acayaba in Morumbi. A limited number of architects worked under the dictatorship: Marcos Acayaba was one of them.

*Ciro Pirondi, director ofEscola da Cidade di San Paolo