megamega formform asas publicpublic projectproject i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o n R o b s o n S q u a r e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o n R o b s o n S q u a r e o megaform as public project investigations on Robson Square Thaly Drouin-Crespin Laura Fiset Kevin Murray Recipients of the Power Corporation of Canada Award 2014 3 megaform as public project infrastructure landscape collectivity Kevin Murray Laura Fiset Thaly Drouin-Crespin DEFINING MEGAFORM CASE STUDY 30 36 42 07 08 14 22 26 28 MEGAFORM SUB-THEMES 48 52 56 58 megaform as megaform as modern socio-political architectural manifestation phenomenon in Canada intro to Robson Square contextual time line contemporary reading interview : J.K.M. Cheng bibliography acknowledgments investigations on Robson Square 4 megaform as public project infrastructure landscape collectivity Kevin Murray Laura Fiset Thaly Drouin-Crespin DEFINING MEGAFORM CASE STUDY 30 36 42 07 08 14 22 26 28 MEGAFORM SUB-THEMES 48 52 56 58 megaform as megaform as modern socio-political architectural manifestation phenomenon in Canada intro to Robson Square contextual time line contemporary reading interview : J.K.M. Cheng bibliography acknowledgments investigations on Robson Square 5 6 megaform as public project The project of the 2014 Power Corporation of Canada Award offers a close read- ing of Robson Square (Vancouver, BC), a multi-functional civic complex designed by Arthur Erickson with the collaboration of the landscape architect Cornelia Hahn Oberlander in the years 1973-1983. The project represents the creation of a social infrastructure in the city core of Vancouver as well as the apex of the megaform in Canada. The megaform is understood in this investigation as both an architectural phenomenon and the physical outcome of the Canadian socio-political context of the time. The case study reveals an architecture that crystallized Canadian thinking in this period and will be used as a mechanism to explore a larger culture of social democracy. The megaform emerged within the architectural discourse and practice of the early 1960’s as an innovation in city making. The architecture of the megaform (or me- gastructure as it is sometimes referred) attempted to integrate and establish ur- ban conditions while giving shape to a collective vision of society. The megaform was adopted in Canada as an architectural approach to public projects during the 1960s-1980s and was used as a tool in the creation of social infrastructure such as mass education, social housing and government administrative buildings. Utilizing extensive archival material and contemporary readings of Robson Square, the following study attempts to evaluate the megaform idea in the design of public architecture in the city. (opposite) Metro Education: Montreal Megastructure, Harry Parnass and Michel Lincourt’s Urb/Education design thesis (1970) 7 megaform as modern architectural phenomena “The essence of the Core is that it is a rendezvous[...].It is in this meeting place for pedestrians that the hu- man scale and values may be re-es- tablished within the public domain.” 1 CIAM 8 Conference,1951 Megastructure Thinking: Master Plan for Havendale, Residential areas & Spine (1962), Van Ginkle Associates fonds, CCA Collection. 8 Within modern architectural discourse, the megaform emerged as a societal re- sponse of architecture to urban conditions. Shifting the role of the architect to the realm of urban design, the megaform served as a societal apparatus in shaping the collective dimension of the city. Cutting across building programs, public and private developments, speculative and built projects, the megaform distinguished itself from other similarly scaled projects as it proposed to host, connect with and reformat a complex, heterogeneous urban condition. The architectural phenomenon of the megaform is discussed here through the his- torical context of modern discourse and the various publications that formalized this type of architecture. the core In reaction to the modernist urban planning schemes, the anxiety of a space-end- less city was under address and tackled by the members of CIAM (Congrès Inter- national d’Architecture Moderne). By 1951, at their 8th congress, the conference title announced itself as an attempt to condense rapidly shifting notions of identity and place in the city. The Heart of the City announced a new focus for urban archi- tecture: the core. Neither exclusively architecture or urban design, the core would condense many of the functions and programs of the city into thick, dense nodes. As urban environments increasingly dispersed across vast territories, the anxiety for a return to a center would expand to include multiple cores. This shift in archi- tectural thinking conceived the role of the architect beyond the fascination and control of the isolated object. Moving towards a new form of urban architecture, the focus becomes more an architectural fabric or network of spaces for the city. The congress would distill the meaning of the core as that of a rendez-vous, a public meeting place. The core would ultimately serve a civic function and reframe the historic centre as akin to the Greek agora. In the years following CIAM 8, ideas of this scale of collective form were discussed most notably by Team X as well as Fumihiko Maki, Reyner Banham and Kenneth Frampton. 9 “The megastructure is a large frame in which all the functions of a city or part of city are housed. It has been made possible by present day technology. In a sense, it is a man- made feature of the landscape. It is like the great hill on which Italian towns were built.” 2 Fumihiko Maki, 1964 “[Megaform] refers to the form-giv- ing potential of certain kinds of horizontal urban fabric capable of effecting some kind of topographic transformation in the megalopoli- tan landscape.” 3 Kenneth Frampton, 1999 Publications on the megaform, clockwise from top left: CIAM’s The Heart of the City (1952), Maki’s Investigations in Collective Form (1964), Banham’s Megastructure: Urban Futures of the Recent Past (1976) & Frampton’s Megaform as Urban Landscape (1999) 10 Summary of Needs of The Core Extracts from statements prepared during the 8th Congress of CIAM (1951) 1 That there should be only one main Core in 6 That varying (mobile) elements can make each city. an important contribution to animation at the Core, and that the architectural setting should 2 That the Core is an artifact - be planned to allow for the inclusion of such a man-made thing. elements. 3 That the Core should be a place 7 That in planning the Core the architects secure from traffic - where the pedestrian can should employ contemporary means of move about freely. expression and - whenever possible - should 4 That cars should arrive and park on the work in co-operation with painters and periphery of the Core, but not cross it. sculptors. 5 That uncontrolled commercial advertising - such as appears in the Cores of many cities today - should be organized and controlled. collective form In the early 1960’s, the architect and academic Fumihiko Maki conceptualized the phenomenon of the megaform in his Investigations in Collective Form (1964). Maki introduced architectural terms to denote structures of variable density and relat- edness. He distinguished 3 types of collective form: compositional form as fixed relation between different preformed buildings, megastructural form as large frame, housing all the urban functions, and group form as additive collection of similar units. More specifically in megastructure, Maki suggests the concept might hold promise as environmental engineering, multi-functional structures, and infra- structure as public investment. This last point alludes to the ambition of the mega- structure to act as a socio-political apparatus, a key platform in forming a collective realm. Maki emphasises that the skeleton of megastructures could guide and stim- ulate architecture around them. Maki’s types of collective forms in Investigations in Collective Form 11 Banham’s critical survey in Megastructure: Urban Futures of the Recent Past (1976) megastructure explores mega-projects from the Japanese Metabolists to the Dutch Structuralists to the avant-garde designs of Archigram and Cedric Price. In addition to showcasing the cross-continental manifestation of this architectural form, Banham highlights the thematic and programmatic trends of the megaform, including educational in- stitutions. The chapter on academia showcases many examples of Canadian univer- sity campus designs. Another chapter devoted to the Megacity of Montreal make evident Canada’s role within this international architectural discourse. From Banham’s historiographical and critical review, three qualities emerge that might be said to cut across megastructure experiments. First, the megastructure accommodates a multiplicity of programs and uses, capable of hosting both formal and informal. Furthermore, the scale of the megastructure exceeds the purpose of any one clear building type, making architecture enter the realm of urban design. Finally, the transformation of the megastructure, through extension/contraction/ Potteries Thinkbelt sketch, Cedric Price fonds, CCA aggregation/openness, represents the flexibility and adaptability of this architec- Collection ture. 12 Megaform as landscape terrain: Robson Square model as seen on a drawing set cover (1974), Arthur Erickson fonds, CCA Collection urban landscape In his writings in Megaform as Urban Landscape (1999), Kenneth Frampton revis- its the concept of megaform as a question of landform. Distinguishing itself from megastructure, the megaform is a horizontal development of an urban landscape. Frampton explores the megaform idea as a large scale architectural platform and elaborates the role of these forms of architecture in their continuity of urban fabric. He also articulates the explicit shift from object to city form as a mechanism of the megaform. From its earliest conceptualization, the megaform has held both a conceptual and pragmatic relationship to governmental intervention.