{"id":13435,"date":"2023-04-12T10:59:49","date_gmt":"2023-04-12T10:59:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/e-zeppelin.ro\/en\/?p=13435"},"modified":"2023-04-12T11:01:14","modified_gmt":"2023-04-12T11:01:14","slug":"lacaton-vassal-residence-for-the-elderly-rixheim","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/e-zeppelin.ro\/en\/lacaton-vassal-residence-for-the-elderly-rixheim\/","title":{"rendered":"Lacaton & Vassal: Residence for the elderly, Rixheim"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The same and not the same<\/strong><\/p>\n

Text: Ștefan Ghenciulescu<\/p>\n

There are (famous!) offices undergoing a frantic evolution. And this comes from the desire to be abreast with the time and to respond to new situations and means, the legitimate fear of limiting to one single stile and, often, the obsession to stay visible and relevant, fashionable, to not lose their place on the podium. <\/p>\n

And there is the other extreme, that of the architects who seem to keep doing pretty much the same thing for decades. Who, in the most unfortunate of cases, will only find a good formula and hang on to it. Reproaches concerning „stylism” and freezing into an efficient formula are justified for the unfortunate cases; especially when the already-exhausted formula attempts to solve scales and situations that differ greatly from those of the first works. I will not give names, as I do not want to criticize many of the gods of my youth. But I believe that such reproaches are uncalled for when consistency is built as a rejection of models and especially as the expression of principles, of the duty to limit, to refine, to carry on the essentials. I believe this is the case of Alberto Campo Baeza, for instance, who has been apparently “building the same houses” for some 25 years. They are not the same houses, but, in a way, they are the same house, a steady pursuit for perfection. And it works.<\/p>\n

Other architects seen as perhaps too limited to a series of instruments are Anne Lacaton and Jean Philippe Vassal. But, in my opinion, in their case it is not so much a language, but a continually evolving architectural system. This system entails working with repeating elements – light structures, transparent and translucent materials, the rough expression, kits of prefab elements (also) finding their inspiration in the provisional structures and in the anonymous architecture; but, behind the language and design strategy there has always been a humanist program, a social awareness, a search for civilized and financially accessible architecture, and, well, yes, a deeper understanding of ecology and of working with what one has handy.<\/p>\n

Besides, “the same” is not quite “the same”. Recent projects integrate new technologies and are very considerate when it comes to duration, functionality and living in all its senses. The last of their projects we discussed in “Zeppelin” was the rehabilitation of a social housing assembly in Bordeaux. At first sight, the housing complex for the elderly in the Rixheim neighbourhood looks like the older “Cité manifeste”, again from Mulhouse (2005). Or like the dwellings in Trignac in 2010. Or like the Coutras house (2000). But the semblance conceals the evolution of a design system, the adaptation to the urban and social context, the experimentation and patient development of technique and of space design. The lesson is not repeated, it is continued.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

$\"01_A_4RXH210423PR03A6674hd\"$ <\/a><\/p>\n