alvaro siza vieira
Alvaro Siza, photo courtesy of architect's studio.
Álvaro Joaquim Melo Siza Vieira was born in Matosinhos (near Porto), in 1933. From 1949-55 he studied at the School of Architecture, University of Porto. He taught at the School of Architecture (ESBAP) from l966-69 and was appointed Professor of “Construction” in 1976; he taught at the School of Architecture of Porto.
He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Science, Honorary Fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects, AIA/American Institute of Architects, Académie d’Architecture de France and European Academy of Sciences and Arts and American Academy of Arts and Letters; Honorary Professor of Southeast University China and China Academy of Art and honorary partner of the Academy of Schools of Architecture and Urbanism of the Portuguese language.
LUCIJA ŠUTEJ: Were you always interested in architecture?
ALVARO SIZA VIEIRA: I initially wanted to make sculptures, but it wasn't approved by my family. Sculpture was then considered a profession for bohemians (laugh). So I went into architecture, specifically because it was the same school, and in the first years, the subjects were partly the same. But then I found the school at a very interesting point of renovation. I entered school in 1949. World War Two had just finished, so there was a movement of interchange and contact between countries. The regime in Portugal was a special fascism, and after the war there was an obligation and need to open up the country, which had been very closed.
As the new director came to the Architecture School - he was very good; he organized a new team of professors. The existing ones were at the age of retirement, so we could choose a new team with young architects who had just finished. They were very interested in contemporary practice, not closed off, and there was an increase in contacts between countries. Students traveled to Paris, then to Finland and Sweden. In the end, I became interested in architecture, so I finished the course as an architect.
LŠ: Renaissance art was quite influential in how you approach architecture. Can you elaborate on that?
ASV: When I entered school in 1949, this wish for modernity was concentrated on the work of Le Corbusier, just because there was not much information. The country was very closed, and while some professors were very good architects, there was a limitation due to strong government control on the type of architecture that was allowed. There was this idea of a national style in Portugal.
When you look at Portugal, you see that from north to south, architecture is completely different. In history, there's an Arab influence in the south, and Celtic influence in the north. The country is culturally cut in two by the Taio River. The difference is also increased by the landscape: mountains in the north, plains in the south. The materials are different too: granite in the north, marble in the south. The idea of imposing a national style was crazy, and the then new generation didn't want it and through the process of opening there was. an explosion of enthusiasm for the possibility of connecting with the rest of Europe.
LŠ: What are your thoughts on the developments of Portuguese architecture over the last few decades?
ASV: There was a significant period, mainly in Porto. We have two schools: Porto and Lisbon. But as Lisbon was in the center of power, under reactionary regime control, Porto was, in a way, the periphery, and benefited from being less controlled. Porto had a very good direction with connections to Europe. This dynamic developed over 30 years following the Portuguese revolution in 1974.
The deep political change was reflected through a program organized by the new government dedicated to studying housing for people who couldn't afford it. It was called SAAL (Serviço de Apoio Ambulatório Local), which means Ambulatory Service of Local Support. We worked with people living in poor areas. For instance, in Porto, in the center, a large part of the population lived in very small houses, 4 by 5 meters. This was in the late 19th century when there was a strong presence of an English colony related to the Port wine industry. Around the center, there were these "islands" where workers' families would enter through a corridor to access their small houses in the back.
After the revolution, the government organized groups that included many architecture students and professors. There were many young people in the universities who were fully interested in change in Portugal.
LŠ: And who was leading the new movement in architecture?
ASV: They were all mostly students who for a start demanded a change in teaching architecture. The school of architecture was practically closed as the new programme of housing was in progress because all of them were working in the organized service. It included the organization of residents' associations in each area. There was legal support from law students, and architecture students and engineers discussed new projects in big meetings inside each association. Quickly, there was a connection between the different associations and this became politically very strong. They changed mayors and invaded city halls.
In each area, there was a group from this SAAL service, many of them students, but always with a director who had to be an architect with a diploma. There was an open conversation between the residents and the designers - we discussed themes and designs. But the projects became so strong that after two years of intense activity, the service was canceled due to a political change. The movement had become so important politically and so autonomous that the politicians formed different parties, and society in general was already afraid of the consequences.
LŠ: How do you see the current state of Portuguese architecture?
ASV: I don't see it very well, and this is not only in Portugal but also in Italy, France, everywhere in Europe. There are instructions coming from the European community that are a true disaster. There's a campaign that has conquered the public, giving a false portrait of architects. The idea that most people have of architects today, as said in newspapers, on television, by politicians, builders, and different interests related to construction, portrays architects as professionals with caprices, expensive and inconvenient during construction, and basically not needed. This is the condition of architecture in Europe today, in my opinion. Mysteriously, there's still a need in the regulations for a project to be submitted with the signature of an architect. But public projects and constructions must now be made through competitions between builders and not between architects.
I can tell you this because I still have some ongoing work in Europe. One work in Venice, the result of a competition, began 46 years ago and is still not finished. This is because of instructions from the European community for competitions to choose the cheapest bid. Then the company goes bankrupt, and it's necessary to make another competition. It lasts at least one year, and then another company comes and does the same. It's become a full business. In Portugal, I have nothing now. I have two good projects, but they are not approved. The situation is maybe even worse in countries like Italy. If I hadn't had the chance of being invited to work in China, where I've been working for 20 years now, I would have had to close my office.
LŠ: Do you think that currently across the board of art, architecture and design we focus too much on the future? Sometimes forgetting about traditions and history?
ASV: There were two moments where history disappeared from consideration. One was after the creation of CIAM (Congrès Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne), and the other was in the Bauhaus, where there was no discipline of history. But after the appearance of a new generation with Giancarlo De Carlo, they cut with this practice, and history came back. In one of the meetings of CIAM, the topic and focus was historical centers.
Today, there's an apparent big attention to history and historical architecture - but it's not true. It's rather hypocritical or not fully assumed interest that comes from historians. Some architects use it for caricature and not for innovation as it was in the past. During the Renaissance, Michelangelo went deeply into Roman architecture history, but he changed it. He didn't make copies! And even more so in the Baroque period, they had a deep sense of history, but for a new time, full of innovation. It's not what happens today! The approach to history is either confined to libraries with historians or is superficial, not really part of mind creation.
LŠ: Why did you decide to open your own studio and what challenges did you face?
ASV: I began working in the early 1950s. At that time, there wasn't much work because the regime didn't build much. The country was very closed with mass emigration. In the 1960s, one million Portuguese lived in the region of Paris! The political regime wanted to maintain the country poor to avoid the force of workers' syndicates.
The opening happened in the 1960s, influenced by global forces. The country could not remain closed to what was happening, and even the immigrants brought back information and hopes from what they saw in European countries. My early years until the revolution in the 1970s, were small works, somehow in the periphery, not in the center. I never made anything in the center of Porto until later. The life of the atelier was difficult, but there weren't expenses as demanding as today, like computer costs or high taxes.
After the SAAL program, the few architects who worked for it were completely marginalized. They were not given permission to do anything because that program had so much influence. I remember my work social housing was not finished, and the program was canceled. Photos of the unfinished building and texts about incompetence were used as proof of incompetence. But, what happened is that this situation in Portugal provoked much interest in Europe. So I began receiving invitations. The first was for Berlin, then for Holland, and the theme was always social housing with user participation - which was the program of SAAL.
LŠ: What is your opinion on the state of social housing today in Europe?
ASV: There are big declarations from governments about housing for workers and students, but as far as I can see, it's mostly talk. I don't see programs with quality. It's quick programs for political propaganda, without the component of quality because beauty in architecture is not considered a needed element. They ignore that beauty is the synthesis of functionality and material quality.
LŠ: How many of your projects are still unrealized?
ASV: Maybe two-thirds of my projects are unrealized. Even some of the more important ones: in Granada, I won a competition and made executive drawings for a new reception building, but it wasn't built. There was a movement against it coming from architects. In Madrid, a museum project was interrupted. In Holland, I made a project for a museum in competition, even executive drawings, but then the museum director had an accident and there was a political change, and it wasn't built.
In Porto, for a program that's 100 years old, I made two projects for a street that gives access to the main bridge in the center.
LŠ: With the way that architecture as an industry is moving, do you find it problematic that we don't really give importance and emphasis anymore to the relation between thinking - drawing in architectural design?
ASV: Yes, that is a big mistake. Everybody knows, even people who understand much about computers, that drawing, even sketching, is very important in architecture. In the kind of research we do - thinking through drawing, computers are slow. You have to wait for commands - it's heavy. When you design to test different ideas, it takes seconds with a sketch. The computer, of course, is absolutely competent and works well with pure rationality. But the project is not only a result of rationality; it's much more than this, and the computer is not the best tool to deal with that aspect. But the crisis of architecture depends mainly on the architects themselves.
LŠ: For a final question, what advice would you give to young architects?
ASV: Not advice, but a wish: that they love architecture. That they feel the responsibility and understand the contribution of architecture for a good way of life. It's a wish, not advice. It doesn't work with advice; it works with deep wishes and a sense of responsibility. That is not compatible with mere advice.