Architectural Topographies Pela: t olin comm tb akMeL Mon me KOh Len M Ce MRK kM Kel Maal Mee] een eT iT) Toma Berlanda RArchitectural Topographies Architectural Topographies is a critical dictionary for architects and land- scape architects in which the graphic lexicon can be read from a beginning, the ground, to a conclusion, the specific case studies. Intended as a tool to help you recognize, analyze, choose, and invent solutions, the book's key words refer to the physical and material relationship between con- struction and ground; to where and how the link is built; to the criteria, methods, and tools used to know and transform the ground; and to the possible approaches to the place and their implications on the way the earth is touched. Fifty case studies by forty-six of the greatest architects of the previous hundred years are represented throughout in sectional drawings which place the buildings along the same ground plane to illustrate how the key words might be combined and to show each architect's position on their built work in relation to all the others. Includes drawings by the author of projects by Alvar Aalto; Tadao Ando; Joao Batista Vilanova Artigas; Gunnar Asplund; Patrick Berger; Mario Botta; Erik Bryggman; Gongalo Byrne; David Chipperfield; Brad Cloepfil and Alliedworks; Le Corbusier; Sverre Fehn; Aurelio Galfetti, Flora Ruchat, and \vo Trumpy; Dick van Gameren; Grafton architects; Herzog and De Meuron; Steven Holl; Arne Jacobsen; Kengo Kuma; John Lautner; Adalberto Libera; Frank Lloyd Wright; Paulo Mendes da Rocha; Ludwig Mies van der Rohe; Enric Miralles and Carme Pinos; Glenn Murcutt; Juan Navarro Baldeweg; Sheila O'Donnell and John Tuomey; Jan Olav Jensen and Barre Skodvin; John Pawson; Giuseppe Perugini, Mario Fiorentino, and Nello Aprile; Renzo Piano; Georges-Henri Pingusson; Peter Rich; Rudolph Schindler; Roiand Simounet; Alvaro Siza; Alison Smithson and Peter Smithson; Luigi Snozzi; Alejandro de la Sota; Eduardo Souto de Moura; Fernando Tavora; Jern Utzon; Livio Vacchini; Francesco Venezia, Roberto Collova, and Marcella Aprile; Amancho Williams; and Peter Zumthor. Toma Berlanda is an architect and co-founder of ASA Studio, based in Kigali, Rwanda,First published 2014 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 ‘and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RIN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2014 Taylor & Francis The right of Toma Berlanda to be identified as author of this work has been ‘asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs ‘and Patents Act 1988, All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or Utlsed in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, orn any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered ‘trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Catslogingrin-Publication Data Berlanda, Toma, Architectural topographies : 8 graphic | 1 Toma Berlanda ages cm Includes index. 1. Architectural design-Themes, motives. 2. Landscape design. I. Title. NA2750.B47 2014 729-de23 2013035462 ‘icon of how buildings touch the ground ISBN: 978-0-415-83621-0 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-415-83622-7 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-813196 (ebk) Acquisition Editor: Wendy Fuller Editorial Assistant: Emma Gadsden Production Editor: Siobhan Greaney ‘Typeset in Univers. by GreenGate Publishing Services, Tonbridge, KentTo my mother and fatherContents List of figures Preface Acknowledgments Introduction: The quest for architectural topographies Chapter 1 Intersections: Why a graphic lexicon? Chapter 2 The building meets the ground: Ground. Foundation. Plinth. Artificial ground Ground Foundation Plinth Artificial ground Chapter 3 The discovery of the terrain: Topography. Landing and grounding. Strata. Earthwork. Water and air Topography Landing and grounding Strata Earthwork Water and air Chapter 4 The right placement: Site. Lightness. Dissolution. Enhancement. Objets trouvés. Artefact Site Lightness Dissolution Enhancement xvii xix u 55 56 60 62 64 70 73 76 7 80 87 89 91 92 96Contents Objets trouvés Artefact Chapter 5 Horizontal and vertical: Gravity. Horizon. Between earth and sky. Architectural promenade. Shifting topography. Threshold Gravity Horizon Between earth and sky Architectural promenade Shifting topography Threshold Chapter 6 Elemental forms: Platform. Wall. Retaining wall. Footbridge. Inclined plane Platform Wall Retaining wall Footbridge Inclined plane Chapter 7 Images and metaphors: Feet on the ground. vill Anchoring. Roots. Clouds Feet on the ground Anchoring Roots Clouds Notes Bibliography Image credits Index 98 101 105 106 107 109 Ww 113 115 119 121 124 125 127 129 133 134 135 137 139 143 151 163 165Figures 41 1.2 13 14 1.5 1.6 19 1.10 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 Frank Lloyd Wright, Fallingwater, Bear Run, PA, USA, 1934-7 Gunnar Asplund, Woodland crematorium, Stockholm, Sweden 1933-40 Alvar Aalto, Housing, Kauttua, Finland, 1937-40 Erik Bryggman, Resurrection chapel, Turku, Finland, 1938-41 Adalberto Libera, casa Malaparte, Capri, Italy, 1938-42 Amancho Williams, Bridge house, Mar del Plata, Argentina, 1943-5 Mies van der Rohe, Farnsworth house, Fox River Valley, Plano, IL, USA, 1947-9 Giuseppe Perugini, Mario Fiorentino, Nello Aprile, Fosse Ardeatine mausoleum, Rome, Italy, 1947-9 Alvar Aalto, Town Hall, Saynatsalo, Finland, 1949-62 Rudolph Schindler, Ellen Janson house, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1948-9 Arne Jacobsen, Munkegaard school, Soborg, Denmark, 1948-57 Roland Simounet, Sainte Marguerite Marie church, Tefeschoun, Algeria, 1956-7 Le Corbusier, la Tourette convent, Eveux, France, 1953-7 Fernando Tavora, Cedro school, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal, 1957-61 Alison and Peter Smithson, Upper Lawn Pavilion, Fonthill, England, 1959-61 19 19 20 20List of figures 1.16 117 1.18 1.19 1.20 12 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25 1.26 Ta 1.28 1.29 1.30 1.31 1.32 1.33 Joao Batista Vilanova Artigas, School of Architecture, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 1961 Georges-Henri Pingusson, Deportation memorial, Paris, France, 1953-62 Sverre Fehn, Nordic pavilion, Venice, Italy, 1962 Alejandro de la Sota, Maravillas Gymnasium, Madrid, Spain, 1961-2 Alvaro Siza, Boa Nova Tea House, Matosinhos, Portugal, 1958-63 Aurelio Galfetti, Flora Ruchat, and Ivo Trumpy, Public baths, Bellinzona, Switzerland, 1967-70 Paulo Mendes da Rocha, Brazilian pavilion, Osaka, Japan, 1969-70 Jorn Utzon, Sydney Opera House, Sydney, Australia, 1959-73 John Lautner, Marbrisa house, Acapulco, Mexico, 1973 Francesco Venezia, Roberto Collova, Marcella Aprile, Open air theatre, Salemi, Italy, 1983-6 Tadao Ando, Church of the water, Tomamu, Japan, 1988 Steven Holl, Berkowitz house, Martha's Vineyard, MA, USA, 1984-8 Peter Zumthor, San Benedigt chapel, Sumvigt, Switzerland, 1985-8 Enric Miralles and Carme Pinos, Cemetery, Igualada, Spain, 1986-90 Luigi Snozzi, Diener house, Ronco sopra Ascona, Switzerland, 1990 Glenn Murcutt, Meagher house, Bowral, Australia, 1988-92 Tadao Ando, Contemporary Art Museum, Naoshima, Japan, 1992-5 Mario Botta, Church of Santa Maria degli Angeli, Monte Tamaro, Switzerland, 1992-6 21 22 23 23 24 24 25 26 28 29 30 31 31 32 33 34 361.34 1.35 1.36 1.40 1.41 1.42 1.43 1.44 1.45 1.46 1.47 1.48 1.49 1.50 21 List of figures Livio Vacchini, Sport hall, Losone, Switzerland, 1995-7 Herzog and de Meuron, Rudin house, Leymen, Switzerland, 1997 David Chipperfield, River and Rowing Museum, Henley-on-Thames, England, 1989-97 Renzo Piano, J. M. Tjibaou Cultural centre, Noumea, New Caledonia, 1991-8 Brad Cloepfil and Alliedworks, Maryhill Overlook, OR, USA, 1998 Patrick Berger, UEFA headquarters, Nyon, Switzerland, 1994-9 Juan Navarro Baldeweg, Museum of the Altamira cave, Santillana del Mar, Spain, 1995-2000 Sverre Fehn, Ivan Aasen Centre, Orsta, Norway, 1996-2000 Jan Olav Jensen and Barre Skodvin, Church, Mortensrud, Norway, 1998-2002 Eduardo Souto de Moura, Two houses, Ponte da Lima, Portugal, 2001-2 Kengo Kuma, The Great (Bamboo) Wall house, Bejing, China, 2000-2 John Pawson, house in Germany, 2003 Sheila O'Donnell and John Tuomey, Glucksman Gallery, Cork, Ireland, 2002-4 Gongalo Byrne, Maritime control tower, Lisbon, Portugal, 1997~2005 Dick van Gameren, Dutch Embassy, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2002-5 Grafton architects, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy, 2008 Peter Rich, Mapungubwe interpretation centre, Limpopo, South Africa, 2008 Sectional sketch, Alberto Campo Baeza, National Museum of Maritime Archaeology, Cartagena, Spain, 1998 37 38 38 39 40 41 42 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 52 53 56List of figures 2.2 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.8 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 Footings study, Sean Godsell, Woodleigh school, Baxter, Victoria, Australia, 2001-2 Section studies, Alejandro de la Sota, Student residence hall, Ourense, Spain, 1967 Section, Shigeru Ban, Watl-less house, Karuizawa, Japan, 1997 Sectional study, Peter Rich, Mapungubwe interpretation centre, Limpopo, South Africa, 2008 Ground Foundation Plinth Artificial ground Sketch of the paved road towards Acropolis, Dimitris Pikionis, Ascent to the Acropolis—Philopappu, Athens, Greece, 1951~7 Sketch, Roland Simounet, church of Sainte Marguerite Marie, Tefeschoun, Algeria, 1956-7 Sketch “the architect explores the terrain,” Alvaro Siza View, Arnaldo Pomodoro, study of burial zone in relation to the natural environment, Urbino, Italy, 1974 Sketch, Brad Cicepfil and Alliedworks, Maryhill Overlook, OR, USA, 1998 Model view, Artengo, Menis, and Pastrana, Vallehermsa Botanical Garden, La Gomera, Spain, 1990 Eduardo Arroyo, Map of wind vectors, New East-wind city, Cordoba, Spain, 2002 Sections, Carlos Ferrater, Barcelona Botanical Garden, Spain, 1989-99 Carlos Ferrater, Drawing of topographical manipulation, Barcelona Botanical Garden, Spain, 1989-99 Topography Landing and grounding 59 60 62 64 66 66 66 66 69 70 ve 79 80 81 83 84 86 863.12 3.13 3.14 4.4 4.2 43 44 4.5 46 47 48 49 4.10 4.1 4.12 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 List of figures Strata Earthwork Water and air Sketch, Alvaro Siza, Swimming pools, Lega de Palmeira, Portugal, 1959-73 Sketch, César Portela, Finisterre Cemetery, Spain, 2000 Sketch, Kengo Kuma, Kokohi Bath House, Atami, Japan, 2002-3 Sketch, Mario Botta, Church of Santa Maria degli Angeli, Monte Tamaro, Switzerland, 1992-6 Section drawing, Carl-Viggo Halmebakk, Sohibergplassen viewing platform, Sohlbergplassen, Norway, 1995-8 Sketch, Jan Olav Jensen and Barre Skodvin, Mortensrud church, Oslo, Norway, 1998-2002 Site Lightness Dissolution Enhancement Objets trouvés Artefact Sketch, Vittorio Gregotti, Residential Complex, Cefalu, Italy, 1976 Illustration for one of Saarinen’s writings and sketches for Dominguez house, Alejandro de la Sota, Pontevedra, Spain, 1973-8 Sketch, Alberto Campo Baeza, de Blas house, Madrid, Spain, 2000 Sketch of ascent, Alvaro Size, Boa Nova Tea House, Matosinhos, Portugal, 1958-63 Sketch, Luigi Snozzi, Diener house, Ronco sopra Ascona, Switzerland, 1990 86 86 86 93, 94 96 97 99 100 103 103 103 103 103 103 108 110 110 N12 2List of figures 5.6 Sketch, Jorn Utzon, Bagsvaerd church, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1974-6 5.7 Gravity 5.8 Horizon 5.9 Between earth and sky 5.10 Architectural promenade 5.11 Shifting topography 5.12 Threshold 6.1 Sketch, Jorn Utzon, Silkeborg Museum, Silkeborg, Denmark, 1963 6.2 Sketch, Alvaro Siza, Santa Maria Church, Marco de Canavezes, Portugal, 1990-7 6.3 Sketch, Jestis Aparicio, Horizon house, Salamanca, Spain, 2007 6.4 Sketch, Francesco Venezia, Roberto Collova, and Marcella Aprile, Open air theatre, Salemi, Italy, 1983-6 6.5 Sketch, Mario Botta, House in Riva San Vitale, Switzerland, 1971 6.6 Sketch, Aurelio Galfetti, Public baths, Bellinzona, Switzerland, 1967-70 6.7 Sketch, Roland Simounet, University residence, Tananarive, Madagascar, 1962-70 6.8 Platform 6.9 Wall 6.10 Retaining wall 6.11. Footbridge 6.12 Inclined plane 7.1 Sketch, Francesco Venezia, casa Malaparte, Capri, Italy, 1985 7.2 Sketch, Fernando Tavora, Cedro school, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal, 1957-61 xiv 115 17 17 17 nN7 nu? 17 122 123 124 126 127 128 129 131 131 131 131 136 13873 74 75 76 77 78 Sketch, Jorn Utzon, Bayview house, Sydney, Australia, 1962 Sketch of waves and clouds, Fumihiko Maki, Tokyo Metropolitan Gymnasium, Tokyo, Japan, 1990 Feet on the ground Anchoring Roots Clouds List of figures 140 141 141 141 147Preface This book is an expansion upon the research produced during my doc- toral dissertation in architecture and building design at the Politecnico in Torino. The original investigation has been continued and further elabo- rated through teaching in different contexts, particularly at Syracuse and Cornell University, and most extensively during my years in Rwanda, at the Kigali Institute of Science and Technology. Professional practice and scholarly work in the “land of the thousand hills,’ have espe- cially reinforced the notion that the relationship between man-made transformations and ground is a privileged observation point for any architectural, urban, and landscape intervention What originated the reflection is the acknowledgment of an existing gap between recurrent statements on the importance of how buildings touch the ground and the lack of explicit criteria for such an assessment. Both in the analysis of built works and in pedagogical practice, these are conceived here as a constant habit of questioning the meaning that gives a sense of consciousness to our work. Hence the inspiration emerged to create a tool to recognize, analyze, choose and invent possible solutions within a logical concatenation. Something that would aliow for, and at the same time overcome, the specificity of a single case: a device enabling the reading and interpretation of the relationship with the ground beyond the apparent heterogeneity of the practice. This topographical lexicon is a tool that combines reality and invention. By establishing relationships between the heterogeneous elements which compose both explanatory texts and the built archi- tectures, it helps to understand and explain works and statements, constructive details, and the differing visions of the world. Hopefully it will contribute to overcome the dichotomy between abstract pro- nouncements and architecture, in the writing of place. Kigali, Rwanda, June 2013Acknowledgments This book, as any architectural project, is the result of a long process from initial idea to final completion and, as such, would have not been possible without the recommendations, suggestions, and encourage- ment I've received from many individuals, to whom now go my heartfelt thanks: To Pierre Alain-Croset, who served as my primary advisor, for discussing with me the initial idea, and providing crucial feedback at decisive moments. To Cristina Bianchetti, Kenneth Frampton, Roberto Collova, Angelo Sampieri, Stefano Pujatti, Brad Cloepfil. Delia Wendel and Sunniva Viking, who took the time at different stages to discuss and help me clarify the nature of the topic, and with whom the conversation continues. To my colleagues Francisco Sanin and Larry Davis at Syracuse University, Lily Chi at Cornell University, and Sierra Bainbridge at the Kigali Institute of Science of Technology, whose suggestions constantly pushed me to further focus the work. To all my students, with a particular debt to the insights of those who participated in my Architectural Topographies classes. ToWendy Fuller and Laura Williamson, my editors at Routledge and Taylor & Francis, who made the project possible. To Frederick Courtright for chasing endless image permissions. A special thanks goes to those friends who have shared with me the constant confrontation of running a practice together, first Lorenzo and Andrea in lat45N and now Nerea who has made asa studio a reality, together with all those who have worked and still work with us. Lastly, to my family, who although very far, were close to me with unfaltering support all along.Introduction The quest for architectural topographies Before placing stone on stone, man placed a stone on the ground to recognize a site in the midst of an unknown uni- verse, in order to take account of it and modify it. Vittorio Gregotti’ The trajectory that translates a conceptual design in a built, structurally stable and properly placed architecture in space, finds a crucial moment in the way in which the building touches the ground. !n their state- ments, architects and critics have long shared the awareness that this unavoidable encounter constitutes an integral part of the design and is intimately connected to the attitude one holds with regard to the site and with the relationship between artefact and nature. Often, how- ever, this recognition does not go beyond a rhetorical call for the need of anchoring the building to the ground, to be realized by means of a non-specified topographic sensibility. “Great” architects elaborate their own personal repertoire more or less consciously, but the attention to the geographical nature of places, to the form of the terrain, and to the topographical singularities is not mechanically translated into built form, neither is it easy to establish the mediating moments. Furthermore, even critical analysis, which mostly deals with the link between ground and artefact in terms of poetic vision or architectural language, does not always place these elements in relationship with the built solutions, which are invented or readapted case by case. Assuming that this relationship can be reduced to a limited number of elemental situations, to which an exceptionally rich variety of built answers are given, the first phase of the research was devoted to an investigation of buildings and projects to explore how the relation- ship with the ground is prefigured and materialized in each of them, and to the reading of theoretical texts and monographs. The temporal framework considered is that of the last 100 years, from the beginningIntroduction of the modern movement until the dissolution of disciplinary bounda- ries between architecture and landscape architecture, whereas the field of investigation expands over different geographical and cultural areas. The decision not to start from a preconceived list of hypo- thetical situations, but from the built works, in order to re-trace their constitutive elements, seemed coherent with the intention of decom- posing and framing the theme from a point of view that coincides with that of the architect who discovers the site before the project, con- ceives its relationship with the construction, and builds it tectonically. To this end, the collected documentation has been re-elaborated and represented graphically through sections. These appear to be the most appropriate means of representation, not only to show the vertical rela- tionship between the various strata, but to reveal and synthesize all relationships between ground and architecture. As Carol J. Burns puts it: “conveying the topographic qualities of both building and setting in the baseline, the horizon line, and the profile line, the section shows the relationship between site and building in phenomenological terms and not in geometric terms.”? Sections underscore the new configuration generated by the solidarity between earth and artefact, which is different from the ‘one the line of the ground and building would have if considered sepa- rately. They show how the materialization of this link can be reduced to three primary situations, depending on whether the main aspect is the interlock, adjacency, or separation. This does not represent in and of itself an original discovery, but bears implications whose comprehen- sion requires the overcoming both of the simple geometric description of the earth's profile, intended as a line with no thickness, and of the uncritical classification of constructive details that allow for buildings to either penetrate the ground, simply place themselves upon it, or entail with it a punctual and limited contact. Each design is of course influ- enced by technical and financial constraints, as well as by the features of its site. But when looked upon as physical realizations of very diverse ideas on architecture and landscape, all the case studies pertaining to the first half of the twentieth century—Frank Lloyd Wright's Usonian houses, Le Corbusier's buildings on pilotis, the first terraced houses by Mies van der Rohe and his later unbuilt bridge structures, Richard Neutra’s, Rudolph Schindler's, and Alvar Aalto’s architectures—can be read as the result of a constant reflection on the encounter with the ground, although not systemically expressed by the authors nor investi- gated by scholars. Even more directly connected to the idea of meeting 2Introduction the ground are projects by architects who constantly and explicitly rec- ognize the importance of the topic, both from a theoretical standpoint and as the conceptual generator of their work. Among them, Steven Holl, who towards the end of the 1970s, identified the topic as one of the crucial nodes of the relationship between architecture and place, and continued this investigation in his later work. According to him: “the relation between things is the focus, rather than the object-type. The zero point of such a relation is a section at the surface of the earth.”> The Y House in the Catskills mountains (1997-9) is a built manifesto of this statement. In Holl’s words: “the house occupies the hill and the site through three primary relationships: in the ground, on the ground and over the ground. The portion over the ground is suspended, cantile- vered above the portion in the ground.”* In more recent years the use of materials and load bear ing structures that do not require a traditional foundation platform has become more common, and technology now allows for inexpen- sive means of moving the ground and disrupting its configuration. Therefore, raised, stacked, inflated, vectorial, carved, exposed, and inscribed are adjectives entered in current vocabulary, which, by objectifying the noun “ground” extend the meaning of modifications operated by architecture, to involve both building and transformed soil. But interlock, adherence, and separation remain the categories from which all types can be derived. Whether they refer to the entirety of a project or portions of it, or appear simultaneously in the same building, they are at the same time concrete material phenomena and abstractions, which synthetically represent an idea and desire to either belong or keep the distance from the terrestrial contingency and its laws. Sections provide clues to the authors’ intentions. In order to understand them it is important, on the one hand, to take a closer look and reduce the observation field to uncover the tectonic solutions, and on the other to integrate the reading with sketches, statements, nar rative elements condensing, and representing the architect's position towards a specific location. Thus the way in which a building is related to the ground loses any geometrical abstraction and reveals itself as a significant evidence of the approach to place. !t is a theme Christian Norberg Schulz examines within the more general dialectic relation between place and architecture. Referencing Martin Heidegger's thought, specifically the passage on the “temple that stands on the ground and towers into the air,’® he states that:Introduction the word stand denotes the relationship to the earth. Rise the relationship to the sky. Standing is embodied through the treatment of the base and the wall. Some buildings are “ground-hugging” others rise freely, and in others again we find a meaningful equilibrium.® Be it as it may, the modes in which the unavoidable need for stability of any construction is achieved, transferring vertical loads to the earth by means of an appropriate technical solution, are also the expres- sion of the comprehension of place, mainly concretized through the means of touching the ground. For Norberg Schulz the way in which the physical continuity between ground and artefact is achieved is intimately interconnected with the need for a phenomenological approach. This is targeted at capturing, through physical experience, the essence of the world’s elements, earth, nature, and all that is profoundly rooted and buried in every site, in search of a resonance or tuning with the place, in a double and indivisible human and geo- graphic connotation.” From the first phase of the research, where the selection and preparation of graphic materials overlapped with the readings, two main elements emerged, allowing for a further refinement and focus of the topic. The first is the complex nature of the encounter with the ground, which cannot be reduced to a dimensional or representational scale issue. Both the sections and the comparison between the design- er's statements and their built work, show how the materialization of intentions, expressed through drawings and models, happens through tectonic nodes, syntactic constructive elements linked to topography. Whether one shifts between construction details and the relationship between artefact and nature, or proceeds in the opposite direction, from an idea of this relationship to the invention of specific ways of touching the ground, the exploration requires continuous viewpoint adjustments. \t suggests the adoption of a cross referencing way of looking at things, in order to grasp the significant intersections between theoretical debate and solutions adopted on a specific site. In other words one could posit that the encounter with the ground is configured as a function of the strategy of modification of the site. This in its own turn, is both a result and evidence of the unavoidable conflict between the aspiration of achieving through architectural work the final moment of a process of transformation of a portion of the world, and the aware- ness of its temporary nature. 4Introduction On the other hand, a widespread ambiguity of language, due both to the use of terms to which a new and wider meaning is attrib- uted, and the introduction of others, borrowed from different disciplinary fie(ds, calls for an investigation on the meaning of the words used, and on the concepts they refer to, starting with topography. To this end the research expanded to include works not only and not necessarily by architects, which in different ways address the relationship between the configuration of the earth’s crust and man's constructions. Be they labelled as architecture, art history, or landscape architecture writings, they all concur in asserting that the term topography can no longer be reductively intended as the description of the geometric aspects of a site, its slope and orientation, but must consider al! the elements of its materiality, inferring them from geology, geography, and history. The process of difatation of the meaning of topography did not happen in an isolated way. Equally important overlaps and interac- tions between disciplines, arts, and professions have radically changed the way the themes of design, construction, and manipulation of the ground are investigated across all scales. Rosalind E. Krauss’ research, breaking boundaries between sculpture, landscape, and architecture, gives origin to many reflections, which contribute to establish the topo- graphic dimension and the relationship with the ground as foundational elements of architecture. The notion of expanded field elaborated by Krauss® within a structuralist diagram derived from linguistics, destabi- lizes traditional spatial categories because it includes in the same class every intervention of ground manipulation, “from marked sites to the construction of sites, from the construction of structures in the land- scape to architectural interventions.”> David Leatherbarrow believes “topography is the topic (theme, framework, plan) architecture and landscape architecture hold in common."" For this reason he gives great importance to the defini- tion of the meaning and role of topography. In his view, topography is not limited to recording the natural features of a site, but “incorporates terrain built and unbuilt;"" revealing energies and elements of a place. Singling in topography the element that allows it to shift between build- ing and the territory, from architectural project to land art and landscape architecture, while preserving individual specificities, bears implications far beyond the legitimate need of simultaneously operating at different scales, overcoming traditional disciplinary boundaries. Concentrating the attention on the ground as primary material for design, and not as an abstract flat surface upon which the architectural object is placed, 5Introduction allows for the removal of every boundary between natural and artificial landscape, with the result that everything is landscape. If critics have a hard time in classifying some projects as buildings or landscape elements or defining them as forms of land art, landscape art, or earth art, the issue is not to change classifica- tion criteria but to treat also architecture as a discipline that operates in an expanded field. By recognizing that the manipulation of the ground is not only inseparable from the design, but bears the same impor tance as all other components, it will stop being a preliminary operation which allows it to build, or an ancillary intervention which completes or mitigates its effects. The popular phrase defining “architecture as constructed ground” recalls Alvar Aalto’s approach, “who sought to cre- ate a synthetic landscape all his life.""? His procedure originates from the conformation of the terrain and invents topographies to compose sequences of images framed by and in the landscape. For “his unusual interest in landscapes where terrain rather than buildings provide the primary structure” and his ability to conjugate architectural vision and analytical observations of the earth’s crust, many of his buildings must be approached as “man-made landscapes rather than detached archi- tectural objects." In recent years the invention of topography has become a fre- quent concept in architectural debate. Inaki Abalos and Juan Herreros, for instance, are convinced that landscape may be designed and thus becomes artificial, and further that the project is “validated insofar as it achieves a complete re-description of place, above all proposing the invention of a topography.” “The notion of topography they are referenc- ing is the process of construction of the landscape and not its formal image. Every place is now understood as a iandscape, whether natural or artificial, and tandscape is no longer the neutral background against which architectural objects stand out, but is the subject itself of its transformation. Inventions of a new artificial topography are transfor mation projects in territorial environments of great dimensions, ranging from James Corner’s to George Hargreaves’ parks, where the preoc- cupation is not on the final form, but rather on the orchestration of the different forces and fluxes of substance and energy. The site is con- stantly recycled, topography continuously reinvented and architecture a tool, which takes part in the transformation of the landscape only if it is capable of understanding the specific processes of each site, and of placing on the ground the elements which will facilitate its evolution, sowing “the seeds of future possibilities.”"* As part of this strategy that 6Introduction privileges the development process, particularly significant is the inclu- sion of all those atmospheric agents and natural elements in constant modification—water, wind, climate, and light—marking the integration of new preoccupation and themes within the traditional notion of the earth's surface. Lastly, in one of the many trespassing and paradigm shifts from one discipline to another, even literary critique has acknowledged the transition from an idea of topography as the combination of static characters to be recorded, to that of elements whose evolution is directed by the project. In other words, from a definition of topography limited to “graphic delineation of a physical space or the configuration of its surfaces to one more closely derived from the literal meaning of topos or place merged with graphein, to write.”'° Hence topography, which literally means writing of place, is something that not only can be read, but also written. The survey has highlighted how, starting with the definition of topography one can find and follow unforeseen direc- tions, but the suggestions that emerge are affected by the ambiguity of the vocabulary employed, since for many of the terms pertaining to the encounter with the ground, different definitions are offered to the extent that they need to be specified on a case-by-case basis. Questioning tra- ditional approaches, concepts, and classifications has produced new terminology, and redefined the existing one. It is therefore necessary to place in relation the results of this exploration with the reflections and questions which have suggested its framing and development, in order to integrate them and allow them to interact. In more recent years a significant production of thematic dictionaries and disciplinary glossaries has emerged. In the most inter esting cases, instead of a compilation of lists in alphabetical order, one of the most obvious and conventional symbols of totality, the formula of a critical dictionary is preferred, where it is not the meaning of the word which is explained, but its duties.’” With an analogous intention and preoccupation, and rejecting the hypothesis that it would be useful and possible to tackle the theme to generate a classification accord- ing to predetermined categories, or vice versa an exhaustive listing, an infinite catalogue, the path followed was that of identifying the primary elements and their logical concatenation. This choice, paired with that of defining the words on the basis of their concrete use, is functional to the construction of a lexicon, at the same time finished and open, marked by a coherent structure, yet capable of accepting contaminations and the insertion of new words. If, taken as a whole, 7Introduction the definitions, concepts, images, strategies, and solutions, can be conceived of as the words of the encounter with the ground, and if questioning the words within a specific practice necessarily transforms itself into a discourse on the same practice, the lexicon becomes an appropriate tool for reading, interpreting, and creating. The sequence revolves around some key words. It starts with terms that refer to the physicality and materiality of the encoun- ‘ter between construction and ground, and to where and how this link is built (ground, foundation, plinth, artificial ground). It continues with those describing the criteria, methods, and toals used to know and transform the ground (topography, landing and grounding, strata, earth- work, water and air), and expands on those relating to the spectre of possible approaches to the place and their implications on the way the earth is touched (site, lightness, dissolution, enhancement, objets trou- vés, artefact). The attention then shifts towards issues, which are more directly referred to in the design process; from the direct comparison with the specific area to the spatial surroundings, in the various direc- tions that the architect deems appropriate, from the different poetic visions inside which the theme of the encounter with the ground takes Place, to the ways of narrating these relationships. This group of words is articulated in chapters five to seven, respectively dedicated to the dialectic between the horizontal and the vertical line (gravity, horizon, between earth and sky, architectural promenade, shifting topography, threshold); to the architectural tropes of the encounter with the ground (platform, wall, retaining wall, footbridge, inclined plane); to the rhetori- cal expedients, images, and metaphors used by critics and authors (feet on the ground, anchoring, roots, clouds). The lexicon can be read as a text where the reasoning devel- ops from a beginning, the ground, to a conclusion, the materialization of the encounter and the construction of a narrative. It is also possible to jump from one entry to another, concentrating on the ones that include quotations or references to authors and works documented in the sec- tions or, rather, start from the study in section and, from this, go back to the concepts. Whatever the path followed, it will be noted that many terms related to the encounter between building and ground are given a duplicity of meaning, pertaining both to the solution of a physical problem and the structuring of thoughts. This linguistic duplicity, which refers to the ambiguity of the question, can be seen as an indirect con- firmation of the need to reflect on its ontological, rather than static, foundational value. The lexicon is a contribution in this direction. It is 8Introduction not a handbook that classifies a sequence of elemental topographical situations and offers and recommends, for each of these, a repertoire of solutions, but it helps to understand intentions. Ultimately the lexicon does not offer answers to how to touch the ground, it highlights ques- tions which need to be asked.Chapter 1 Intersections Why a graphic lexicon? The sections presented here have been drawn based on heterogeneous material, construction sets, publication drawings, sketches, photo- graphs, and on site visits. Their purpose is to highlight the encounter with the ground. A thick line represents, by crossing it, the continu- ity between earth and building. A series of thinner lines suggests the dimension and configuration of architecture and the topographical site. (i Frank Lloyd Wright, Fallingwater, Bear Run, PA, USA, 1934-7Adalberto Libera, casa Mataparte, Capri, Italy, 1938-42Intersections By allowing architects to operate at an unprecedented scale in the removal of the terrain's asperities, inconceivable until a few decades ago, there is 2 risk of generating architectures which are indifferent to site. Groundworks have become ordinary practice. This is indeed a risk many architects declare being themselves aware of. In the past archi- tecture used to react to topographical conditions and to the difficulties of establishing foundations through expressive forms: substructures, walls, buttresses, and crypts. Today, when it finds an obstacle, it simply removes it. ‘Amancho Williams, Bridge house, Mar de! Plata, Argentina, 1943-5 ‘Mies van der Rohe, Farnsworth house, Fox River Valley, Plano, IL, USA, 1947-9Intersections In Steven Holl's words: “in the past the connection between building and site was manifest without conscious intention,’ whereas today it is made more complex by the development of ground modification techniques. This needs to be explicitly addressed as a component of the architectural project, a part of its constructive transformation. It almost appears that until a certain moment in time no specific need was felt for a reflection on the ways of establishing a connection with the ground. The former absence of a variety of alternatives to the problem has now been replaced by a sudden abundance. Giuseppe Perugini, Mario Fiorentino, Nello Aprile, Fasse Ardeatine mausoleum, Rome, Italy, 1947-3Intersections In other words, one could argue that from the moment it has become possible to build everywhere, technology started a conflict with topog- faphy. The scope of this work has been to overcome this reductive approach. For this reason the synoptic charts at the end of each chapter show how relationship can be established between every building and each of the words of the lexicon, through combinations and cross refer ences. Whether one proceeds from the single words to built work, or in the opposite direction, the process requires and suggests continuous adjustments of the point of view. Alvar Aalto, Town Hall, Saynatsalo, Finland, 1949-52 Rudolph Schindler, Ellen Janson house, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1948-9 "7Intersections It calls for the adoption of a cross-cutting gaze to capture the significant intersection between the theoretical debate and the technical solutions for a specific site. Integral parts of this reading are the sketches, con- densing and summarizing beth the authors’ intuitions and intentions with regards to the site and its configuration. ‘Ame Jacobsen, Munkegaard school, Seborg, Denmark, 1948-57Intersections. Some architects express clear and absolute preferences for one or the other condition and obsessively repeat the same trope, while others are willing to engage in response to the specificities of the site and claim their decisions depend on the features of the site, or on the type of relation they want to establish with it. jounet, Sainte Marguerite Marie church, Tefeschoun, Algeria, 1956-7 Ja Tourette convent, Eveux, France, 1953-7Intersections For instance, Rudolph Schindler embeds Harris House (1942) on a rocky ledge, which he adopts as foundation. His Kings Road House (1922) sits on the ground without modifying it. A series of enclosed spaces marked out with chalk define the geometry, running parallel to the ground. In sites with a steep slope he prefers solutions, which are detached, sepa- rate, and carefully thought of on a case-by-case basis. Al still conform to the idea that the building must “never be placed straddling the ridge, but should hug the flank of it, becoming part of its surroundings, and leaving the main lines of the mountain untouched.” Fernando Tavora, Cedro school, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal, 1957-61 Alison and Peter Smithson, Upper Lawn Pavilion, Fonthill, England, 1959-61Intersections He first develops a typology of sectional configurations on steeply sloped sites experimenting with different options, and then reduces the options to three basic configurations, placing his designs in explicit relation with each of them. He explicitly identifies Wolfe House (1928) as the paradigmatic example of a building “balancing above the hill,” Walker House (1929) as “cascading down the slope,” and lastly, van Patten House (1935) as a construction “rising up in a counter motion to the hillside.”* Ultimately his research does not deal with formal preoccu- pations but is rather concerned with limiting the mountain's disruption. Jodo Batista Vilanova Artigas, School of Architecture, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 1961 2Intersections This becomes even more important in his later work, when the prevail- ing solution he adopts is to detach the house from the ground. Almost all built work from this period appears to float on a horizontal plane that hovers over the hill.® in La Tourette (1963-66) Le Corbusier adopts two differ ent approaches for the two components of the convent. The church holds a strong symbolic relationship with the ground, resting on it and “marrying its slope,” as is exemplified by the lateral chapels, which magnify the earth's shape, embracing its protrusions, The Convent, instead, is lifted off the ground, allowing the basement to mediate the differences in level.® \gusson, Deportation memorial, Paris, France, 1953-62Intersections Sverre Fehn employs two apparently opposite manners of relating to the ground: either by constructing a plinth upon which the construction rests or by excavating the land surrounding the site. In the first case “the earth is covered by a foundation, while in the second, the secrets of the underground are brought to light."” Many of John Lautner’s houses appear to rise up from the ground, but “if he knew how to root the building into the earth, he was equally good at dissolving the relationship of house to ground altogether."® Sverre Fehn, Nordic pavilion, Venice, Italy, 1962 Alejandro de ta Sota, Maravillas Gymnasium, Madrid, Spain, 1961-2‘Alvaro Siza, Boa No ‘Tea House, Matosinhos, Portugal, 1958-63 Aurelio Galfetti, Flora Ruchat, and Ivo Trumpy, Public baths, Bellinzona, Switzerland, 1967-70Intersections Depending on whether the site is on sloping or fiat terrain, Luigi Snozzi shifts between two criteria. In the valleys he: meticulously seeks out all the traces on the land and every propensity for change: rows of vineyards, walls, the foun- dations of old convents, changing attitudes and traditions ... In the hillside houses he creates two volumes: one of them is well-rooted in the earth. It is essential, solid. It plunges into the ground and rises well above it. The other appears to rest upon a flying carpet.? Paulo Mendes de Rocha, Brazilian pavilion, Osaka, Japan, 1963-70Jorn Utzon, Sydney Opera House, Sydney, Australia, 1959-73iIntersections Kengo Kuma believes that, whatever the shape given to the solidarity between construction and ground, architecture remains a dissolution of one into the other, an elimination of any dichotomy between fig- ure and ground. The Kokohi Bath House (1999-2003) is placed on a narrow strip of land halfway up a cliff, and appears as a landing” on the side of the mountain, sheltered by a simple pane of corrugated polycarbonate, supported by thin metal posts. The Kiro-San observa- tory (1991-4) is wedged into a pre-existing horizontal cut in the hill of which it becomes part of, a building transformed in topography. “To restore the mountain peak, he conceives architecture like a hole instead of an object.”" John Lautner, Marbrisa house, Acapulco, Mexico, 1973,Intersections His “floor in the forest" house (2001-3), on the other hand, is a float- ing horizontal element, where the emphasis is on the floating nature of the floor, rather than of the entire box.’? Different modes of rela- tion with the ground can also be present in the same building. The Soba restaurant in Nagano (2002-3) for one half rests on the ground, for the other on slender pillars. | -ancesco Venezia, Roberto Collova, Marcella Aprile, Open air theatre, Salemi, Italy, 1983-6Intersections In Glenn Murcutt's buildings separation from the earth prevails. However, he has no preclusion to the use of the interlock, such as in Ockens House (1977), or in that of the adherence to a light plinth, as is the case in Magney House (1982-4). He says it depends on the climate, on the level of heat and humidity. “If you lift the house off the ground the snakes go underneath it ... the elevation allows you to watch for termites."° ‘Tadao Ando, Church of the water, fomamu, Japan, 1988Intersections Peter Zumthor's Thermal baths in Vals (1996) are conceived as a cross section of the stone layering of the place, and the construction is visible only from its inside. The section is determined by a continuous series of natural stone strata. “This stone is built of stone, gneiss from Vals, quarried 1000 metres further up the valley, transported to site, and built back into the same slope.” * Steven Holl, Berkowitz house, Martha's Vineyard, MA, USA, 1984-8 Peter Zumthor, San Benedigt chapel, Sumvigt, Switzerland, 1985-8 31Intersections The double layered enclosure of the Topographie des Terrors {1993} project in Berlin follows the ground, while preserving its autonomy. Zumthor himself defines it as “an elemental manifestation of architec- ture intermeshed with topography:”"5 On the other hand the Briol hotel expansion in Barbian is lifted off the ground on slender supports like 2 “tree house on stilts.”"° Enric Miralles and Carme Pinos, Cemetery, Igualada, Spain, 1986-90Intersections In some instances constructive solutions reach the point of con- tradicting the perception of the type of solidarity in place. The San Marcos in the Desert resort scheme (1929) by Frank Lloyd Wright appears to fuse itself in the hill on which it sits, but the drawing in section shows that it had been thought of as being excavated, above the sloping ground “on cast concrete piers and dwarf walls which in turn used the desert floor as a foundation.”"” Luigi Snozzi, Diener house, Ronco sopra Ascona, Switzerland, 1990 1988-22 Glenn Murcutt, Meagher house, Bowral, AustraIntersections The section of Rudolph Schindler's Wolfe House tectonically contradicts the image of a building, which mirrors the contours of the land. All the vertical supports, placed on the back, are concealed, and the entire composition seems an effortless continuation of the steep hillside it dominates. When describing the work Schindler explains that “no exca- vating was done to speak of, instead of digging into the hill the house Stands on tiptoe above it ... only the foliage from an abundance of flow- erboxes all over the buildings laces it back to the ground." Tadao Ando, Contemporary Art Museum, Naoshima, Japan, 1992-5Intersections As a result of the disparate range of approaches, the meaning of inter lock, adherence, and separation must be analyzed case by case and placed in relationship with the specific tectonic solutions. Interlock is not synonymous with a room set in the ground, or hypogeal building, but rather refers to a configuration which is thought of in such a way that earth and construction, while sharing a space which is volumetri- cally defined, complete and complement each other. ‘Mario Botta, Church of Santa Maria degli Angeli, Monte Tamara, Switzerland, 1992-6 36Intersections. The compenetration can be achieved in different ways. The ground can be excavated to create or emphasize ledges or cracks. The construc- tion can be inserted in an existing cavity, closing it or creating a parallel space. The earth can be moved to the side and used as a filling for another spot on site. The interlock can help to solve technical problems, remove differences in level and fillet contour lines. Uitimately it can be the response to existing constraints, or the result of an intentional quest for continuity between nature and artefact, a fusion of the build- ing in the ground. Livio Vacchini, Sport hall, Losone, Switzerland, 1995-7 37Intersections In Frank Lloyd Wright's Solar Hemicycie, Middleton, Wisconsin (1943-8) the excavation of a concave garden and the displacement of the soil to establish a landfill resting on the walls, which are always in the shade, allows for the creation of one of the first examples of passive heating systems. Energy is preserved through the optimal solar exposure, and the thermal insulation provided by the earth's mass."° Herzog and de Meuron, Rudin house, Leymen, Switzerland, 1997 David Chipperfield, River and Rowing Museum, Henley-on-Thames, England, 1989-97Intersections Alvar Aalto creates the raised central court in Saynatsalo (1949-52) exploiting the glacier morainic terraces and the soii resulting from the foundation excavations, which become an integral part of the construction. A raised open space was formed by using the inner walls of the ground floor accommodation to retain the material excavated from the foundation.” In Kauttua (1937-40) the interaction between building and earth is achieved through the construction of a service vane, serving as basement, on the hill's flank. This is made of a series of stepped volumes, each being located at, and directly connected with, the same level as the dwellings. Renzo Piano, J M. Tjibaou Cultural centre, Noumea, New Caledonia, 1991-8Intersections Alejandro de la Sota intentionally creates the void where he piaces the Maravillas sports hall (1961-2), a building that literally “talks with its section."*' By extending the upper level horizontal platform of the existing playground, the proposal can be understood as an operation of completing the space of the sloping terrain. In the Orense (1967) uni- versity dormitories he investigates possible interlocking solutions with reference to the slope, depending on their specific position of each pre- fabricated module, which makes up the complex. Brad Cloepfil and Alliedworks, Maryhill Overlook, OR, USA, 1998Intersections Adherence does not only refer to buildings that are laid, like carpets, on the terrain. There is a call for examining the diverse approaches to how the earth's surface is prepared by means of a light consolida- tion or thin platform, which becomes an artificial ground, and follows the profile of the existing contour lines. The absence of level change between the artificial horizontai plane and the ground, the continuity between exterior and interior floors, together with the absence of joints in the paving, ensure that the transition between topography, ground, and building produces an extension in floor plan rather than in elevation. Patrick Berger, UEFA headquarters, Nyon, Switzerland, 1994-9 aJuan Navarro Baldeweg, Museum of the Altamira cave, Santillana del Mar, Spain, 1995-2000Intersections Arne Jacobsen’s works, from the Bellavista complex (1931-4) to Rodovre City Hall (1956), which “lies flat on the earth like a toppled skyscraper," follow the movement of the terrains on which they rest. In Kengo Kuma’s Bamboo Wall house (2002-3): the slanted topography of the site is left intact, and a slen- der architecture built directly onto the undulating ground ... the level of the ground is varied according to the topog- raphy. A linear wall like structure appears as though it is crawling on the landform, avoiding land reclamation and maintaining the complex topography.”* ‘Sverre Fehn, Ivan Aasen Centre, Orsta, Norway, 1996-2000Jan Olav Jensen and Borre Skodvie, Church, Mortensrud, Norway, 1998-2002Intersections Kuma explains how, in general, architecture is raised on a flat terrain producing variations thanks to the silhouette of the upper portion of the building. Here the roof plane is horizontal, while the floor follows the terrain in its non-uniform progression, allowing it to avoid ground manipulation and respect the topography. Eduardo Souto de Moura, Two houses, Ponte da Lima, Portugal, 2001-2,Intersections The Siting projects conceived by Brad Cloepfil and Alliedworks from 1993 onwards, investigate architecture as a particular endeavor that Produces buildings whose meaning is not assignable to, or defined, by, other cultural media. Specifically the Maryhill Overlook, a 150- foot concrete ribbon placed on the edge of a cliff in the Pacific Northwest marks the territory, indicating a direction, and suggest- ing different possibilities of occupation as well as the essential character of its site. Kengo Kuma, The Great (Bamboo) Wall house, Bejing, China, 2000-2Intersections Of the three primary relationships between buildings and ground, sepa- ration is the most imprecise, although suggestive. A building cannot be completely devoid of ties with the earth, but limiting these to a series of points, or discontinuous surfaces, allows it to leave the main horizontal plane separate. The resulting unbuilt interstitial space can be perceived either as part of the construction or the ground. In both cases it sepa- rates and connects the ground with the building which seerns lifted or “floating.” John Pawson, house in Germany, 200: a7Intersections Lifting the building on punctual supports suggests the impression of leaving the earth's crust almost intact, and allows us to distinguish the load bearing structure from the buildings which are carried on them, better comprehending the tectonic solutions. The separation can be due to technical reasons, isolation, and protection from dampness, floods, animals, or to utilitarian criteria, such as the cost of construction, of the plot, or the intention of touching the ground in the least intruding and permanent way. Sheila O'Donnell and John Tuomey, Glucksman Gallery, Cork, Iretand, 2002-8Intersections The 1934 sketch for “a glass house on the hill” is the first scheme in which Mies van der Rohe proposes a construction detached from the ground though strongly tied to the site. “Spanning a valley depression, the house grows out of the landscape. Mountain and house are one."* Even the design for Resor house (1938), intended for a site crossed by a small river creek, is conceived as a bridge connecting the two banks, so much so that Philip Johnson referred to it as a “floating self-con- tained cage." Similarly to Mies’ Farnsworth House (1945-51), David Chipperfield’s River and Rowing Museum is located on a plot where periodical floods take place. In both cases lifting the building off the ground is a response to the features of the site. Gongalo Byrne, Maritime control tower, Lisbon, Portugal, 1997-2005Intersections At Farnsworth House, however, both the vertical supports, which are moved towards the interior of the structure, and the absence of lateral enclosures seem to convey the idea that the building is a floating object. Chipperfield's museum, on the other hand, sits above the ground in the flood plain of the river, therefore establishing a new ground plan for the museum. This ground plan extends outside of the building, “forming a raised platform reminiscent of those found in the Japanese temples." Dick van Gameren, Dutch Embassy, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2002-5Intersections Herzog and de Meuron refuse the "floating syndrome of the modern era.”?’ The function of the pilotis of the Rudin House in Leymen (1995— 7) is not of support, but symbolic, because the house in reality rests on a horizontal plane which is a sort of “sedan chair of flying carpet." It is located on a hill as a “grey monolith left behind by the last ice age."”* There, resting on a horizontal surface placed in front of the slope, with ‘one side cantilevering and the other three carried by metal columns, the house manifests its “desire of separation from the ground." 51Gratton architects, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy, 2008Intersections Paulo Mendes da Rocha refuses the idea of “taking possession” of the ground, considering it “synonymous of theft and destruction.” For him lifting the building in order not to alter the terrestrial surface is particularly important. To those who ask him whether the relation between building and ground is “fundamental in his work,” he replies that “not touching the soil was never a stylistic issue because build- ing raised enclosures is a way of preserving the ground ... leaving the terrain in nature can mean a lot today."*" Peter Rich, Mapungubwe interpretation centre, Limpopo, South Africa, 2008