Created in 2013, it looks at operations conducted to renovate old buildings. These operations have given rise to discussion on interior architecture, a discipline taught at ESAIL. The objective of using this kind of empirical material as a starting point is twofold.
The first objective is to analyse the discipline and its practices by looking at projects completed in the not-so-distant past.
One must scrutinize a project in order to be able to explain it. The work involved is complex, and seeking to bring to light the intellectual processes of the discipline seems more than right. If lessons are to be drawn from good examples, we must take the time to dissect and better understand them.
First and foremost, it consists in attempting to explain all the work undertaken to bring a project to completion – by shedding light on a design process that was able to disentangle itself from various constraints, by bringing attention to agency documents that were not necessarily hitherto published, by obtaining explanations from project developers, by understanding their intentions – in order to achieve the highest level of understanding possible.
It also entails explaining completed architectural works, when ideas take form and when people live in, use, take ownership of and interpret spaces. Spaces that were once in the mind’s eye become a physical reality that engages the senses of those who them and who, conversely, experience this spatial reality.
The aim is thus to explain an architectural work both in terms of the “backstage” part (the design stage) as well as the “public” part (when a work is adopted by various publics).
The second objective seeks to contribute to a more general discussion on the possible theoretical tools of architectural renovation. ESAIL LAB will focus on this in a series of case studies. Our ambition is to successively analyse multiple projects to form a more general analysis of spatial transformation processes.
“Into this purely historical mix we also have to add the changes to the function of the building. The first gives the architectural space is lasting specificity. Living in a former church brings with it a notion of sanctifying the domestic space. An unconventional, somewhat intimidating volume, natural light filtered by the stained-glass windows, and specific acoustics, are all very present features once the project is completed. They give daily life a certain sacred status. The benefit obtained from mixing these two very different purposes. As well as the multiple layers of historical materials physically present, there are also existential dimensions in the same place.”
These re-appropriations, substitutions, shifting meanings, give our building a new lease of life. Pierre Hebbelinck has imagined new ways of creating meaning within it. The space demonstrates this flexibility, this elasticity, this potential it has to regenerate. It no doubt also has the merit of having forced the designer to formulate new, or at least unexpected, spatial responses.
This staircase needs to compete with the other imposing architectural components in place. The strength of the solution is dependent on the choice of an appropriate structural mechanism.
It can even be seen as a genetic mutation of the architectural space. An unpredictable qualitative leap is made.