European Identities, 1987

This brings me to the recent past and re-emergence of `high tech’ design as a British product. In essence, this has been a rekindling of the Victorian period, whose confidence was built on the `successful creation’ of new nations (Empire) and which was best manifested in design in Britain through its engineers (Paxton: Crystal Palace, Mark and Isambard Brunel, Stephenson etc.). New energies, new materials, new approaches were the hallmark of this period and in the spirit of this industrialisation wonderful built expressions became abundant, not only in Britain but also in other parts of Europe. There was an optimism towards the future.

Today, `high tech’ is a style. In architecture it started with the combination of a fascination with science fact (space programmes) and science fiction (Archigram) and a desire to build cleanly and more precisely with mass produced articles (corrugated metal, steel sections etc.). Here entered a new generation of enlightened engineers (Samuely, Newby, Hunt, Happold, Rice), capable of understanding these aspirations/architects (Foster/Rogers/Stirling/Price and, in other countries Otto, Piano). Techniques and Technologies started to be transferred from other disciplines (`technology transfer’) and now this `high tech’ approach has been diluted in favour of image.

At La Villette, with Peter Rice and Martin Francis, we registered a desire on the part of those representing the French Government to innovate and to make this innovation relevant to the museum and its fundamental didactic role, and France’s image as a world technological leader.

We did not set out to produce a `high tech’ image but to explore both sensually and intellectually with current industries the opportunities created by this project. This approach is fundamentally about physical high performance, intelligence and control of the environment and understanding these in a design context.

This experience highlighted two major differences between Britain and France. Firstly, the French believe in their own cultural heritage and the need to continually invest in it; and secondly the awareness and openness of French industries to explore with us beyond their own industrial preconceptions. This created a tripartite level of confidence: Client/Designer/Industry, which emotionally must have reflected the spirit of adventure akin to the Victorian era.

The ability to be receptive to other cultural inputs is the prerequisite for exchange and does not imply absorption or fundamental change to one’s own cultural perspective or cultural statements.

One became increasingly aware, during this period, of a desire from an increasing number of French architects to include or have a `high tech’ in their architectural projects, without the fundamental receptiveness to explore the essential base for it. Hence the suggestion that `high tech’ was becoming `image transfer’ in much the same way as we see in POMO architecture (`classical transfer). POMO = post modern.

These attitudes reinforce, for me, the need to understand cultural differences and in this sense, the idea of an Architectural Review of the European Regions is highly commendable.

Equally, the objective of understanding and recognising the value of differences should, and to some extent is, taking place in the Schools of Architecture throughout Europe. PSR will offer a wider opportunity to explore the work and direction of European students.

Thus, I have selected examples of four young European architects, all of whom have worked with me.

These projects, from their recent study days, show the influence on these students and it remains to be seen the extent to which they draw on and express their own cultural heritage and their own individuality as they mature.

© Ian Ritchie 12/87