Amina Kaskar, Sumayya Vally, and Sarah de Villiers, who form the Johannesburg-based architectural studio Counterspace, have been commissioned to design the 2020 Serpentine Pavilion. All born in 1990, the trio are the youngest architects to design the Serpentine Gallery's iconic pavilion in its 20-year history. Founded in 2015, Counterspace's work focuses on research and interdisciplinary arts-based projects, with an emphasis on architectural projects and community engagement.
Counterspace's concept for the Serpentine reflects their focus on inclusivity. Combining traditional and innovative building techniques, their design is a poetic interpretation of the gathering, community-oriented spaces around London.
The shapes of the pavilion are “created from a process of addition, superimposition, subtraction, and splicing of architectural forms, directly transcribed from existing spaces with particular relevance to migrant and other peripheral communities in [the city].” It features moveable small parts that will temporarily be relocated to neighborhoods across London. After the community events at those locations are done, the parts will be returned to the structure.
Their design also uses various sustainable materials like cork and K-Briq-modules, which are made from 90 percent recycled construction and demolition waste and are manufactured without firing.
“The pavilion is itself conceived as an event — the coming together of a variety of forms from across London over the course of the Pavilion's sojourn,” said Sumayya Vally, the lead architect of the project, in a statement. “These forms are imprints of some of the places, spaces, and artifacts which have made care and sustenance part of London's identity. The breaks, gradients, and distinctions in color and texture between different parts of the Pavilion make this reconstruction and piecing together legible at a glance...”
Serving as a space for debate and new ideas, the Pavilion will host a live program of events this summer, including those related to the Serpentine Gallery's multi-platform “Back to Earth” project focused on the global climate emergency.
Previous winners include Junya Ishigami in 2019, Frida Escobedo in 2018, Diébédo Francis Kéré in 2017, Bjarke Ingels in 2016, and SelgasCano in 2015.
The Serpentine Pavilion will be open at Kensington Gardens from June 11-October 11, 2020.
13 Comments
Well done Counterspace!
Everything said, is delivered in the design. It's a living piece interacting with people and the city as imagined. The plan providing different scales of gathering as well as interacting with a solo user is nicely done. "The breaks, gradients, and distinctions" so clearly stated and worked on the drawings. Personally, I see the project through the lens of Bob Venturi, Charles Moore, and conceptual art.
I'm looking forward to see the the finished installation photographs of the opening.
Depressed base plane, angular/strange columns with integrated seating, and a circular roof?
Ummmm
No. sorry but this has more than a passing resemblance to the Herzog and Ai Weiwei pavillion in 2012.
Fight me.
rule #1
don't fight with the stupid!
Orhan, all jokes aside, you must admit, this is almost the identical parti to the Herzog project. It even uses cork. Come on man. That's the main critique—the fact that it is strikingly similar to the Herzog project in several ways and doesn't seem too original—nothing else.
a lot of serpentine installations have the similar building (or not building) program, a public space and material similarities is okay since those materials are cataloged and available on amazon. yours is a loud but weak argument. i don't know if it qualifies as a critique since it slams the door on cs' work with a kangroo courted verdict of copying. and so what if you make counterspace pavillion similar to the h&dm pavillion, those are different. one is more arthaus high jinx corporate boutique production collaborative hi arch, the other one is deliberately everyday corporate opulence. they don't use the circle the same way either. one roof behaves bunker like trench space vs. the other is more like a west asia/abu dhabi like corporate sponsored royal beauty,an overhanged and soffited logotype of a hi-ceiling image. they both play with the architect made topography as a figure ground drawing or a painting, both have cut and remove earth as orchestrated subtractions. they are both very beautifully sculptural. one is incorporating surrounding british landscape and turning it into easily recognizable 1001 nights set and and the other is sinking into a hole with a turning outside in type of flip. also, they are very different both text and form wise. there is an interplay with the city by the new installation exchanging physical context.
these are the similarities and differences i see instead of self judging them in ad hominem. and them adding more value to each pavilion.
isn't serpentine pavillion program a millioners version of ps1 projects?
i have to go, bye.
Maybe your definition of ad hominem is different than mine. I did not call out any individual or attack anyone in particular or insult them much like you did when you called me stupid.
If I could see some diagrams or process about how the form was derived in the Counterspace project I would maybe be able to have a more full critique but unfortunately I haven't seen anything along those lines yet.
The fact that the projects look similar doesn't devalue what Counterspace will bring to the table, but it does look a bit like a copy paste job of several past pavilions on the same site.
Again, not attacking anyone other than the fact that it seems unoriginal formally despite your attempt to compare and contrast why they're different—in fact you just described more ways that they are similar. The additive/subtrative process that Herzog used of the past plans of the Serpentine pavilions also sounds very similar to the additive/subtractive notions reference in the project, although from a different angle. Don't even try to use PS1 as a counterexample. The YAP is a complete joke—they're even pausing the program for a year.
do you really need diagrams to understand these projects?
btw, i am not using ps1 as a counter example but eluding to a nuanced institutional criticism of both, serpentine and ps1 programs.
instead of wanting to fight, try to read the imagery and words beyond the accusative labeling of not being original.
now that you start to see the added value on the table means you have some progress in comprehension department, good luck with that.
Orhan, believe it or not, we're colleagues, so let's all take a minute to appreciate how a simple disagreement can devolve quickly online. I'm sure you've participated in many juries in your day, as have I. When beautiful and compelling project comes along that references local architectural forms one would hope to see diagrams or other supplemental drawings on how they arrived at that scheme. I can't make a judgement on how well the qualities of these migrant spaces are captured within this pavilion; although I have visited many of the neighborhoods listed I can only vaguely see references to classical details like vaults, molding, and etc. This is a perfectly valid question to raise of any project using collage as a technique.
All pavilions will inevitably self-referential in a way considering they manner in which they deal with similar programmatic elements as you described—elevated roofs, an attitude toward columns, etc. If this project were anywhere else in London I would not be on about the similarities to the Herzog project.
I'll judge it when I see it I suppose. No hard feelings.
That's fine. Also personal opinions and interpretations vary. Sorry for calling "stupid". To be honest, it was my reaction to "fight me" rather than calling you. At the end, I wouldn't fight for Serpentine Pavilion but far more nobel causes. It's a high end publicity show and doesn't define much other than someone's statement.
Have a wonderful time tracing and talking about architecture...
“If I could see some diagrams or process about how the form was derived…”
This isn’t a student project and even if it were I think all students have rolled their eyes at the “well - can we see your process” critic. It means the critic has noting worthwhile to say, won’t read the project for themselves or just stalling. It’s also pretty presumptuous to assume they didn’t do diagrams or supplemental drawings because I’m pretty sure they did.
What I just don’t understand is why their process needs to be spelled out for your validity stamp. Their process has no external bearing on how the pavilion will be viewed / experienced at all. Nor does your noted formal similarity argument. The form was not novel when H&D did it nor will it be when someone else does it. It’s obvious this is different from concept level to experience.
Not to be rude but why you need additional help/info to understand what this project is?
Hi NPK1! Thanks for your reply The project is pretty easy to understand; it's a pavilion that references architectural forms that are of particular relevance to migrant groups throughout London, right?
Ok, that's great, but how does one arrive at this design as the end result? I respect the premise of the concept, I'm just struggling to see how the form of the project represents these aforementioned spaces. Personally I think the educational aspect of learning more about the forms of these spaces would absolutely help with the way the public views/experiences the project, so I disagree strongly with the point you made on that subject.
So you're saying the concept means nothing other than being the impetus for the project, with relationships that directly map to the form? ...maybe I'm the only one on this forum that doesn't get it.
Also, I think you're speaking from your opinion/experience because speaking from my experience as a juror/guest critic and during my time as a student, it was absolutely legitimate to question process and look for supporting diagrams/ drawings/models, student project or professional alike.
If I see a project that is referring to adapting contextual forms and geometry I think it is perfectly acceptable to ask if there are any diagrams of how that transformation occurred. I'm not sure why that's so controversial.
I realize there is a new school of architects/designers that doesn't believe process is important or relevant, but it is my opinion that this is ultimately where we can innovate by creating new techniques and processes that others in the discipline can learn from.
Look, the Frida Escobedo project had subtle references to the Barcelona Pavilion, but that doesn't mean that the project didn't have it's own appeal and wasn't legitimate on it's own. There wasn't much of a design process and the end result wasn't particularly spectacular, but I got the premise.
As I already said, all pavilions are inevitably self-referential and similarities are all-too-easy to cherry pick, so I get it... None of this in my mind de-legitimizes the project—to me the partis for both projects were so similar that I thought I would benefit from someone more familiar with the project explaining to me a little bit more about what we can learn from it.
Hi again... Personally I'm blaming this on bad press for the project.
https://www.standard.co.uk/go/london/arts/serpentine-pavilion-2020-counterspace-studio-a4357996.html
This article by the standard goes into some explination as to what these forms are and what their significance is, which is really all I was after.
I realize my initial comment was snarky, but I'm seriously here to learn and not here to ridicule anyone's point of view.
"But instead of rushing to complete the building to the usual June deadline, the pavilion’s most daring feature is that additional elements will be added to its base structure over the four months of its existence. Each of these elements will first have its own satellite life as an installation in various corners of London.
As they are combined, the whole building will form a temple to hidden histories, where display, furniture, walls and floor are jigsawed together to form a continuous interior landscape. "
Love this. Reminds me of Event Cities by Tschumi.
"You might glimpse the outline of a window moulding from Centerprise, the now-closed radical bookshop and community centre in Dalston, or a detail from the former home of the West Indian Gazette in Brixton. This is architecture as archaeology and anthropology. "
Neither of these points are explained on the archinect article, archdaily, the description on the Serpentine website, dezeen almost completely glazes it over...
Have a nice one.
I like it even more now.
https://archinect.com/news/art...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.