Figure 1: Candilis, Josic, Woods, and Schiedhelm, Masterplan for Berlin Free University, C. 1960, drawing.

Architecture has often been involved in aspirations for the creation of a utopia, prompting thought on whether form follows human patterns, or rather, directs them. The structuralist architecture of the 1960s reflects the strain of this dynamic, emphasising user participation in the configuration of structures that lie within an enforced and static urban framework. This is especially compelling in Candilis-Josic-Woods’ design for the Berlin Free University (BFU), which follows this model of a restrained flexibility, perhaps reflecting the precarious socio-political position Berlin was in, being divided into dual American and Soviet authority. The university is stuck in a sense between two versions of utopias, and their complementary dystopias. A mediation between binaries is similarly struck in Herman Hertzberger’s Centraal Beheer office complex, balancing a commercial client, with his underlying egalitarian philosophy. In both cases, the architects allow their designs to be two things at once by humanising them, conceiving of the perfect built form as one that facilitates the human condition in its current state, as opposed to a utopian ideal. Leaning on structuralism’s connection to linguistics and anthropology aids in this strategy, as human behavioural and communication patterns become a significant part of the architecture. Somewhat paradoxically, this becomes an attempt to immortalise their work from becoming obsolete with cultural evolution, as the structures evolve in tandem.  

Candilis-Josic-Woods’ interest in a ‘total architecture’, that is, how the individual buildings come together to form the tissue of urbanity, is articulated in their stem and web theory, which goes on to manifest in their groundscaper typology at BFU. The concept plan is formulated from the overlay of two grids, the first being four parallel stems of circulation, connected by secondary paths that run perpendicularly. Figure 1 shows the ‘possibilities for growth’1 and integration these paths have into the surrounding site as the stems are equally spaced as those of the adjacent streets and the buildings are at a similar scale. Speaking to their belief that ‘it is useless to consider the house except as part of the community.’2 This can be inverted to come to mean that the community is a part of the house, and applying this to BFU, characterises universities as their own miniature cities. 

The horizontal direction of this city’s densification challenges the American skyscraper, whose ‘planes of isolation’3 prioritised individual prosperity. BFU on the other hand spatialises equality in its low-rise design as all faculties are on an even footing (figure 2). The three levels are partitioned according to function – ground for storage, first for activities, third for classrooms and offices, and an unrealised fourth for apartments – as opposed to importance, and thus there is no hierarchical pattern, significant in encouraging interchange, especially amongst relationships – for instance, teacher and student – that do have an inherent imbalance. Candilis-Josic-Woods were critical of the car for stifling an awareness of other people that is forced by walking down a street4, and further that the inclusion of provisions for cars, turned a city into a suburb. This attitude, when looked at from the perspective of BFU’s exclusion of cars and elevators, draws a link between the two technologies, conceiving of density in a wholly different way to how it was being handled in the US. Therefore, the ‘Free’ in the universities name is not synonymous with American, forging an identity in-between the Eastern and Western utopian binaries.

Transparency is continued internally, and has the effect of removing a hierarchical order, which speaks to architecture’s ability to actively make an impression on culture. All cubicle spaces are open, visual and auditory contact therefore becomes public, setting a standard for modes of behaviour, and also encouraging greater productivity, as it is on display. The openness of the plan leads into Hertzberger’s interest in the placemaking of intermediary zones12, as articulation from one place to another is lessened. The notion of circulation becomes almost a double entendre, being both a literal means to a destination and also a meeting place, at which ideas circulate. If anything, it is the circulation that is given hierarchical precedence, as it is the only static element to the design. 

Prefabrication imbued architectural forms the flexibility that Candilis-Josic-Woods’ were interested in for the longevity of their work. Engineer and architect, Jean Prouve’s involvement in the construction of BFU introduced a modular wall system, based on the dimensions of Corbusier’s Modulor. Again, this connects to anthropological structuralism, as it emphasises architecture’s primary objective as being to facilitate human activities. Therefore, the materiality becomes a unit, whose arrangement is subject to the changing expression of human nature. The use of Cor-Ten steel (figure 10), that will rust over time, and achieve a faded look, contrasts with its metamorphic abilities, pronouncing its age, which serves to simultaneously objectify and personify it, another allusion to the duality of opposites. 

In his treatment of solid and void spaces, Hertzberger breaks up the intensity of activity, with tranquillity. The intersecting axial void spaces, impress a physical expansiveness in a highly dense environment, making it more liveable, and therefore working becomes a more positive experience. The void spaces also anticipate transformation of the active spaces, as there is room for reconfiguration. However, this is countered by the rigidity of the grid, which doesn’t allow for expressions of form outside the geometric square. Figure 11 gives a sense of how the voids mediate between the individual and the group, connecting the otherwise rather self-contained modules, almost like bridges spanning islands. BFU’s active spaces are similarly joined by the foil of tranquillity, in the form of external courtyards that are articulated by changes in roof height (figure 12). The void spaces at Centraal Beheer interestingly extend from the passages of circulation, by which Hertzberger is perhaps suggesting that progressiveness occurs as a reaction to an opposite. 

Hertzberger and Candilis-Josic-Woods strove for the persevering relevance of their work, employing strategies of polyvalency and flexibility, respectively. And in doing so, carve out an intermediary zone for architecture, as both a product of the culture and actively affecting it. From this we perceive that the intentional planning of a utopia doesn’t align with its definition, as it can end up creating a culture, rather than facilitating the existing one. This is especially interesting when considered within the context of the cold war, wherein two binary cultures identified themselves as the ideal by articulating the ways in which the other was dystopian. Architecture is therefore capable of change, because it can be its instigator, however it is in constant dialogue with society, and therefore, in imbuing their structures with a humanness, both architects break down the distinction between culture, nature and structural form.