Frontiers of Architectural Research (]]]]) ], ]]]–]]]

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.keaipublishing.com/foar

Frontiers of Architectural Research

https://doi.or2095-2635/& 2(http://creati

nCorrespondE-mail addPeer review

Please cite tarchitecture

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Reducing architecture: Doing almost nothingas a city-making strategy in 21st centuryarchitecture

Marco Enian, Flavio Martella

E.T.S.A.M., Polytechnic University of Madrid, Av. Juan de Herrera 4, 28040 Madrid, Spain

Received 26 September 2018; received in revised form 23 January 2019; accepted 27 January 2019

KEYWORDSCity-making;Almost nothing;Inaction;Smallness;Temporary interven-tions;Urban acupuncture

g/10.1016/j.foar.2019.0019 The Authors. Produvecommons.org/licenses

ing author.ress: marco.enia@alumnunder responsibility of

his article as: Enia, M.,. Frontiers of Architectu

AbstractThis paper discusses a contemporary design strategy to deal with urban spaces. In 21st centuryarchitecture it is possible to recognize the existence of several projects that consist in doingalmost nothing, carrying out only minimal modifications to their sites of intervention. Inpresent-day architecture, this approach is considered useful sometimes to respect thesurroundings and sometimes to improve them through the smallest and tiniest actions. Doingalmost nothing is a strategy that can unfold in many ways. It can mean opting for inaction andthus not modifying a place at all; or designing a temporary project intended to occupy it onlyfor a limited period of time; or also carrying out a particularly small but permanentintervention. Depending on the circumstances, it is an approach that can help architectureprotecting a place, reclaiming it or reactivating its latent qualities. This strategy can beimplemented both through a single intervention on a specific place, or through a network ofcoordinated projects in different locations. The purpose of the paper is to present thisapproach in the context of 21st century urban architecture, through cases studied from the lasttwo decades.& 2019 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article underthe CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1.006ction and hosting by Elsevier B.V./by-nc-nd/4.0/).

os.upm.es (M. Enia).Southeast University.

Martella, F., Reducing architecturral Research (2019), https://doi.o

1. Introduction

In architecture, quantity is a matter of utmost importance.Architecture constantly deals with numbers; at some point,the dimensional, technical, and economic aspects of aproject are all subjected to numerical quantification. How-ever, quantity is essential to architecture in a subtle way

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license

e: Doing almost nothing as a city-making strategy in 21st centuryrg/10.1016/j.foar.2019.01.006

M. Enia, F. Martella2

(Wigley, 2005). Regardless of the function, site, or contextof building design, the quest for what in Italian is calledgiusta misura (or right measure), that is, the condition ofwhat is neither too much nor too minimal, is necessary. Thediscourse regarding quantity in architecture refers not onlyto numerical values but also to an intangible quality, whichconcerns the formal properties of an intervention and therelevance of changes in a given place. Giusta misura maycharacterize a form where everything is in its right placeand nothing can be added or subtracted without compro-mising the harmony of the entire system, as in Alberti'sdefinition of beauty (Alberti, 1988). However, giusta misuracan also characterize an intervention by implementingnecessary and appropriate adjustments to a place. In thissense, every project is an attempt to avoid two equal andopposite mistakes: overdoing and falling short.

Throughout the history of architecture, various interpre-tations associated giusta misura with “less” (Aureli, 2013);right measure has frequently been pursued by removingrather than adding elements. For example, minimum was akey concept in the previous century. Some of the mostimportant architects of the 20th century had a predilectionfor the most simple, abstract, and light buildings. This stylecan be appreciated in modern and recent projects. Criticsoccasionally use the expression almost nothing to refer tobuildings by Mies van de Rohe, which appear to be emptyboxes composed only of light and air, such as the NeueNationalgalerie in Berlin (Mertins, 2011) (Figure 1). Almostnothing is an expression derived from the wide repertoire ofaphorisms of Mies (Savi and Montaner, 1996). Similar to hismost famous phrase, that is, less is more, this aphorismevokes an architecture composed only of a few elementsand simple formal arrangements. In the context of modernarchitecture, minimum is often considered the shortestpath to construct elegant, beautiful buildings.

However, another understanding of minimum that mod-ern architecture did not pursue often can be recognized. Ina literal sense, doing the minimum can also mean leaving aplace almost intact and unaltered by an architecturalintervention, thereby confirming the state of things orproposing only minimal modification. This concept is atotally different type of minimum and almost nothing,which are in the opposite direction of the usual approachesof modern architecture. The latter often resort to thestrategy of tabula rasa (Tournikiotis, 1999), which involves

Figure 1 Neue Nationalgalerie, Berlin. Mies van der Rohe,1968. Photo by Pit Brunner.

Please cite this article as: Enia, M., Martella, F., Reducing architectuarchitecture. Frontiers of Architectural Research (2019), https://doi.

erasing everything and doing something new in its placerather than the patiently waiting for the regeneration ofwhat already exists. In 21st-century architecture, recogniz-ing the existence of numerous projects comprising limitedactions is possible. Projects that involve doing almostnothing is considered to be a plausible strategy; theseprojects are sometimes useful for respecting and improvingsurroundings and activating their hidden qualities throughthe smallest actions.

2. Reducing architecture

Almost nothing may appear to be a straightforward phraserequiring minimal or no explanation. However, despite itsapparent simplicity, this phrase is slightly ambiguous andcan be used in different ways. In architecture, identifyingvarious types of “nothing,” which describes a specificabsence, emptiness, or silence, is possible (Quetglas,1999). For example, the “nothing” that Mies referred towas the void. On numerous occasions, Mies designed build-ings where space appeared to flow freely with no obstacle inbetween. He mostly relied on a limited number of elements(often very thin) and transparent, invisible walls to createsuch a design. Mies also developed a precise strategy todesign the void, which can be appreciated in 21st-centurybuildings, such as Sanaa's Rolex Learning Center (Figure 2).Another type of “nothing” concerns the skin of the building.In contemporary projects, the envelope is a blank, contin-uous space unrelieved by any decoration or variation. Insuch cases, the external surface of the building is emptiedrather than its internal space. An example of this case canbe observed in the public market recently built by Nieto andSobejano in Madrid (Figure 3). Void spaces and blankenvelopes are both “nothing” that concerns the formaland spatial characteristics of a building, which is radicallysimplified through operations that affect its interior andexterior. The “nothing” discussed in this paper is of adifferent type because it directly emphasizes the relationalcharacteristic of architecture, that is, the way an interven-tion modifies its surroundings. Unlike the other ones, thisalmost nothing aims at reducing architecture and results inprojects that modify precisely (almost) nothing of the placewhere they are. Such an approach is not to be intended as apessimistic attitude, showing no confidence in the capacity

Figure 2 Rolex Learning Center, Lausanne. Sanaa, 2010. Photoby Thomas Mayer.

re: Doing almost nothing as a city-making strategy in 21st centuryorg/10.1016/j.foar.2019.01.006

Figure 3 Barceló Market, Madrid. Nieto Sobejano, 2014. Photoby Roland Halbe.

Figure 4 Playground at Laurierstraat, Amsterdam. Aldo vanEyck, 1965. Photo by Ed Suister.

3Doing almost nothing as a city-making strategy in 21st century architecture

of architecture to change a place for the better. Instead,considering that doing the minimum may be the best optionin some cases, this approach is a way of providing utmostimportance to the specific site conditions. Although someplaces demand major changes, others require only fewmodifications provided that they are clever and welldesigned. In the phrase almost nothing, the word “almost”is crucial; doing the minimum requires doing no less thanthe necessary, or the intervention will finally be simplyinsignificant.

Therefore, doing almost nothing is an approach thatbrings together various concepts proposed by critics andarchitects in recent years. On the one hand, all collectedparadigms claim the potential of smart, small interventions.Numerous authors maintain that producing few but intelli-gent changes in a given site can have far-reaching beneficialeffects on the surroundings. Some of these authors relatethis approach directly to the city, arguing that specificurban conditions are best addressed through effectivemicro-scale tactics (Chi, 2003; Lydon and García, 2015).Other authors suggest that this approach does not have tobe linked to a particular contextual situation (Kuma, 2015;Lepik, 2010). On the other hand, underlying such a reduc-tive strategy is also a contemporary tendency towardpositive appreciation of everyday, ordinary surroundings(Walker, 2010). Moreover, ordinary surroundings arebelieved to occasionally possess qualities that extend fromtheir eventual modest appearance; for example, placeswhere locals feel comfortable are likely to be improvedthrough minor than major actions.

Doing almost nothing is not an entirely novel strategy,and minimal interventions always have a place in the historyof architecture. The 20th-century masters occasionallyrelied on this approach. Between 1947 and 1978, Aldo VanEyck designed and built hundreds of children playgrounds inthe city of Amsterdam (De Roode and Lefaivre, 2002). Theseplaygrounds were temporary and simple and involved onlyfew, minimum operations over vacant lots (Figure 4). Theidea behind such an approach was to occupy these lots untila lasting transformation could be performed. Therefore, anactive role in city life was provided to places that otherwisewould remain unused. Even if minimal interventions are nota prerogative of present-day architecture, these

Please cite this article as: Enia, M., Martella, F., Reducing architecturarchitecture. Frontiers of Architectural Research (2019), https://doi.o

interventions are implemented more often today than inthe past. Minimal interventions can actually be placedamong the most relevant design strategies of the 21stcentury. Discussing these interventions implies dealing withan important ongoing shift in understanding the role andpurposes of architecture. Minimal interventions in the urbanrealm are often effectively applied from contemporaryarchitecture.

This paper proposes an approach in the context of 21st-century urban architecture through cases studied from thelast two decades. The following section of the paper, whichaddresses the specific application of this strategy, is dividedin four subsections for this purpose. Section 3.1 introducesthe contemporary circumstances that contribute to theincreasing importance of this approach. Section 3.2 dis-cusses the ways of doing almost nothing in the city,distinguishing between inaction, minimization, and therealization of ephemeral interventions. Sections 3.3 pre-sents the situations in which minimal interventions areoften implemented, distinguishing among conservation,rehabilitation, and reuse, that is, between cases in whichdoing almost nothing helps protect, reclaim, and reactivatethe latent qualities of a place. Section 3.4 discusses thetactics of almost nothing, which can be conducted viaprecise operations in a specific place or through a networkof coordinated interventions in different locations sharingsimilar problems.

3. Doing almost nothing as a city-makingapproach

3.1. Rethinking architecture

In the past century, numerous cities underwent socioeco-nomic and formal transformations that profoundly changedtheir nature (Clark, 1998). Given the unprecedented demo-graphic growth and evolution of the production systems, therate in 20th-century cities expanded to that never seenbefore in history. In various countries all over the world, thenumber of people living in urban environments and theurbanization rate have dramatically and continuouslyincreased (Burdett and Sudjic, 2007). Major urbanistic and

e: Doing almost nothing as a city-making strategy in 21st centuryrg/10.1016/j.foar.2019.01.006

Figure 5 León Aucocsquare, Bordeaux. Photo by Lacaton&Vassal.

M. Enia, F. Martella4

architectural operations must be implemented to deal withsuch a huge phenomenon, and modern cities must be builtprimarily through macro-interventions to accommodate newurban masses. Today, most of the areas built in the lastdecades have reached a solid, stable configuration. Conse-quently, these areas are often seen as something accom-plished and finished, and interventions are conducted byrepairing more than reshaping (Garcia German, 2012). Insome cases, repairing may even simply involve a limited andcircumscribed set of actions.

The perception of the system of urban voids is alsoundergoing a similar change. Several contemporary citiesare hypertrophic organisms that require elimination ratherthan the addition of elements. Regardless of their conditionand spatial quality, urban voids currently play an importantrole in balancing and stabilizing the city as a whole. In thelast century, these voids were mainly regarded as places tobuild. Today, these voids are often treated as constitutiveelements of the city and essential for precise functioningbecause they are empty (Gunwoo, 2016). These findingsstrongly affect the role of architecture in the construction,alteration, and maintenance of the urban organism. Modernarchitects often had to design macro-structural interven-tions and work with the territorial scale as required bysocioeconomic and historical circumstances. Today, circum-stances have changed, and reality often forces architectureto a large modesty by adopting a different set of strategies.Architects capable of grand gestures are still present,particularly in the emerging cities of Asia and the MiddleEast. However, another professional figure is becomingincreasingly important, that is, an architect who canregenerate a place by realizing few and careful operations.This architect rediscovers the human being as the realprotagonist of architecture, using it as the measure forhis/her interventions.

A convincing defense of the opportunity to rethink therole of the architect in accordance with present conditionsis presented in an example from n’UNDO (2017), a collectivededicated to research and professional practice. The archi-tecture proposed by n’UNDO is based on subtraction andrenunciation and articulates into four operations: no con-struction, minimization, reuse, and dismantling. The pointof n’UNDO is not to suggest such operations as appropriatefor all occasions. n’UNDO rather argues the importance ofthese operations for contemporary design, explaining whyarchitecture should frequently consider these operations asuseful tools. No construction is a call not to over-exploit theterritory and avoid the production of unnecessary elements.Minimization is the most reasonable strategy when the placeappears to dismiss the need for major modifications. Reuseis an option to consider whenever the potentialities of whatalready exists can be activated through careful work ofreclaiming. Dismantling is an action that should be con-ducted frequently to eliminate constructions whose pre-sence is detrimental to the site.

These operations rediscover the utility of a traditionalapproach that has been emphasized in the background of20th-century architecture. Various strategies, namely, noconstruction, minimization, reuse, and dismantling, havedeeply contributed to the development of ancient cities.Similarly, these operations can play an important role in thecurrent cities, that is, helping architecture to build a strong

Please cite this article as: Enia, M., Martella, F., Reducing architectuarchitecture. Frontiers of Architectural Research (2019), https://doi.

connection between urban space and its inhabitants. Theseoperations are relevant for contemporary architecturebecause they imply a change of attitude toward the urbansystem, which can only benefit from these operations. Thenovelty of this approach lies in the idea that the realprotagonist of design should be the place and locals andnot the architectural object only. If the protagonist is thearchitectural object, then relying on such strategies, whichinclude construction or minimization, is slightly reasonable.By contrast, when the purpose is to achieve the bestpossible intervention for a specific place and community,even such radical operations may occasionally prove to beproper options. In this sense, reducing architecture is simplyintended as a gentle approach toward places; doing theminimum in the right way can help accomplish numerousachievements.

3.2. Inaction, minimization, and ephemeralinterventions

Doing almost nothing is a flexible strategy that can unfold innumerous ways in accordance with the circumstances andsite characteristics. In its most radical application, thisapproach can result in inaction and the decision to leave thesite as it was before the intervention. A good example ofsuch an approach comes from a work by Lacaton and Vassalin Bordeaux (Figure 5). The City Council asked them todesign a project for Place Léon Aucoc, a minimal squareoutside the city center, with a view to its embellishment.Having studied the site and its local community andconducting all the necessary analyses that often lead to aproject, Lacaton and Vassal proposed to do nothing. Theyexplained that Place Léon Aucoc needs no modifications.This decision was not due to their inability to imagine anypossible transformation of the square but was rather thelogical conclusion of their own reading, resulting in inactionas the best choice. Two distinct types of considerationsprompted Lacaton and Vassal to act this way. The first onecame from a careful, open-minded observation of the site.The square, without being monumental, was charming.People appreciated this site because it was a quiet andpeaceful place where the community felt at home. On thebasis of their observation, neither in its conformation nor inits relationship with the locals appeared to require

re: Doing almost nothing as a city-making strategy in 21st centuryorg/10.1016/j.foar.2019.01.006

5Doing almost nothing as a city-making strategy in 21st century architecture

important changes. The second consideration concerned ageneral questioning of the concept of embellishment.Embellishment often comprises the execution of epidermaloperations, such as the replacement of the groundcover orthe substitution of some elements of urban furniture; theseoperations have the difficult to task to turn an unattractiveplace into a beautiful one. However, none of these opera-tions would make sense in a site such as Place Léon Aucoc,whose most outstanding qualities came precisely from itsauthenticity and lack of sophistication (Lacaton and Vassal,2003). By doing nothing with this project, Lacaton andVassal actually did something. They claimed for the quali-ties of everyday yet attractive places that provide theconditions for a pleasant social life and simultaneouslycalled for an understanding of architecture beyond con-struction; they argued that in some cases, although rarely,not building can be an alternative (Lacaton, 2003).

In the context of present-day architecture, doing almostnothing often implies performing some modifications to theintervention site. Various contemporary projects attempt tominimize their presence, conducting only the necessarychanges to activate the potentialities of the place. Thismethod was the approach of an unbuilt project by CedricPrice for an empty lot in New York in front of the HudsonRiver (Figure 6). Designed for a competition organized bythe Canadian Center for Architecture, Price's projectplanned to leave the site almost unaltered (Isozaki, 2003).Unlike the other participants who all proposed filling the lotwith large buildings, Price suggested to leave it empty andassign it for public use. He only planned to perform fourminimum actions: build a light infrastructure to cross andobserve the lot, place lights to indicate its presence evenfrom a distance, undertake reasonable demolitions tofacilitate air circulation, and realize a small extension ofan existing congress center. In several respects, Price'sproject was similar in approach to that of Lacaton andVassal's intervention in Place León Aucoc. In both cases, acareful reading of the site revealed qualities that could notbe appreciated through mere superficial observation. Mostof the participants saw nothing more than an anonymous lotto fill, whereas Price saw a place that with few changescould play a key role in the city despite being vacant.According to Price, the lot, which is empty and close to the

Figure 6 Project for the Hudson River, New York. Price, 1999.Drawing by Cedric Price.

Please cite this article as: Enia, M., Martella, F., Reducing architecturarchitecture. Frontiers of Architectural Research (2019), https://doi.o

river, could act as a green lung to drain fresh air intoManhattan. Preserving the nature of this lot as a free spacemostly devoid of constructions was important to realize thegoal of Price.

A third possible way of doing almost nothing is to design atemporary intervention intended to occupy a lot only for alimited period. In this approach, time is a central factor. Incontemporary architecture, temporariness is often under-stood as a useful design tool because it helps deal withsituations that could not be effectively addressed throughpermanent interventions (Tardiveau and Mallo, 2014; Lydonand García, 2015). On the one hand, the lack of resourcesoccasionally does not allow for long-term solutions for allplaces in a city that would need them; temporary interven-tions permit reclaiming of lots that would otherwise bedestined to long vacancy and dereliction (Bishop andWilliams, 2012). On the other hand, given their ephemeralnature, temporary interventions require a low level ofplanning, enable a fast development, and are cost-effec-tive, thereby allowing to address situations that require thequickest response (Asato, 2018). As discussed in this paper,some recent projects may be associated to the almostnothing strategy because they not only implement a fewsmall modifications to the intervention site but also plan torestore it to its previous configuration in a relatively shortperiod. An example of this approach comes from theexperience of estonoesunsolar (which is not a lot), an urbanregeneration program conducted in Zaragoza by Patrizia DiMonte and Ignacio Grávalos. Over the years, estonoesunso-lar has allowed the regeneration of dozens of vacant andabandoned city lots via minimal and ephemeral interven-tions (Di Monte and Grávalos, 2009). The general tone of theprogram may be illustrated through two examples: onerealized in Calle San Blas 94 (Figure 7) and the other inCalle de las Armas (Figure 8). The former involved thetransformation of an empty lot in a small botanical garden.This transformation was achieved mainly through twooperations. The first operation was the collocation of agreen carpet composed of wooden pallets filled up withdistinct types of seedlings in the center of the lot. Thesecond operation involved the construction of a lightstructure designed to house hanging plants. The interven-tion in Calle de las Armas similarly converted a vacant lot in

Figure 7 Estonoesunsolar, Calle San Blas 94, Zaragoza. DiMonte, Grávalos (2009). Photo by Di Monte and Grávalos.

e: Doing almost nothing as a city-making strategy in 21st centuryrg/10.1016/j.foar.2019.01.006

Figure 8 Estonoesunsolar, Huerto en Calle de las Armas,Zaragoza. Di Monte, Grávalos (2009). Photo by Di Monte andGrávalos.

M. Enia, F. Martella6

an urban orchard. In one corner of the lot, Di Monte adGrávalos placed two metal containers painted green, whichcould serve as classrooms for activities related to garden-ing. This approach is grounded in the idea that the cityfunctions as a living organism; therefore, the problems ofone part affect the entire system. Caring for the smallestand apparently irrelevant lots means caring for the entirecity. Albeit temporarily, reclaiming abandoned spaces canthus be a major action in terms of urban health.

Figure 9 Microyuan’er, Bejing. Zao standardarchitecture,2014. Photo by Wang Ziling.

3.3. Conservation, rehabilitation, and reuse

Contemporary architecture relies on the strategy of doingalmost nothing in different types of urban situations.Depending on circumstances, this approach is proven to beuseful in protecting, reclaiming, or not leaving a placeunused. Three major tasks can be identified in the currentimplementation of this strategy, namely, conservation,rehabilitation, and reuse. In the context of this paper,conservation is defined as the preservation of a place thatdoes not require remarkable changes; rehabilitation as thetransformation of its nature and role even through minimaloperations; and reuse as the recovery of an abandonedurban location to return it to social life. Conservation,rehabilitation, and reuse are not to be intended as mutuallyexclusive tasks. A project may occasionally be mainly aimedat one of these tasks or simultaneously indicate more thanone. Lacaton and Vassal's intervention in Bordeaux andPrice's project for Manhattan share the same intention toprotect the respective places from unnecessary alterations.In both cases, the decision of doing the minimum or nothingis accompanied by a recognition of the visible qualities of

Please cite this article as: Enia, M., Martella, F., Reducing architectuarchitecture. Frontiers of Architectural Research (2019), https://doi.

the site, such as the quiet elegance of Place León Aucoc, orrelational, such as the role of urban lung that could beplayed from the lot where Price works. Conservation is animportant goal in both cases. However, in Price's project,recognizing the intention to restore and reclaim an aban-doned place is also possible.

Several contemporary projects share a similar approach,addressing their intervention sites with a view to theconservation of their main qualities and the reactivationof their urban role. Urban spaces that are problematic orneglected can be restored through a few yet preciseactions. The Chinese studio Zao Standardarchitecture hasrecently built a series of public micro-architectures inBejing's Hutongs, ancient neighborhoods often demolishedto provide space to the modern city. Zao developed astrategy involving the regeneration of some of their court-yards by inserting collective facilities to counteract thetabula rasa and demonstrate that Hutongs could play animportant role even in 21st-century Beijing; this strategyaimed to attract people living outside and provide a reasonto stay for those still living in the site (Bayndrian, 2018).One of the studio's projects, namely, Microyuan’er(Figure 9), is located in a courtyard characterized by thepresence of an old ash tree. Zao built a 9m2 children'slibrary and a 6m2 mini-art space that the children couldalso use to climb trees, thereby converting this area into aplace of interaction between the locals, mainly elderlypeople, and the kids of a nearby school. In this case, suchas in Price's project for Manhattan, doing almost nothing isan attitude that allows protecting and reclaiming a placeand finding a balance between the need not to lose any ofits most important qualities and the need to performchanges that can improve its condition.

Conservation is not a primary objective of almost nothingstrategies, which serves the capability to present them-selves as meaningful spatial settings instead of dealing withplaces that have lost or never had. This phenomenon is thecase of the interventions of estonoesunsolar, which mainly

re: Doing almost nothing as a city-making strategy in 21st centuryorg/10.1016/j.foar.2019.01.006

Figure 10 Campo de la cebada, Madrid. El campo de lacebada, 2010. Photo by Zuloark.

Figure 11 Klong Toey Community Lantern, Bangkok. TYIN,2011. Photo by TYIN tegnestue.

7Doing almost nothing as a city-making strategy in 21st century architecture

operates in vacant lots in a state of neglect: their rehabi-litation and reuse are the main goals of the program. Theexperience of Campo de la Cebada in Madrid provides asimilar example of regeneration of an urban spot throughtiny and temporary actions (Figure 10). Campo de la Cebadais the name of a lot situated in the heart of the city. In 2006,the City Council decided to demolish the building that stoodin this lot to realize a sports complex in its place. However,when the economic crisis struck, the construction of a newbuilding had to be stopped after the demolition of the oldone. Therefore, the lot was converted into an unattractiveempty space opened in the very center of Madrid. Sincethen, the site had undergone a process of reclamationconducted by a collective of neighbors (El Campo de laCebada, 2011). The lot was restored through minimaloperations, thereby allowing the conversion of an unwel-coming place in one of the liveliest spots in the city. Some ofthese operations affected the lot boundaries. A low metalwall with white and blue colors was built along theperimeter whose inner faces were painted by street artists.Other operations concerned the design of urban furniture.The lot was filled with ephemeral objects of different sizesand formal complexities: flowerpots, benches, woodenpavilions, and canopies, whose mobile nature allowed theeasy change in space organization.

Reclaiming a site through minimal operations is a freedesign option in some cases. Architects can implementfurther action if they want to, but they believe that doingless is appropriate; this condition is the case of Price'sproject on Hudson River. By contrast, the decision of doingthe minimum occasionally finds its main justification in thenecessity to address a situation of scarcity. In such cases,the decision is not really an option because no realalternative is available. The decision is rather a way notto yield to difficult circumstances and attempts to realizethe changes that the place requires. A good example of thisattitude is the Community Lantern built by TYIN in KlongToey district in Bangkok (Figure 11). TYIN's intervention wasrealized in collaboration with the local community by usinga simple technology and cheap materials (TYIN, 2013). Avacant lot, whose only quality was to be an empty space in adense urban context, is converted by TYIN into a playgroundfor children through a few small and reversible modifica-tions. These modifications included the installation of twohoops for basketball; the construction of a wooden pavilionto provide the children with a place to sit, climb, and play;and the collocation of lights in the pavilion to illuminate the

Please cite this article as: Enia, M., Martella, F., Reducing architecturarchitecture. Frontiers of Architectural Research (2019), https://doi.o

site at night. Klong Toey Community Lantern recalls anancient approach to urban spaces, that is, through opera-tions conducted by the locals. Nowadays, several cities havecomplex and vast systems that require a strong top-downgovernance to properly function. Consequently, bottom-upinterventions are rare in these cities; local inhabitants mayhave the opportunity to operate in the spaces of their owncity directly only in particular circumstances. Although goodreasons are available for this situation, according to DeCarlo (1972), involving future users of space is sometimes agood strategy for creating spaces that are a representationof them and their aspirations. Interventions, such as that ofTYIN, attempt to humanize the city starting from itsinhabitants, becoming catalysts capable of capturing andreleasing the potential urban vitality of even unhappyplaces.

3.4. Urban acupuncture and coordination

Dealing with urban spaces through minimal operations,whether temporary or permanent and driven by the absenceor presence of scarcity, is an approach that falls within theparadigm of urban acupuncture. This approach can beconsidered a specific application of this paradigm, whichmay also involve operations that cannot be associated withthe strategy of doing almost nothing. The expression urbanacupuncture, which was coined in the 1980s in the contextof Barcelona's urban renewal, describes a particular way ofunderstanding the city and its actors (Sola Morales, 2008).Acupuncture involves working on some points of the skin toheal the entire body; similarly, urban acupunctureaddresses the entire city by conducting punctual interven-tions in strategic places. By considering the city as aninterconnected system whose parts depend on each other,urban acupuncture in sensitive locations involves the reali-zation of operations with effects that are beyond the placeof intervention. In a few years, expression had spread andwas used by authors, such as Jaime Lerner (2003), toindicate all small-scale actions capable of converting a cityinto a suitable place to live in. Urban acupuncture concernsthe city as a whole by considering domestic and open spacesand its collective and private sphere. However, this strategyis effectively applied by contemporary architecture in thepublic realm (Casanova and Hernández, 2014). A growing

e: Doing almost nothing as a city-making strategy in 21st centuryrg/10.1016/j.foar.2019.01.006

Figure 12 Espacios de Paz, Petaré, Caracas. Pico estudio,Todo por la Praxis, 2014. Photo by Pico Estudio.

Figure 13 Espacios de Paz, Pinto Salinas, Caracas. Oficinalúdica, PKMN arquitectos, 2014. Photo by Pico estudio.

M. Enia, F. Martella8

number of projects currently adopt the holistic approach ofurban acupuncture in public spaces, seeking to benefit theentire city through interventions in its collective areas.

Two major tactics can be identified in public acupunc-ture: isolation and coordination. Public acupuncture is anapproach that may unfold through a single intervention or acoordinated network of projects conducted in various loca-tions. Similar tactics are valid for acupuncture interventionscomprising minimal operations. These tactics occasionallywork only in a given place, similar to the cases of Klong ToeyCommunity Lantern and Campo de la Cebada. Sometimes,these tactics are part of a broad set of interventions.Coordination is often crucial in the implementation of thisstrategy because it amplifies the effects of individual works.Numerous small interventions eventually function as a singlemajor one if properly coordinated, allowing either toregenerate large urban areas or address a problem commonto various parts of the city. Coordinated urban acupunctureoften operates in the same city. This condition is the case ofthe estonoesunsolar program, which works on the system ofurban voids of Zaragoza, and of Microyuan’er, which is onlyone of several projects by Zao located in the Hutongs ofBeijing. However, urban acupuncture occasionally works invarious cities simultaneously; in this case, coordinationserves to address a problematic situation shared by placesof different surroundings successfully. In this respect, twogood examples are the Espacios de Paz (Spaces of Peace)and Home for All programs.

Espacios de Paz was a program held in 2014 and 2015aimed at regenerating public spaces in Venezuelan cities.Both editions resulted in the reclamation of five lots locatedacross the country. These lots were situated in contextslacking quality public spaces and variously affected bycrime, violence, and high school dropout rates. Meanwhile,a single office, namely, Pico Estudio, handled the overallcoordination of the program, and different architectsdesigned the projects. Common logic was found behindthe works as observed in the selection of the sites and thenature of interventions, which are simple and small. How-ever, coordination was especially evident in the generalprocedures, where participation played an important role:all the projects were the result of a six-week workshop opento locals (Griborio, 2015). In the Petaré neighborhood inCaracas, Pico Estudio and Todo por la Praxis (together withthe community) converted an abandoned house into apublic facility (Figure 12) (Todo por la praxis, 2014). Theroof of the building was transformed into an open-airbasketball court accessible by an external staircase. Theenvelope underwent several changes: the base was paintedin bright colors; in the middle floor where the house used tobe, the brick wall was replaced with glass panels; and alight metal structure was placed around this floor and thecourt, supporting a wire mesh. Another intervention inCaracas in Pinto Salinas involved the construction of a civiccenter in an empty and previously unused lot. Herein,Oficina Lúdica and PKMN Architectures rehabilitated anexisting small building and space all around (Figure 13)(Enormestudio, 2014). The design strategies were similar tothose applied in Petaré’s intervention. The outer walls ofthe building were painted brightly. In front of the building,the lot was filled with a modular metal platform coveredwith wooden planks. A canopy composed of a modular

Please cite this article as: Enia, M., Martella, F., Reducing architectuarchitecture. Frontiers of Architectural Research (2019), https://doi.

structure was also placed on this platform and designed toact as a source of shadow. Behind Espacios de Paz, deepconfidence can be recognized in the capability of architec-ture to improve, if not the entire society, at least the life ofa specific community. In this program, problematic socialsituations were addressed through the specific tools ofarchitecture considering that the creation of lacking spacesfor social life can be a major action. The idea is that anintelligent and carefully planned intervention in contextscan trigger wide social change.

Home for All, a program started by Toyo Ito in 2011 as aresponse to Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, followed asimilar approach. The purpose of this program was tocontrast the general lack of public facilities in the campsbuilt after the disaster by realizing small pavilions thatcould serve as civic centers (Ito, 2013). Therefore, con-sidering that public life is not a luxury but a sheer necessityin such circumstances, the program sought to improve thecondition of the earthquake victims. Public buildings do notcreate public life but can act as catalysts by providing aspace where social activities can occur. From 2011–2015,Home for All was able to build 14 pavilions in the camps all

re: Doing almost nothing as a city-making strategy in 21st centuryorg/10.1016/j.foar.2019.01.006

Figure 16 Home for all, Tsukihama beach. Nishizawa, Sejima,2014. Source: Nishizawa and Sejima (2015).

9Doing almost nothing as a city-making strategy in 21st century architecture

over the Tohoku region. All these pavilions were temporary,small, and simple partly because deadlines and resourcesdid not permit otherwise. This condition can be attributedto the call of sobriety in such situations. Toyo Ito was notthe only architect involved in the program. The participa-tion of Kazujo Sejima, Ryue Nishizawa, Sou Fujimoto, andKumiko Inui was also noted. Each architect, alone orcollaborating with others, designed one or more pavilionswith the participation of local communities.

The pavilions in Rikuzentakata (Figure 14) and in MiyatoIsland (Figure 15) (Figure 16) provided good examples of theinterventions of Home for All. The other interventions wereephemeral and deliberately low key. The pavilion in Riku-zentakata, which was designed by Kumiko Inui, Sou Fuji-moto, Akihisa Hirata, and Toyo Ito, comprised twoindependent formal structures. The center of the pavilionwas a white box composed of several stacked volumesrotated with respect to each other. A wooden structurecomprising trunks from trees taken down by the tsunamileaned against this central core (Worrell, 2013). The reuseof available materials is always a reasonable approach andhas a clear symbolic meaning. Building a civic center fromthe remains of the tsunami alluded to the desire of thecommunity to not surrender to the disaster and start allover again. The pavilions in Miyato Island were designed byKazujo Sejima and Ryue Nishizawa. The first one, which wassituated in the interior part of the island, comprised anelliptical metal roof sustained by 13 thin steel pillars,covering a semi-outdoor space and a living room open to

Figure 14 Home for all, Rikuzentakata. Fujimoto, Hirata,Inui, Ito, 2012. Source: Worrell (2013).

Figure 15 Home for all, Miyato island. Nishizawa, Sejima,2012. Source: Nishizawa and Sejima (2015).

Please cite this article as: Enia, M., Martella, F., Reducing architecturarchitecture. Frontiers of Architectural Research (2019), https://doi.o

public use. The second one, which was on the beach ofTsukihama, was a wood and steel portico facing the sea(Nishizawa and Sejima, 2015). A common room designed tooffer people a place to stay, cook, and spend time togetherwas placed under a wavy and corrugated roof. Home for Allconstitutes a special case of public space acupuncture.Urban acupuncture often identifies one or more sensitivepoints in the city and proceeds to reclamation. On thecontrary, in the case of Home for All, acupuncture focusedon the construction of these sensitive points. The final goalof the program was to perform small interventions to createpublic space, responding to a situation that had led to itsdisappearance.

4. Conclusions

Architecture is a discipline wherein circumstances play amajor role. No design strategy works in each situation. Thedecision on what to do and how much to do can only beeffective if it is based on a careful analysis of the interven-tion site. Doing more is sometimes more necessary thandoing less. Doing the minimum or almost nothing may alsobe occasionally proven to be necessary. In this sense,considering the possibility of minimum intervention issimply a demonstration of intelligence and common sense.This finding is evident in the urban realm, which is not onlya collection of buildings but rather a relational space wheresocial life and social meanings are key factors. A city iscreated not only by raising buildings but also by caring forthose spaces where life appears to flow peacefully.

Doing almost nothing can mean several things, fromopting for inaction, to realizing ephemeral transformations,to performing small interventions. This strategy introducespossibilities for design, proving especially usefulin situations where usual procedures do not work properly.In the present practice, this strategy provides an alternativeto tabula rasa. Although starting from zero may be the bestoption, in some cases, this approach may only lead tounnecessary changes that have no beneficial effect on thecity. Demonstrating the possibility of regenerating a placewith few yet accurate operations shows the potential of analternative way to deal with the city, which involvesprotecting spaces that appear fine and reactivating otherswithout disrupting them.

e: Doing almost nothing as a city-making strategy in 21st centuryrg/10.1016/j.foar.2019.01.006

M. Enia, F. Martella10

While providing an alternative to tabula rasa, thisstrategy offers a way of operating in situations wherescarcity or problematic circumstances prevent majorchanges and doing the minimum is the only option. In suchcases, doing almost nothing is the most proactive approach.Thus, a complex situation can be addressed actively byattempting to perform an intervention that can benefit thesurroundings and locals despite all the difficulties. Doingalmost nothing is therefore not a passive attitude and onlyinvolves observing a place and remaining inactive. Observa-tion plays an important role in this strategy but alsodemands considerable tactical and creative thinking. Farfrom being simple, observation is an approach that requiresvision and remarkable spatial skills. Jane Jacobs (1958)stated that designing a dream city is easy, whereas rebuild-ing a living one requires imagination.

References

Alberti, L.B., 1988. On the Art of Building in Ten Books. The MITPress, Cambridge, 1485 (Original work published).

Asato, A., 2018. Pavilions as Urban Placemakers: temporary Archi-tecture and Community Engagement. University Honors Theses.

Aureli, P.V., 2013. Less is Enough: on Architecture and Ascetism.Strelka Press, Moscow.

Bayndrian, J., 2018. Big Messy Courtyard: Micro Yuan’er. Assem.Pap. 9, 35–41.

Bishop, P., Williams, L., 2012. The Temporary City. Routledge,London.

Burdett, R., Sudjic, D., 2007. The Endless City. Phaidon Press,London.

Casanova, H., Hernández, J., 2014. Public Space Acupuncture.Strategies and Interventions for Activating City Life. ActarPublisher, New York.

Chi, T.N., 2003. Introduction to microurbanism. Archit. Des. 73 (5),16–21.

Clark, D., 1998. Interdependent Urbanization in an Urban World: anHistorical Overview. Geogr. J. 164 (1), 85–95.

De Carlo, G., 1972. An Architecture of Participation. Royal Aus-tralian Institute of Architects, Melbourne.

De Roode, I., Lefaivre, L., 2002. Aldo van Eyck: the Playgrounds andthe City. Nai Publishers, Rotterdam.

Please cite this article as: Enia, M., Martella, F., Reducing architectuarchitecture. Frontiers of Architectural Research (2019), https://doi.

Di Monte P. and Grávalos, I., 2009. La alfombra verde de San Blas94-100.

El Campo de la Cebada, 2011. El Campo de la Cebada. A+T, 38.pp. 162–167.

Enormestudio, 2014. Las 3 Marías Pinto Salinas. 20 projects, Spain.Garcia German, J., 2012. Estrategias operativas en arquitectura,

Nobuko; Buenos Aires.Griborio, A., 2015. Espacios de paz. Arquine, Spain.Gunwoo, K., 2016. The public value of urban vacant land: social

responses and ecological value. Sustainability 8 (5), 486.Isozaki, A., 2003. Erasing architecture into the system. In: Obrist,

H.U. (Ed.), Re: CP. Birkhauser, Basel, pp. 25–52.Ito, T., 2013. Architecture. possible here? Home for all. Lotus 152,

10–13.Jacobs, J., 1958. Downtown is for people. Fortune 57, 157–184.Kuma, K., 2015. Small Architecture. AA publications, London.Lacaton, A., 2003. We don’t much believe in form. Oris 24, 108–131.Lacaton, A., Vassal, J.P., 2003. Place Léon Aucoc. 2G, 21, 30-31.Lepik, A., 2010. Small Scale Big Change: New Architectures of Social

Engagement. Museum of Modern Art, New York.Lerner, J., 2003. Acupuntura urbana. IAAC, Barcelona.Lydon, M., García, A., 2015. Tactical Urbanism: Short-term Action

for Long-term Change. Island Press, Washington.Mertins D., Modernity Unbound, 2011, AA publications; London

event space. In: Mertins, D. (Ed).Nishizawa, R., Sejima, K., 2015. Home for all: Miyatojima + Tsuki

Hama. El Croquis 179–180, 92–99.n’UNDO, 2017. Desde la resta, dpr-barcelona, Barcelona.Quetglas, J., 1999. Pasado a limpio II. Editorial Pre-textos, Girona.Savi, V., Montaner, J., 1996. Less is More. Col.legid’Arquitectes de

Catalunya e Actar, Barcelona.Sola Morales, M., 2008. De cosas urbanas. Editorial Gustavo Gili,

Barcelona.Tardiveau, A., Mallo, D., 2014. Unpacking and challenging habitus:

an approach to temporary urbanism as a socially engagedpractice. J. Urban Des. 19 (4), 456–472.

Todo por la praxis, 2014. La Ye Petare. (⟨https://todoporlapraxis.es/065-la-ye-petare/⟩). (accessed January 2019).

Tournikiotis, P., 1999. The Historiography of Modern Architecture.The MIT Press, Cambridge.

TYIN, 2013. Klong Toey Community Lantern. A+U, 509, 30-37.Walker, E., 2010. Lo ordinario. Ediorial Gustavo Gili, Barcelona.Wigley, M., 2005. Towards a history of quantity28–32.Worrell, J., 2013. Rebuilding communities. Domus 969, 66–75.

re: Doing almost nothing as a city-making strategy in 21st centuryorg/10.1016/j.foar.2019.01.006