Nabil ROUBAI CHORFI

advisor

https://www.univ-mosta.dz/

algeria

Architect and PhD Lecturer. Vice-Dean of studies and student affairs - Faculty of science and… more

Dear Alena,
I read your review very carefully and I discovered your project pleasantly, which is very inspiring from the outset. It encourages reflection and the desire to perfect a job that is already quite successful. This is why I am giving you this little report of my impressions, hoping that it will be useful to you.

The question is to revive the space and not the function of this building, cannot there be confusion? Can the dimension of the sacred subsist and take on another aspect despite the disappearance of the religious practice related to it?
I think the choice of the concert hall is wise in this case, as long as the space and atmosphere it supports are adequate.
The choice of "devisualization" seems to me to want to respond to this, by keeping the intervention in the background of the existing, thus trying to keep the (mystical?) Trace of the original building. But there, I think that many would see it as too much erasure on your part.
Your project is linked to a theme that I discussed with students in graduation projects and is that of updating heritage through contemporary architecture. This is a solution to the conservation-creation polarity that we discovered thanks to the work of Alexandra Georgescu Paquin (I put the reference in French, I hope you will find material in the language of your studies: https://www.puq.ca/catalogue/livres/actualiser-patrimoine-par-architecture-contemporaine-2778.html).
The examples studied for this phenomenon remind me of your project: The CaixaForum center in Barcelona (Arata Isozaki), the Reina Sofía National Art Center in Madrid (Jean Nouvel), and the Roman Theater Museum in Cartagena (Rafael Moneo). Paquin quotes many others.

The expression of your structuring idea does not suffer from any theoretical weakness, however, I would recommend tempering this "absence approach" in the projection phase. Generally, I recommend that my students come back iteratively to the user, to "his" presence, and to his evolution in the space that we are setting up for him.
Even if the enthusiasm of the project pushes us to explore the theoretical paths and the constructions of complex ideas, it is necessary at a time to return to the human dimension by taking charge of the “reception” of the information: how the user will adapt to space? Did we manage the project scale?

For this purpose, I usually recommend dwelling on the cuts; they represent - in my opinion - the best indicator of the complexity and the success of the project. However, the only cut you offer does not provide a distinct reading of moods.
Another indicator that may seem trivial to you but of which I consider the informational dimension (since it is my specialty!), It is the treatment of your views with a sky in the same tones as the building and which tends to confuse the reading. . As if we should not distinguish the original building from your intervention and the general environment.
Do we have to make out some sort of gallery upstairs? overlooking the concert hall?
If so, a sort of triforium (I'm giving this an anachronistic reference!), It is too little assertive because of the excess of transparency. Can you try replacing the glass railings with copper plates and see if that doesn't overwhelm the view while giving more "presence" to your architectural gesture.

Because you have a gesture, a personal touch, it is very interesting and it would be a shame not to say it more.

Thank you for your detailed response, we really apreciate it!