Space for the soul

Professor Rainer Mahlamäki, co-founder of the firm Lahdelma & Mahlamäki Architects: Of course, we carry our history and experience in our minds and I am no exception to that rule. That is maybe something of an over-simplification, but the characteristic feature of Scandinavian style is the rejection of very hi-tech architecture. We rely on the impact of the architectural space, the use of materials and handmade sketches, and strive to create space in as simple a way as possible. However, in this particular building the free-form shape makes it a little bit more complicated. But even with this the nature of the building is still quite simple: I trusted to the scale of it. One of course has to take into account the site in the sense of its physical dimensions and the size needed for the building. This new building, for instance, exists in a good balance with its surroundings. But on another level one must also consider what its genius loci is – the spirit of the site. How to read this, to appreciate its past, the history of the site, which is of course very, very special in this case – because it is actually a sacred site in many ways. And in my opinion you need to understand that this is also the very essence of the ideology behind this particular building.

Most of your projects have been developed in Finland. What made you venture out of your country?
It just happened. We came across the competition in an online architectural magazine. Our history is based on winning entries in architectural competitions. Since the nineties we have taken part in architectural competitions across Europe many times. Before the museum were working in Holland on a single large-scale housing project. So we decided to participate in this special contest because it sounded interesting. The Warsaw Ghetto is just two words, but each was appealing to me. Besides, I had never been to Warsaw before. I had never even been to Poland.

You have called this a “sacred place”, but frankly speaking you could also describe it as an “ugly place”, because except for the park, which is rather pocket-sized, all the other buildings around are post-communist blocks built without much care for their aesthetic effects.
Well, this is true. But another aspect is that the square was the core of the Warsaw Ghetto. People were transported to the concentration camps from this place. This is a historical fact and is the truth about this place, so in a sense it is like a cemetery. One of the functions of these buildings is to confront us with the history of the place and remind us of the tragic events that took place here. And this was why the museum building should, in my opinion, be as silent as possible. It remains my feeling about it.

Ok. So let me put this in a different way: was it a challenge for you to have this specific place as a setting for the project because of its dubious aesthetics?
It depends. Now, for example, it is spring when the trees are green. When the sun is shining on the park, at this time of year the museum is actually in a really nice location. It is a warm pocket in the middle of the city. Having said that, the surrounding buildings are ugly – well, that is actually too strong a word for me, I think. These buildings simply constitute rather big frames, in the sense that they are framing the park and creating a space, a large space within the city. Given that they are perhaps not very interesting in terms of their architecture, they are still interesting when it comes to their history, because all of them were built after the war. This reflects the history of Warsaw, which had to be rebuilt. The task required of us was that we would somehow create a new identity for this place. Although we have employed rather simple means, because the museum is basically just a building with four corners along with perhaps the free-shaped space of the hall, which can also be seen in many other buildings, I think it has its own character, its own identity. To me this building is a kind of a monument, like a memorial. The propitious shape of this building is also a very modern sculpture.

It may be a monument, but it is also a public building. Some say that it is not one that is particularly easy to use and that it is lacking some functions. For example, there is no library…
Actually, today we do not know where the library will be located. I remember well where it was originally going to be, but our thinking about this building is still evolving. We are still considering the final location of all of these functions. And, of course, because the building is still without furniture many details are still to be worked out. For instance, just now we are doing the planning for the installation of the glass panels displaying information for the visitors. We will take out all the ceilings in the hall, remove the hanged railing system, and then we can install the panels. So things are still under development.

The main hall is impressive, but not very easy to use because it has a very irregular shape. It’s hard to fit everyone in each time an event is held there.
Yes, that is true, but we have to consider two things. One, of course, is how to utilise different facilities and areas as effectively as possible; but another is that this is a space that is meant to touch the human soul, and it not just all about using it for various events. Having said that, I would actually not allow such events here. All the office components are to be removed from the lobby, too. This is a sacred empty space, like the Sistine Chapel. Here you should be able to hear the echo of your own voice.

So must utility make way for mysticism?
As architects we have to remember that we are not only the creators of awe-inspiring space. Of course, we have to consider the functionality as well. But people should also understand that they have to limit their own activities, because every building has such limits and they have to consider and accept that fact.

But should this building not simply be bigger in that case, to have more storage room, more offices, and just to make everything larger?
Yes. That is one possibility, but this museum has 18,000 sqm of space and is actually quite a large building already.

You participated in a discussion about cities of the future during the recent Warsaw Days conference organised by the Polish Association of Developers. Where in your opinion is Warsaw now heading in terms of its development?
I don’t have any obvious answer to that question. Warsaw was destroyed during the last war and its main streets have since been rebuilt. Some of the city’s important thoroughfares begin in the Old Town, with Krakowskie Przedmieście being a very good example of a very special place on a European scale. This street is not like a street – but it is not a square either. It is like a very long square – a very interesting space. It has the spirit of a European city, having all its surfaces, benches and lamps in a good condition. And there is still some rawness and robustness existing in this town. I don’t know how that might be exploited in the future because normally investors do not concern themselves with these kinds of considerations, but I hope that Warsaw will discover and embrace more of its roots and history, because it is still there to be found. If you go down the road of building more skyscrapers, I would have to give up on answering this question, because it is always difficult for architects to create high rise buildings. And at the same time they are so very common, so that I very much prefer the old Palace of Culture to them. This is also part of the history of Warsaw, even though it represents the Soviet area. Warsaw is a big city, it will be very important in terms of tourism. This means that you will have to build more and more interesting public buildings. You will have to draw more people in, for example, by constructing museums. I think the next museums you build here will be very, very important.

So do you think there is something wrong with the office projects that are now so common in Warsaw?
I would say they are neither wrong nor ugly, but an important thing to remember is that they don’t draw people to the city. This is only business space and is built all the time. You cannot really combine the idea of a good city for pedestrians with that of a business city. These are two different things. A business city empties when people leave it after work. I definitely prefer smaller buildings.

Where do you place the Museum of the History of Polish Jews among your other projects?
Well, this has been the most important of all my projects. There are many reasons for this, one of them being that it is a very significant public building – and a big one as well. It is also an interesting type of a building. Now of course we hope that in the future we will be designing another building of this kind, another interesting museum.

Are you going to carry out more projects in Poland?
I don’t know. Business is not really my specialty, but if there are customers interested in my services, then of course they are welcome. I always pick up my phone.

This project is three times more expensive than the initial projections: over PLN 300 mln instead of PLN 80–100 mln. Why?
There has been a lot of confusion in the media about the costs. At first the investors announced that it would cost PLN 80 mln. But when we submitted our competition entry it also included our cost calculations, which stated that the normal standard price would be PLN 160 mln for the construction alone. Indeed, the city signed a contract with the general contractor Polimex for this amount of money. But when you also include the exhibition, the cost then rises to PLN 300 mln.

What else would you have done if you had had an absolutely free hand when designing this project?
If you want to be a good architect, you have to think about your client’s budget too. However, a certain modesty of approach can lead to more interesting and impressive architecture. As I said I’m not so fond of hi-tech architecture anyway. I prefer hand-made details and techniques, and these mean lower costs – at least in Poland. But what would I have done if I had had unlimited resources? Maybe I would have added some technical systems, such as gas systems instead of sprinklers, or maybe a fully concreted curved wall system instead of the one in steel and concrete we have right now. Who knows? But still, I find it pointless asking myself such questions after nine years of work on a project.

designing for culture and nature
Rainer Mahlamäki (born 1956) is one of Finland’s most renowned and prolific architects. He is a founding partner of the Lahdelma & Mahlamäki Architects studio, a professor of contemporary architecture at the University of Oulu and the president of the Finnish Association of Architects SAFA (2007–2011). He graduated from the Tampere University of Technology in 1986 and the same year he became a partner and managing director of 8 Studio architects. Between 1992 and 1997 he was a partner of the Kaira-Lahdelma-Mahlamäki Architecture studio, and from 2002 until 2006 was chairman of the board of the Museum of the Finnish Architecture. He has received many awards, including the Finland Prize of the Ministry of Education in 2008 (together with Ilmari Lahdelma) and the Architectural Arts Suomi-Award (with Ilmari Lahdelma and Mikko Kaira) in 1997. His works include the Rauma Library (2003), Lohja City Library (2005), the Lusto Finnish Forest Museum in Punkaharju (1994/2005), the Folk Arts Centre in Kaustinen (1997), an office and services centre for the visually impaired in Helsinki (2004), and the Haltia Finnish Nature Centre in Espoo (2013).