original in japanese from space design 2007, pages 106-112)

architecture that is born from landscape:
dialogue between Junya ishigami, go hasegawa, and yoshiharu tsukamoto

looking for distance with the city

tsukamoto: i would like to raise the question: when you design in tokyo, which part of architecture do you focus on? ishigami-san always makes architecture extremely small with buffer zones in it and with clumps of trees as in a forest. in tokyo you see large trees around small shinto shrines or you see trees growing in gaps between buildings, which nobody notices until they grow over roofs. even in the city, you can feel the kind of energy from plants. that kind of experience in tokyo and ishigami’s way of having distance from architecture, have something in common. on another hand, ishigami-san never uses ‘alley’ or ‘gap’ to explain his projects. do you intentionally do that?

ishigami: i don’t always try to make buildings small, but it just happened to be like this. how to relate architecture and environment and also ‘outside environment’ interests me more. so my intention is to start from outside to inside. the space around the small building is not a buffer zone, but rather the whole site or surrounding environment itself is an outside that becomes a part of inside. the house in tsukishima might be the easiest example to see this interest. In t Project, i try to make the outside and the inside vague. in the house in tsukuba, i try to treat the farthest part as a ‘weekend house’ (or second house). that part is ‘outside’ space that is brought ‘inside’ architecture.

tsukamoto: then having this distance towards the surrounding condition is the answer to my question, isn’t it?

ishigami: i think so. distance is still important, but in tokyo what i am most concerned with is what ‘outside’ environment should be. It is obviously different from european cities and has variations in scale. outside space of tokyo ranges from the very large to very small. because of this, to be very small naturally becomes a part of it.

tsukamoto: hasegawa’s house in karuizawa is not in the urban city, but when you design, how would you answer the same question?

hasegawa: paris, for example, has a very clear structure and it is a very beautiful city when you look at it from the window. in comparison, residential areas in japan not only tokyo, has a randomness in how houses are — what has been called ‘bad landscape.’ because of different urban structures, the landscape is completely different. in a city like paris, architecture is a part of its strong structure, you see the city from its architecture, but in tokyo, it is not always like that. sometimes city and architecture are equal or juxtaposed. this character is sometimes important when we design in tokyo. it should not be treated simply as a problem of architecture ‘outline’, but should be treated as deeper structure or ‘inside’ of architecture. then the relationship with the city will be changed, i think.

tsukamoto: this way of thinking about how architecture relates to a city is the same principle that you bring into your own way of making architecture. if one thinks: this side is ‘house’ and over there is ‘city’, then it is going to be something else. Is this what you mean?

hasegawa: yes it is. then even when you are in a house, you can experience ‘city’ or you can feel closer to the city. the way of thinking about interiors in tokyo could be slightly different from paris, i think.

is there a difference between building in the city and building in the mountain?

tsukamoto: there are one million individual houses in tokyo, and what could it mean to make one more new one in it? It is almost meaningless as social phenomenon but as an architect, we somehow make a strategy and achieve some meaning out of it. what do you think of this?

ishigami: for me, in tokyo or Japan, how much architecture and the city are related is difficult to define. if i think of the possibility of building in various places randomly, taking it as a landscape feels right. there are mountains and valleys, rivers and forests. however everything balances each other in an undefined system. this is constantly being updated and nothing has to be this or that. but if you think about it, it doesn’t mean much if it is large or small.

tsukamoto: that means the size of the architecture is not necessarily an issue, doesn’t it? my question might not be clear, but for large buildings, context such as economic development or client’s position in society or the extent of publicness of the building, are equally important. but tokyo has a vague context and that also means it is wide open. therefore, i think focussing on context is meaningful. on another hand, when you build in an extremely cold place or desert, the function that a building has to be equipped with is quite severe so that context is clear and simple.

ishigami: i agree. What is necessary to consider for large buildings might not have to be considered in small ones. small buildings that tsukamoto-san calls in this sense doesn’t affect surroundings and doesn’t get affected. But I’m also interested in small spaces that are influential and i would like to think about it very well. building small buildings in a place like tokyo means responding to changes. the urban structures in europe do not change over hundreds of years. but in tokyo, change is common and its change itself is the balance the city has. and creating by responding to it is meaningful. on another hand, large-scale developments are demolishing its flow and changing its speed. In such a circumstance, making architecture that has an influence means repeating extreme experiments even if it is small. It changes the city without ruining its natural flow.

the house should be a ‘weekend house’ (or second house)

tsukamoto: a small building is vague and also free the way it is to be digested or accepted in a society. in tokyo, the weather is not extremely cold or extremely hot and there is no extremely beautiful natural landscape. there seem to be a lot conditions but in fact they are weak. one creates a story then connect something from this narrative. ishigami-san’s drawings or presentation have a story and character. what kind of context can realise the stories?

ishigami: i express the moment architecture becomes architecture by my drawings and presentation rather than try to complete a story out of context. on the other hand, there is a danger that it cannot be realised as architecture, if ’situation’ is not something that you can show in your drawing. Its sensitivity pursues a new lightness in architecture and it might free space. in my earlier lecture, what i mean by “house in tokyo should be a weekend house” comes out of this concern.

tsukamoto: the part that ishigami-san is concerned with by claiming that the “house should be a weekend house,” is social context. if it is expanded, this kind of life, this kind of scene or this kind of relationship with neighbours, will be created. and if these are dragged to articulate the way this extremeness and naturalness coexist together, then it is poetic and people can feel the story. forty years ago, in the 1960s bubble economy, the social situation was not like that. but now, both parents work, they may not have kids, and they only stay at home on weekends. also, they cannot build large buildings, so weekend houses could become an option. there is a context in such sense.

ishigami: yes, living in or making a house has been changing. For example the ldk system or bathroom or kitchen this kind of functional composition becomes vague. conventional houses start to disappear and therefore i mentioned the weekend house. living itself is questioned and there are more possibilities for houses. so the landscape of residential areas will necessarily change.