Nothing is more permanent than the temporary

wbw What fascinates you about temporary architecture?

Leonid Slonimskiy In a way, all architecture is temporary, isn't it? It's just a term used to describe the fact that some buildings last longer than others. The beauty of architecture that we describe as temporary is that it enters into a less violent and lasting relationship with its context. And people perceive it very differently. I first experienced this as an architecture student in Moscow. At that time, there was a corrugated iron construction fence in the city center: 700 meters long, 17 meters high. It stood there for seven years and no one really noticed it. How can it be that a structure of this size remains invisible just because it is declared temporary?

Dafni Retzepi I agree with Leonid that all architecture is temporary. It is this temporality that interests us greatly for our work. An example is a workshop that Philippe and I led in Ukrainian city Slavutych in 2021. This city is structured around an extremely large square which gets very warm and uncomfortable during summer. We were looking for ways of altering the qualities of this space, so we asked the fire department to temporarily flood the square. This action produced a surreal moment of gathering within a usually empty space. Both the inhabitants and the participants of the workshop showed up in their swimsuits and participated in this brief moment of celebration provoked by water. Of course, we could have alternatively built something temporary, a wooden pavilion for example. But it seems that a perishable material, water, was more than enough to leave a great impact. We are interested in simple actions that can lead to complex outcomes.

Philippe Buchs In this example, at first, we didn't know what effect our idea would have on Slavutych. The intervention instantly changed the space and the way people use it, creating a new possibility, a completely new narrative for this very banal space. This is why we consider it as an architectural project, even though it disappeared a few minutes after its creation.

wbw So the advantage of temporary architecture is that it can be implemented very quickly and changes something immediately?

Slonimskiy Yes, a new building takes five to seven years to construct. And once it is finished, its function often has to be rethought due to changing standards or requirements. An architecture that is less rigid and can adapt would be better. Temporary architecture solves problems spontaneously and disappears again when it is no longer needed. It’s interesting that such structures sometimes remain standing for years and become icons. Take the Freitag Tower in Zurich, for example, a temporary, simple structure made from reused shipping containers. And yet I can imagine that it will soon be listed as a historic monument. That would be almost ironic.

wbw How does the planning of temporary structures differ from that of permanent buildings?

Buchs We often benefit from the inefficiency of large projects. When they are blocked or progress slowly, we try to use these transitional phases for quick, temporary projects such as Ex materia. In took place in Geneva, within a former public auction house, that is planned to be demolished since 2012, in order to make way for two residential towers. The project has been at a standstill for almost ten years. In this context, we were asked by its interim inhabitants to give a lecture on the question of demolition or preservation. Instead of a frontal presentation, we initiated a collective action with the visitors. We took interior pieces of the building, carried them outside, cut open the fence to the overgrown garden of the building, and positioned them outside. This action immediately created a new type of public space and shifting the focus on the potential of emptiness.

wbw What can be learned from such temporary architecture for permanent buildings?

Retzepi We try to provoke appropriation with our actions. That is certainly something that can be transferred to permanent buildings. An example for this could be the vertical extension of the school of Fine Arts (HEAD) in Geneva. When we visit the building we are always amazed by how the students use it. The question is how can you design a space that is permanent, and yet can respond to change? I find this programmatic responsibility rather important.

Slonimskiy We tried this together in Geneva. A competition was announced there for a tower for the university administration. We responded to the city: With the SRF tower you already have a empty tower, so let's just continue to use it and let the administration move in there. Unfortunately, we didn't win with this proposal. So the new tower will be built.

Buchs As far as I know, the city has since purchased the old tower and is making it available to the university.

wbw Did your engagement with temporary structures help you to think about such tasks differently?

Slonimskiy It's a question of attitude. Whether it's the temporary use of a space or a major competition, the logic is the same. We have to learn to reprogram existing structures. This involves reusing entire spaces, allowing for different interpretations, but also considering the materials of a building. One of our main tasks as architects in the future will be to curate space and materials.

wbw It sounds as if the uses associated with temporary architecture are almost more important than the buildings themselves?

Slonimskiy Both are important. I find the idea of building with the thought that this building will be dismantled and reused in the future, as often with temporary buildings is the case, very interesting. It is ecological by nature. But only when a building can change with society is it truly sustainable.

Buchs We are interested in spaces that can accommodate change. We always try to give our buildings a certain generosity, because we know that both users and use will change. It is possible to design a building in such a way so that it can evolve in the future. This does not necessarily mean the genericness of hyper-flexibility, but rather thinking carefully about how one thing can serve at the same time in more than one purpose.

wbw The construction has to be more durable in order to be temporarily usable? That sounds paradoxical.

Slonimskiy It is. We played with this idea when designing a for pavilion in Barcelona with Parabase. We explored the potential for reusing existing materials and deliberately designed with elements that are considered very durable or even "eternal." These included a piece of demolished tunnel, disused stone sculptures, and concrete blocks.

wbw These are unusual materials for a pavilion.

Slonimskiy There is this idea that temporary architecture consists of delicate constructions made of rods and curtains, somewhere in a field. This has almost become established as the idea of its aesthetics. We want to break away from this cliché and show that even a massive piece of concrete can serve a different, temporary purpose.

wbw Nevertheless, the fascination with this very light aesthetic persists. Leonid, you also address this in your book Temporary Tecture, where you present scaffolding, for example, as a contemporary form of vernacular architecture.

Slonimskiy That's right, the starting point for this book was initially a visual fascination. Then we realized that there was no intention of beauty behind these constructions. They were developed with the aim of saving materials, money, and time. The objects we examine—scaffolding, construction sites, or barriers—can be dismantled and are made from materials available in the region. The root of this aesthetic is therefore always the desire to be extremely pragmatic. And yet, things emerge that can be compared to the architecture of Mies, Boullée, or Bruther, even though they were implemented without any consideration for design or proportion. Our visual fascination quickly gave way to an understanding of a serious logic that is rational, dry, very economical, and ecological. For us, that was quite a discovery.

Retzepi It also has to do with looking beyond the architectural catalog.

Buchs Exactly, when designing it can be very interesting to repurpose things that are not made for architecture. If a window supplier cannot deliver a certain product, we just have to look elsewhere and find it in industrial products or buildings that are being demolished.

wbw Is it easier such to test ideas in temporary installations?

Slonimskiy Absolutely, festivals such as Concéntrico in Logroño are laboratories of architecture. They offer the opportunity to break away from the conventional canon of materials. We constructed that we our off-season pavilion from jaulones borrowed from a local wine shop. These metal crates hold hundreds of wine bottles for half the year in the cellars of the bodegas, and stand empty for the other half. Luckily for us, this coincides with the festival period. They are made of high-quality steel, can carry enormous loads, and are anodized black or silver for corrosion protection—properties that are ideal for architecture. Without the time constraints of the festival, the project would never have been possible. And if we had used structural steel it would have cost a lot more. Such strategies of alternative, seasonal use also help to save money.

Buchs The question of costs is indeed very important. We often work on projects with a small budget. It is common hear from companies: "For that amount, you can only get this and that," which could make us scale down our expectations. But we try to think the opposite: we have a certain amount available, and we want to do this and that with it, so let's find a way.

wbw Does this strategy also work for conventional, permanent uses? Or does the temporary architecture method have its limits?

Buchs We naturally try to apply these freedoms to every project. For us, the gestures of temporary construction form a vocabulary that is entirely architectural and transferable to any scale. This way of thinking and acting proved very successful in the Porteous project. The canton of Geneva promised to convert one of its former water treatment plants into a socio-cultural center. Unfortunately, nothing happened for a long time. So, together with the squatters, we took it upon ourselves to submit a building permit application. Interestingly, the canton issued us a permit to convert a building it owned, even though we had not been commissioned to do so. We are now gradually transforming the plant into a permeable house with different climate zones using simple construction methods—stairs, handrails, movable walls.

Retzepi If we go back to the question in a more abstract level, sometimes it almost seems as if we are discussing temporary architecture as a separate category of the discipline. I wouldn't make that distinction. I wouldn't say that one or the other is easy or difficult, more or less important. What I think is that we open up possibilities by experimenting. We cultivate ways of thinking. We learn how to open doors in all scales.

Slonimskiy I agree. I find the idea of considering whether a building forduring its construction to will remain standing 5 or 50 years be interesting. In China, 50 skyscrapers were recently demolished before they were even completed or ever use put into. In contrast, there are temporary pavilions that are still standing later decades. Sometimes we say that there nothing is more permanent than the temporary: a small element such as a brick, for example, holds open to a door and then remains in the building forever. – Leonid Slonimskiy (Kosmos Architects, Zurich), Philippe Buchs, and Dafni Retzepi (Sujets Objets, Geneva) in conversation with Jasmin Kunst and Christoph Ramisch