Reykjavík Grapevine - 06.05.2011, Blaðsíða 17

17
The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 5 — 2011
rating with them on the façades of the
building and submitting this joint proj-
ect in the competition, I was quite ex-
cited—it meant realising a longstanding
ambition of mine. Firstly because it was
a project in Iceland, and also because
it was during the very early stages of
the process, which meant I might have
some influence on the project and how
it would develop.
As far as I remember, the concert
house is the result of a discussion
that has spanned decades, and at the
time of the competition
phase—when I entered
the discourse—the
feeling was still
that this was
supposed to
be a concert
house, a cul-
mination of
ambi t ions
and plans
that went back
a long time and
seemed important.
When I first met with
the architects in Co-
penhagen, they not only
presented me with their
ideas about the building, but they also
explained its significant role in the his-
tory of music in Iceland and that there
had been all these attempts to gener-
ate a concert hall. The design team was
very much working with the idea that
the local musical culture was at the
core of the design.
The successful Danish architectural
offices have a tradition of working with
cultural or public institutions in a way
where public opinion and history play
a role. I guess this is a Scandinavian
thing. So the research and groundwork
done by Henning Larsen Architects
wasn’t your typical corporate or com-
mercial research. The firm works with
infrastructure and integration with city
planning; they consider public access,
public impressions and public use.
So the design of Harpa was very
much about creating a public cul-
tural institution—to meet the long-
standing demand of Icelanders for a
concert hall that the public could enjoy
and appreciate as its own.
A SHIFT IN FOCUS, AND AN-
OTHER
Can you describe the process?
When my studio team and I got in-
volved with the team of architects, it
was already quite a complex situation.
There was a private entity at the helm
of the project [Björgólfur Thor’s Portus
Group—see page 8], which was guid-
ed by a public entity
[Austurhöfn-TR—an
enterprise company
owned by the
City of Reyk-
javík and the
I c e l a n d i c
State]. Es-
sent ial ly
the build-
ing was to
be made by
a commercial
company work-
ing under the di-
rection of a public
company, with the
public company com-
mitted to renting the building for thirty
years; should the commercial company
not succeed in running it, there was a
clause that the public company could
take it over. A seemingly risk-free in-
vestment; one mainly sees these pub-
lic/private partnerships in England, and
they mainly entail the private company
coming up with a management model
that will render a building or institution
profitable.
But obviously the private entity
pushed for us to use more commercial
building materials, for instance, opting
for items that would increase the com-
mercial potential. Portus were less in-
terested in the cultural aspects of Har-
pa, so there was a strong focus in that
period on optimising and detailing the
commercial parts of the building, the
conference centre aspect, whereas the
cultural aspects—the music part, the
public cultural institution part, where
it all started—were toned down. Dur-
ing that time there was strong pressure
to create something with a very sound
business plan. This steered a number
of design decisions, the insides of the
building were optimised for its com-
mercial potential.
So in the beginning stages, during
the competition process, there was a
strong focus on it being a music hall
with a conference centre on the side,
but it very quickly became a conference
centre with some music on the side.
Was this shift on focus
frustrating?
I think one of the benefits of being an
artist, and this might come across as
a bit arrogant, is that I can refuse to
compromise my work. Nobody wants
to compromise a work of art; nobody
wants a painting where the foreground
is painted for ‘business reasons’.
ENTER THE CRISIS
However, we hadn’t really come that
far when the crisis started. Most of the
crucial aspects of the interior, its build-
ing materials and all the details were
still mostly undecided when it hit. The
architects had to take a lot of things
back to the drawing board, and my im-
pression was that they were very happy
to do this, to be able to redraw with a
focus on creating a stronger cultural
signature, while of course maintain-
ing commercial efficiency to an extent.
The crisis shifted Harpa’s focus back
towards its original purpose. Building
materials were changed and a lot of
new design decisions were made to cut
budgets and save money. I think we got
out of it a more honest and straightfor-
ward concert hall.
Maybe it was also better to get a sec-
ond chance to look at the plans. Things
became simpler. They were scaled back
to their most basic element, away from
the ambitions that had led the project in
a different direction. The private inves-
tors had wanted something that would
stand out and were applying a lot of
pressure to—how should I say this—fol-
low an international style of ‘noveau
riche good taste’. They didn’t want it to
be too contemporary, they wanted neu-
tral and accepted ‘current’ styles. This
was at least my impression.
I believe that the architects were
also happy that we could simplify the
language. We got a better building out
of it. For example, we redesigned some
handrails so that they were left pretty
raw, not sandblasted and painted over.
I think this is refreshing and much more
in sync with what Iceland is today.
The main point is to underline that
after the crisis the focus was once
again shifted to coming up with a build-
ing that was both a cultural institution
and a conference centre, with strong
statements on each side and equal at-
tention paid to the details. Then the Ice-
landic Opera was added to the project,
which I feel was a huge success.
You’re talking a lot about the
interior design. It was my under-
standing that you only worked
on the building’s exterior... did
the architect team consult you
for the interiors as well?
No, I wasn’t involved with the inside of
the building at all. I asked to have the
walls darker in colour and for them to
use a darker concrete. I also lobbied
pretty hard against the foyer having
parquet floors, which the architects
and I were strongly against. We dis-
cussed the interiors many times, but
they were not part of my task. My job
was the façade.
THEY ALL THOUGHT WE WERE
OUT OF OUR MINDS
Did you change the façade plans
in any way?
I worked very hard on cutting the bud-
get on my part, even though it had al-
ready been negotiated and contracted
by that time.
Using Chinese contractors for the
south façade wasn’t just a pricing is-
sue—it was the question of finding a
company that would actually attempt
to build it. Frankly, there was no one
else who wanted to even try to do the
façade; they all thought we were out of
our minds.
Talking about it in these terms
makes it all sound black and white,
while such a detailed and intricate
design process actually is much more
subtly coloured.
Speaking of the façade, why is it
not yet finished?
I find it very sad that the one question
I am asked repeatedly when I travel is:
“What happened to the music house
they were building in Iceland? Did they
stop building it or are they still work-
ing?” There is definitely a bit of com-
munication to be done because a lot
of people are still in the dark about the
project. There obviously hasn’t been a
big budget for international press cam-
paigns, but we need to ensure that the
right people will know that Harpa is in-
deed being finished and what an ambi-
tious project it is.
Now, while people abroad are curi-
ous whether the building project has
been abandoned, locals want to know
why the façade isn’t finished and the
house is being formally opened.
To make a long story short, the Chi-
nese contractors employed five sub-
contractors that provided the materi-
als for the façade’s metal units. One of
those companies delivered materials
that did not meet the requested stan-
dard—specifically, the iron cast for the
metal used in the corners. Upon dis-
covering this, the construction, which
was already being assembled, was in-
spected, and it was decided to repro-
duce the entire south façade to ensure
that the high standards were met.
This was obviously a big problem for all
involved, and could have had enormous
consequences had it been left un-
checked. It was a matter of safety. The
contractors didn’t argue; the mistake
was obviously theirs and they just went
and dismantled what they had already
built. And then they built the whole
thing again.
So that mistake resulted in a major
delay. There were a lot of smaller things
that added to it, but this is the main rea-
son the façade isn’t ready.
DIY: Throw a concert!
Music Director Steinunn Birna Ragnarsdóttir
Telephone: (354) 569-6708
Email: concerts@harpa.is
DIY: Stage a conference!
Conference Manager Karítas Kjartansdóttir
Telephone: (354) 569-6706
Email: conferences@harpa.is
Harpa’s Cultural
Booking Manifesto:
Harpa is fully booked for 2011, with 230
music events scheduled for the remaining 32
weeks of 2011. That’s an average of one concert
per day. While Harpa doesn’t have a written cultural
manifesto when it comes to booking concerts, Music Di-
rector Steinunn Ragnarsdóttir, who is also a concert pianist, is
responsible for transmitting Harpa’s unwritten manifesto. “Part
of my job is to have an artistic vision for the hall, to keep a
versatile programme that follows parameters of profes-
sionalism regardless of the genre of music,” Steinunn
Birna says. “It’s important that the hall portrays
the best quality, whether international or Ice-
landic. There will be exciting concerts,
whether they’re classical, pop, rock or
whatever style you favour.”
CONTINUES OVER