You are here:
Home
Books
Books in Estonian
Architecture and interior design
Architecture
Eesti arhitektuuriajakiri MAJA sügis 2021 (106) / Estonian Architectural Review MAJA fall 2021 (106)
Eesti arhitektuuriajakiri MAJA sügis 2021 (106) / Estonian Architectural Review MAJA fall 2021 (106)
RUUMIPÖÖRDED / SPATIAL REVOLUTIONS
Author
Peatoimetaja Kaja Pae ja toimetaja Urmo Mets
Translated
Taavi Laanpere, Kerli Linnat, Marianne Jõgi
Delivery 1-3 workdays
Club price:
9,00 €
Price:
9,00 €
-0%
Availability in stores
Share
Kuidas väljendub ühiskonna muutumine arhitektuuris? Sellele vastamiseks vaatame tagasi kolmekümne taasiseseisvusaasta ruumiloomele. Millised uued ruumid on kolm viimast aastakümmet võõrustanud meid tööl, koolis ja kultuuri nautides, millised on olnud kodud? 1991. aastast, mil taastasime Eesti iseseisvuse, oleme astunud peaaegu et agraarajastust digitaalsesse ajastusse. Ma olen riisunud 90ndatel hoburehaga heina, nii et see oli majandustegevus, ja praegu on mu taskus rohkem arvutusvõimsust, kui tolle kümnendi superarvutites. Kas kohtame arhitektuuris sama olemuslikke muutusi? Jälgides büroode, üldhariduskoolide, kultuuriobjektide ja teatud mööndustega ka kortermajade muutumist, saame vastata jaatavalt: muutused arhitektuuris on olnud peaaegu sama olemuslikud.
Arhitektuur, milles lisaks praktilise ja vajaliku majutamisele on rohkem loome- ja eelarvevabadust, rohkem õhku, on ka altim otsingutele. Ootuspäraselt on just kultuuriobjektidel väljendusvabadust, iseteadlikkust ja lõpuks ka vastutust rohkem. Väärtuste teisenemised peegelduvad kujukalt ka koolide ja kontoripindade projekteerimises. Projektide kesksed teemad muutuvad jõuliselt: kui 90ndate aastate koolid väljendasid esteetiliselt ja kujundlikult igatsust varasemast teistsuguse, realistlikuma maailma järele, siis 2010. aastatel tõusevad fookusesse kooliõpilane ja kooli kui õppimist toetava keskkonna omadused. Juba nullindatel esile kerkinud sotsialiseerumist soodustavad koolide ühisruumid arenevad teistkümnendatel edasi ja otsivad vastet erinevatele isiksusetüüpidele. Klassiruumide mööblit ei organiseerita enam rangelt ja hierarhiliselt, haridushooneid nähakse aina rohkem kogukonnakeskustena, koos maastikuarhitektide uue põlvkonna ja rolli väljakujunemisega on hakatud üha enam tähtsustama väli- ja liikumisruumi.
Neid ruumiloome arenguid ei saa muidugi vaadata ühesuunaliste ja evolutsioonilistena. Näiteks on praegu tekkinud ihalus keskkonna järele, mis on justkui digi- ja agraarajastu hübriid. Samamoodi on puhtatüübiliste hoonete kõrvale taas
kerkimas sellised, mis liidavad kokku esmapilgul ootamatud funktsioonid. Lähiajalugu on keeruline näha kuidagi teisiti
kui selgitusena, kuidas oleme käesolevasse seisu jõudnud. See võib lihtsasti jätta mulje, et praegused prioriteedid on
justkui ülemuslikumad ja iseenesestmõistetavad. Aga nagu ütleb Walter Benjamin, on ka ajaloo umbsoppidel väärtus.
Enam me ei mäleta eriti selgelt, kuidas oli töötada 90ndate ja nullindate mässumeelsetes ja eufoorilisust sisendavates
kontorites. Samas kannavad nende kujutised teatavat ergastava utopismi laengut ja mõjuvad kujutlusvõimele
kütkestavamalt kui viimase kümnendi kontorid, mis keskenduvad just küsimusele, kuidas on töötada, kuidas olla rahul ja
mis saab siis, kui eufooria lõpeb. Ja eufooria, nagu me seda seni tundnud oleme, näib lõppevat. Aga mis kannab meid
edasi? Kõneleme aina enam ja enam tõenduspõhisusest ja kasutajakesksusest, aga needki teemad ei aita päriselt
vastata küsimusele, milline on tulevik. Sest nad räägivad vajadustest. Nii palju, kui usume arhitektuuri, usume selle
võimesse ühiskonna erinevad küsimused kokku tuua ja sellele küsimusele vastata, rääkides ka võimalustest ning avades
visionaarseid ja ootamatuid perspektiive.
See on meie kummardus Eesti arhitektide liidu 100 aasta juubelile, Eesti arhitektuurimuuseumi kolmekümne aasta
juubelile ja Eesti vabariigile, mille täitunud kolmkümmend aastat taasiseseisvust on muutused ja kultuuri võimalikuks
teinud. Maja ühineb õnnesoovidega!
Peatoimetaja Kaja Pae ja toimetaja Urmo Mets
How does change in society refect in architecture? In order to answer this question, we look back on the spatial
design in the thirty years of regained independence. What kinds of spaces have accommodated us in the last
three decades at work, in school and while enjoying culture? What have our homes been like? Since 1991, when
the independence of Estonia was restored, we have stepped from what was essentially an agrarian society into
the digital age. In the ‘90s, I used the horse-drawn hay rake as a means of economic activity, while today, I carry
more computing power in my pocket than was had by the supercomputers of that decade. Have there been
equally essential transformations also in architecture? Observing how our offces, general education schools, cultural
objects and apartment buildings have changed, we can indeed say—with some qualifcation in regard to
apartments—that the transformations in architecture have been almost as essential.
The kind of architecture that does not only accommodate practical necessities, but has been given more creative and
budgetary freedom, more air, also tends to be more daring. As it can be expected, cultural objects in particular tend to
have more of this sort of freedom of expression, self-awareness, and, ultimately, more responsibility. Changing values
are graphically reflected also in the design of schools and office spaces. The central themes have radically changed—
while in the 1990s, schools expressed aesthetically and figuratively a certain longing for a different, more realistic world,
in the 2010s, the focus shifted to students and the properties of school as an environment conducive to learning. Common
areas for socialising that emerged already in the ‘00s kept developing further in the ‘10s, looking to accommodate
different types of personalities. Classrooms are no longer furnished as strictly and hierarchically as before; educational
buildings are increasingly seen as community centres; the arrival of a new generation of landscape architects has led to
more emphasis on outdoor and mobility spaces.
These developments in spatial design should not be seen as unidirectional and evolutionary, of course. For instance,
there is a certain longing today for a new, digitally hybridised agrarian age, or at least a more natural environment. Likewise,
buildings of a clear-cut type are once again giving way to buildings that combine initially unexpected functions. It
is difficult to narrate the recent history in any other form than an explanation of how we got to where we are today,
which can easily give the impression that our current priorities are somehow superior and self-evident. But as Walter
Benjamin said, the dead ends of history have their own value. We don’t remember it so vividly anymore how it was to
work in the rebellious and euphoric offices of the ‘90s and ‘00s, but their images carry a certain charge of invigorating
utopianism, which is more captivating to the imagination than the offices of the last decade, which focus namely on
questions like how it is to work, how to be satisfied, and what comes after the euphoria. And euphoria, as we have
known it up to this point, indeed seems to be coming to an end. But what will carry us forward? We are increasingly
speaking of evidence-based practices and user-centricity, but this only concerns our current needs and does not provide
an answer the question—what is our common future going to be like? Insofar as we believe in architecture, we believe
in its power to bring together various social issues and answer this question by exploring different possibilities or
opening up visionary and unexpected perspectives.
This is our tribute to the 100th anniversary of the Estonian Association of Architects, 30th anniversary of Museum of Estonian
Architecture, and to the Republic of Estonia, whose thirty years of regained independence have made all these
changes and all this culture possible. Maja joins the congratulations!
Editor-in-chief Kaja Pae
Editor Urmo Mets
Arhitektuur, milles lisaks praktilise ja vajaliku majutamisele on rohkem loome- ja eelarvevabadust, rohkem õhku, on ka altim otsingutele. Ootuspäraselt on just kultuuriobjektidel väljendusvabadust, iseteadlikkust ja lõpuks ka vastutust rohkem. Väärtuste teisenemised peegelduvad kujukalt ka koolide ja kontoripindade projekteerimises. Projektide kesksed teemad muutuvad jõuliselt: kui 90ndate aastate koolid väljendasid esteetiliselt ja kujundlikult igatsust varasemast teistsuguse, realistlikuma maailma järele, siis 2010. aastatel tõusevad fookusesse kooliõpilane ja kooli kui õppimist toetava keskkonna omadused. Juba nullindatel esile kerkinud sotsialiseerumist soodustavad koolide ühisruumid arenevad teistkümnendatel edasi ja otsivad vastet erinevatele isiksusetüüpidele. Klassiruumide mööblit ei organiseerita enam rangelt ja hierarhiliselt, haridushooneid nähakse aina rohkem kogukonnakeskustena, koos maastikuarhitektide uue põlvkonna ja rolli väljakujunemisega on hakatud üha enam tähtsustama väli- ja liikumisruumi.
Neid ruumiloome arenguid ei saa muidugi vaadata ühesuunaliste ja evolutsioonilistena. Näiteks on praegu tekkinud ihalus keskkonna järele, mis on justkui digi- ja agraarajastu hübriid. Samamoodi on puhtatüübiliste hoonete kõrvale taas
kerkimas sellised, mis liidavad kokku esmapilgul ootamatud funktsioonid. Lähiajalugu on keeruline näha kuidagi teisiti
kui selgitusena, kuidas oleme käesolevasse seisu jõudnud. See võib lihtsasti jätta mulje, et praegused prioriteedid on
justkui ülemuslikumad ja iseenesestmõistetavad. Aga nagu ütleb Walter Benjamin, on ka ajaloo umbsoppidel väärtus.
Enam me ei mäleta eriti selgelt, kuidas oli töötada 90ndate ja nullindate mässumeelsetes ja eufoorilisust sisendavates
kontorites. Samas kannavad nende kujutised teatavat ergastava utopismi laengut ja mõjuvad kujutlusvõimele
kütkestavamalt kui viimase kümnendi kontorid, mis keskenduvad just küsimusele, kuidas on töötada, kuidas olla rahul ja
mis saab siis, kui eufooria lõpeb. Ja eufooria, nagu me seda seni tundnud oleme, näib lõppevat. Aga mis kannab meid
edasi? Kõneleme aina enam ja enam tõenduspõhisusest ja kasutajakesksusest, aga needki teemad ei aita päriselt
vastata küsimusele, milline on tulevik. Sest nad räägivad vajadustest. Nii palju, kui usume arhitektuuri, usume selle
võimesse ühiskonna erinevad küsimused kokku tuua ja sellele küsimusele vastata, rääkides ka võimalustest ning avades
visionaarseid ja ootamatuid perspektiive.
See on meie kummardus Eesti arhitektide liidu 100 aasta juubelile, Eesti arhitektuurimuuseumi kolmekümne aasta
juubelile ja Eesti vabariigile, mille täitunud kolmkümmend aastat taasiseseisvust on muutused ja kultuuri võimalikuks
teinud. Maja ühineb õnnesoovidega!
Peatoimetaja Kaja Pae ja toimetaja Urmo Mets
How does change in society refect in architecture? In order to answer this question, we look back on the spatial
design in the thirty years of regained independence. What kinds of spaces have accommodated us in the last
three decades at work, in school and while enjoying culture? What have our homes been like? Since 1991, when
the independence of Estonia was restored, we have stepped from what was essentially an agrarian society into
the digital age. In the ‘90s, I used the horse-drawn hay rake as a means of economic activity, while today, I carry
more computing power in my pocket than was had by the supercomputers of that decade. Have there been
equally essential transformations also in architecture? Observing how our offces, general education schools, cultural
objects and apartment buildings have changed, we can indeed say—with some qualifcation in regard to
apartments—that the transformations in architecture have been almost as essential.
The kind of architecture that does not only accommodate practical necessities, but has been given more creative and
budgetary freedom, more air, also tends to be more daring. As it can be expected, cultural objects in particular tend to
have more of this sort of freedom of expression, self-awareness, and, ultimately, more responsibility. Changing values
are graphically reflected also in the design of schools and office spaces. The central themes have radically changed—
while in the 1990s, schools expressed aesthetically and figuratively a certain longing for a different, more realistic world,
in the 2010s, the focus shifted to students and the properties of school as an environment conducive to learning. Common
areas for socialising that emerged already in the ‘00s kept developing further in the ‘10s, looking to accommodate
different types of personalities. Classrooms are no longer furnished as strictly and hierarchically as before; educational
buildings are increasingly seen as community centres; the arrival of a new generation of landscape architects has led to
more emphasis on outdoor and mobility spaces.
These developments in spatial design should not be seen as unidirectional and evolutionary, of course. For instance,
there is a certain longing today for a new, digitally hybridised agrarian age, or at least a more natural environment. Likewise,
buildings of a clear-cut type are once again giving way to buildings that combine initially unexpected functions. It
is difficult to narrate the recent history in any other form than an explanation of how we got to where we are today,
which can easily give the impression that our current priorities are somehow superior and self-evident. But as Walter
Benjamin said, the dead ends of history have their own value. We don’t remember it so vividly anymore how it was to
work in the rebellious and euphoric offices of the ‘90s and ‘00s, but their images carry a certain charge of invigorating
utopianism, which is more captivating to the imagination than the offices of the last decade, which focus namely on
questions like how it is to work, how to be satisfied, and what comes after the euphoria. And euphoria, as we have
known it up to this point, indeed seems to be coming to an end. But what will carry us forward? We are increasingly
speaking of evidence-based practices and user-centricity, but this only concerns our current needs and does not provide
an answer the question—what is our common future going to be like? Insofar as we believe in architecture, we believe
in its power to bring together various social issues and answer this question by exploring different possibilities or
opening up visionary and unexpected perspectives.
This is our tribute to the 100th anniversary of the Estonian Association of Architects, 30th anniversary of Museum of Estonian
Architecture, and to the Republic of Estonia, whose thirty years of regained independence have made all these
changes and all this culture possible. Maja joins the congratulations!
Editor-in-chief Kaja Pae
Editor Urmo Mets
Delivery 1-3 workdays
Club price:
9,00 €
Price:
9,00 €
-0%
Availability in stores
Share
Format
Paperback
Author
Peatoimetaja Kaja Pae ja toimetaja Urmo Mets
Translated
Taavi Laanpere, Kerli Linnat, Marianne Jõgi
Edited by
Keeletoimetajad Piret Põldvere ja Marianne Jõgi
Subtitle
RUUMIPÖÖRDED / SPATIAL REVOLUTIONS
Designed by
Margus Tammik (Unt/Tammik)
Language
Estonian-English
Publishing company
MTÜ Arhitektuurikirjastus
Order in the series
106
Series
MAJA
Added date
06.10.2021
Year of publication
2021
Pages
128
Size
285x215
Product code
67314286
Barcode
9771023074286