06.05 - 25.05

Käesolev Eesti Arhitektuurimuuseumi näitus 50 MAJA/ HOUSES on vähendatud versioon 2010. aasta sügisel XII Veneetsia arhitektuuribiennaalil Eestit esindanud näitusest 100 MAJA/ HOUSES. Eesti varasemad osalemised Veneetsia arhitektuuribiennaalil, näitustega Simulacrum City, Hobupeldik, JointSpace ja Gaasitoru, on iga kord kõnelenud erinevatest arhitektuurist mõtlemise ja rääkimise vormidest. Need on olnud tugeva sotsiaalse, kunstilise, kohaspetsiifilise või tehnoloogilise sõnumiga, kuid ikka on kostunud arvamusi, et üks kord võiks Veneetsias näidata ka „päris arhitektuuri“.
Kui 2010 aasta varakevadel algas konkurss Eesti ekspositsiooni leidmiseks, otsustasid projektiga Domus osalenud autorid Kalle Vellevoog, Tiiu Truus, Martin Pedanik ja Karen Jagodin, pakkuda välja reaalset ehitatud keskkonda tutvustava näituse. Teemavalikul sai otsustavaks püüe eristada kohalikust ehituspraktikast see miski, mis võiks olla unikaalne, muud maailma oma erilisusega kõnetav ning siinse arhitektuuriloome paremikku tutvustav.
Näitusega  100 MAJA / HOUSES seati enesele üks selge eesmärk – viia kohalik arhitektuuripraktika laiema vaatajaskonna ette ning tutvustada Eesti arhitektuurielu läbi ühe kitsama valdkonna – eramuarhitektuuri. Osalemine Veneetsia arhitektuuribiennaalil on võimalus tuua laiema publiku ette oma värskemad, aktuaalsemad, kriitilisemad ja parimad ideed. Siit ammutatakse globaalse arhitektuurielu uusimad probleempüstitused ja võetakse kokku olulisimad nähtused.
Veneetsia XII rahvusvahelise arhitektuuribiennaali üldkuraator, jaapani arhitekt Kazuyo Sejima nimetas biennaali üldteemaks „Inimesed kohtuvad arhitektuuris“, ning on oma sõnavõtus märkinud, et 2010. aasta biennaal peaks olema arhitektuurist, sellest, kuidas inimesed arhitektuuriga kokku puutuvad ja suhestuvad: „/.../ sellest näitusest saab arhitektuursete võimaluste kogemus, näitamaks, kuidas arhitektuur väljendab uusi elamisvõimalusi ning on loodud erinevate vaatenurkade ning lähenemiste teel. /.../ Ideeks on aidata inimestel suhestuda arhitektuuriga, aidata arhitektuuril suhestuda inimestega ning aidata inimestel suhestuda teineteisega.“
Inimene kohtub arhitektuuriga ehitatud keskkonnas. Kogemus arhitektuurist on osaks igapäevaelust, jagunedes mitmete sfääride ja vastandite vahel: avalik/privaatne, füüsiline/virtuaalne või näiteks moodne/klassikaline. Üks esmatasandeid arhitektuuri kogemiseks on elukeskkond, millest saadav isiklik impulss puudutab kõiki inimesi. Elamu on ikka olnud moodsa arhitektuuri üks lemmikteemasid, illustreerides oma kompaktsuses ja samas keerukuses inimeste suhet keskkonnaga ja selle kujundamise viisi. Eramu loomine omakorda on üheks intiimseimaks arhitektuurivormiks, kus tellija suhe loodavaga on lahutamatu. Elamuarhitektuur oma mitmetahulisuses tõstatab palju küsimusi, peegeldades elavalt ühiskonda ning selle toimemehhanisme.

Kuid miks eramud? Miks peaks just Eesti eramuarhitektuur olema siinsest praktikast esile tõstetud ja kõnetama vaatajaid veenvamalt kui ülejäänud ehituskunst? Kas on võimalik, et eramuarhitektuur võtab kokku hoovad, mis tõstavad 1,4-miljonilise rahvaarvuga väikeriigi suurtest naabritest „kõrgemale“? Eramuid on siinses arhitektuurikirjanduses kutsutud hellitlevalt „eesti arhitektuuri kvaliteedimärgiks“. Siinne ehituspraktika erineb suurel määral ülejäänud Euroopast eritellimuste ja tüüpprojektide suhtarvu poolest. Eesti ekspositsiooni ette valmistades sai üheks eesmärgiks tuua välja nn kataloogimajade ja unikaalprojekti põhjal valminud eramute vaheline suhtarv. Taoline eesmärk osutus aga võrdlemisi keerukaks, sest puudub vastav ametlik statistika. Nii Eestis kui ka mujal Euroopas on võimalik välja võtta statistiline näitaja ehitusprojektide ja kasutuslubade väljastamise kohta, kuid kas ehitusluba on antud tüüp- või eriprojekti põhjal, seda andmestik ei täpsusta. Seetõttu pöördusime oma küsimuses erinevate  linnaarhitektide poole, et saada teada asjaga otseselt seotud inimeste erialast hinnangut.

50 MAJA/HOUSES 

The exhibition 50 MAJA/ HOUSES is a reduced version of an exposition entitled 100 MAJA/HOUSES, with what  Estonia participated at the 12th Venice Biennale of Architecture in autumn 2010. Estonia’s previous exposition at the Venice Biennale of Architecture, for instance Simulacrum City, Horse Privy, JointSpace and the Gas Pipeline, have all dealt with different forms of thinking and speaking about architecture. They have been strong social, artistic, place-specific and technological messages, but opinions have always been expressed that for once “real architecture” should be exhibited in Venice. 
When the competition for finding the Estonian exhibition was initiated in early spring 2010, Kalle Vellevoog, Tiiu Truus, Martin Pedanik and Karen Jagodin who had been involved with the Domus project decided to propose an exhibition that would introduce the environment that has actually been built. The aspiration to differentiate that something special in local building practices that might be unique, that could speak to the rest of the world with its particularity and introduce the best of local architectural creation became decisive in the selection of the topic.
A clear objective was established for the 100 MAJA / HOUSES exhibition, which was to bring local architectural practices to a broader audience and to introduce Estonian architectural life through a narrow field of activity – residential architecture.   Participation in the Venice Biennale of Architecture provided the opportunity to present our freshest, most topical, critical and best ideas to a wider audience. The newest problem presentations are assimilated at the biennale and the most important phenomena are summarized. 
Japanese architect Kazuyo Sejima, the general curator of the 12th Venice Biennale of Architecture, said that the general theme of the biennale  should be “People Meet in Architecture” and in her address said that the 2010 biennale should be about architecture and about how people and architecture come in contact and relate, “This exhibition will be an experience of architecture possibilities, to understand how architecture expresses new ways of living, about an architecture created by different values and approaches. /.../ “The idea is to help people relate to architecture, help architecture relate to people and help people relate to themselves”.
Architecture is encountered by people throughout the built-up environment. The experience of architecture is a part of everyday life, divided between many spheres and contrasts: public/private, physical/virtual and modern/classical. One of the initial stages in the experience of architecture is the human environment, which provides personal impulses that affect everyone. The private residence has always been a favorite topic for modern architecture, illustrating in its compactness and simultaneous complexity, people’s relationships with their environment and the way to shape it. The creation of private residences is also one of the most intimate forms of architecture, in which the client’s relationship with that which is being created is indivisible. Private residential architecture with it multifaceted nature raises many questions by graphically reflecting the society and its operational mechanisms.
But why private residences? Why should the emphasis be placed on Estonia’s residential architecture and why should it speak to the viewers more convincingly than other type of architecture? Is it possible that residential architecture summarizes all the currents that raise this small country – with a population of only 1.3 million – “higher” than its larger neighbors? In local architectural literature, private residences have repeatedly been affectionately called “the quality mark of Estonian architecture”. Local building practices differ greatly from the rest of Europe in terms of the proportion of special commissions and standardized projects. While preparing the Estonian exposition, one of the objectives became to highlight the ratio between the number of “catalogue houses” and residences based on specially commissioned projects. Achieving this goal turned out to be relatively complicated due to the lack of relevant official statistics. In Estonia and elsewhere in Europe, it is possible to obtain statistical data regarding the number of building projects and occupancy permits, but the data does not specify whether the permits were issued for buildings based on standardized or custom projects. Therefore, we approached various city architects in Estonia in order to gather the professional opinions of the people who deal directly with the issue.
The result in Estonia was a very small percentage of standardized projects. One can surmise that only about 10% of local private residences are “catalogue houses”. Of course, one cannot assume that the remaining 90% represent absolutely first-class residential architecture, but a considerable number of high-quality architecture still emerges from such a large number of projects. However, this clearly indicates the attitude of Estonians toward the creation of their homes. One builds a house with the idea that it will last for generations; great expectations and ideals are tied to the design of a private residence.  A comparison with a custom-made suit comes to mind – it must fit you perfectly, must be made taking your measurements into account. At the same time, one can make a comparison with Finland, where the residents thoroughly embraced the standardized project market. Compared to Estonians, their attitude is significantly more pragmatic – private residences are market goods and they must have appreciable resale value so that houses can be sold quickly and convenient and satisfy “average tastes”.  In comparison, Estonians are considerably more conservative and relate to the construction of their houses on a more personal basis.
There are many reasons why there are such a large number of specially commissioned residences in Estonia in relation to the population and total construction market. As a young society, there are many young architects working here, for whom entering the labor market is simpler than in the older European countries. At the same time, there are also many young clients who are ready to experiment, who are free of clichéd concepts and wishes. It is worth noting that of the hundred residences included in the exhibition, at least half were designed by architects who were under 40 at that time that the buildings were designed. Private commissions are also encouraged by the one-sided, emerging and still totally undeveloped standardized housing market.
Another important characteristic of Estonian private residential construction is its distinct cultural nature and continuity, which got its start from the utilization of the ideals of the newly established republic by young local architects in the 1920s and 30s, continued as a cultural contrast during the Soviet period, and gained new momentum in the re-independent state, where the ownership of a unique home also became a model of the advertised ideal of life, a market commodity and grounds for experimentation. As Triin Ojari says in her article, “Probably, never before in Estonia have the real estate business, home decorating, renovation and everything else related to one’s home been discussed as much as they have during the last ten years.”
In order to demonstrate the historical continuity and unique position of private residential architecture in the local architectural scene, the book and exhibition includes private residences with special iconic meaning from the period of the first Estonian Republic and the Soviet era.  Thus, the topic can be related to its background system and does not present private residences as something new, still nascent.  However, the main emphasis is placed on the 21st century, thereby creating such a voluminous overview of the best of Estonian residential architecture for the first time.
The exhibition’s structural model, slide program and video provide a multifaceted view of the topic. The gigantic white model with one hundred residential buildings is like an abstraction that demonstrates the density and diversity of residential construction. The slide program exhibits the objects in their actual environment, and the video adds context thereto. The model as a medium in an architectural exhibition is also an attractive addition, although the objective here is not to reveal each of the hundred houses in their abundance of detail, but primarily to transmit the intensity and variety of the topic to the viewer. 
In the context of the biennale, the Estonian exhibition can be viewed as a kind of summary. If projects are often presented in Venice that have yet to be realized, are bird’s-eye views or abstract ideas of the future world, the Estonian exhibition has the opposite effect. Here the human environment has preserved its individuality, subjectivity and perceptibility.  The key issues in modern residential architecture revolve around density, rapid population growth, economic efficiency and rationality.  Living in this manner, on one’s personal plot of land, in one’s personal house may be a long forgotten in 10, 50 or 100 years, something that is reserved for the elite or the irrational. This may not be a sustainable form of living, but it is the mapping of a captivating and endangered species. 
Karen Jagodin