National pavilions at the 14th Architecture Biennale responded to the common theme of Absorbing Modernity: 1914-2014 in many unique ways. Most interesting of all was the approach to how countries dealt with the discussion around former colonies in Africa. Surprisingly, many skirted the topic and ones that chose to address it in a direct manner were from less obvious sources. As non-aligned states, the Nordic, Serbian and Korean exhibitions and programmed talks addressed architecture in post-independent Africa from a development perspective rather than one of colonial influence and shared architecture. Set against the backdrop of the Cold War, it is an interesting point of reference because of the ways in which governments used architecture as a form of development that played a central role in forming the physical, cultural and political landscapes of new states. For foreign architects and African governments, this modernisation came through three principle forms: building freedom, finding freedom – both defined by the curators of the Nordic pavilion – and dictating freedom. All refer to a means with which architecture, in its form, language and construction, influenced the economic, social, political and physical development of new African states from various foreign governments and organisations. These principle forms are in no way mutually exclusive but generally they can be easily categorized accordingly. The funding for these construction projects primarily came through external governments or organisations at an extremely large scale and considered aid rather than business. Interestingly, none of the national pavilion programmes addressed current and future trends of architecture as a tool for development from foreign sources and through these principle forms. As it was a profound question asked by the curators of the British pavilion – “The people: Where will they go?” – it is vital to understand the past and present while hypothesising about the future of such topics. This paper will examine how architectural development models, in post-independent Africa, were used to build, find and define freedom, as addressed by Nordic, Serbian and Korean exhibitions, whether they are present in current models and how these objectives should define future policies.
Nordic and Yugoslav policies for international development and cooperation were based on varying economic and political ideologies, implemented through varying models of practice. Both however, constructed architecture and infrastructure based on building freedom and finding freedom principles through similar scales and language. Looking to broadcast their new political, economic and social ideologies globally, new African leaders looked to partner with countries that had no murky colonial history to construct projects as a form of establishing a new national identity. In the 1960s and 1970s the establishment of Nordic state development aid coincided with the independence of many African states, creating the ideal opportunity for cooperation. The Nordic model sought the exportation and translation of a social democratic model, primarily in Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia, through nation building, modernization and welfare. Despite the cultural and historical context of African society, rapid modernisation and urbanisation in newly liberated, immature and preindustrial countries was never truly questioned but instead encouraged, supported and financed. However, it offered the opportunity for young Nordic architects, like Karl Henrik Nøstvik, to practice their trade when architectural development policies, through the modernist language, were formed around the principles building freedom and finding freedom. Building freedom refers to how architecture was used to construct the basic services of newly formed states, and in doing so, introducing it to the ‘modern world’. It focused primarily on functionalist projects that sought to deliver basic infrastructure and facilities like roads, dams, schools, and hospitals. The World Bank Schools Project in Zambia, a prime example, used a system of construction of schools around the country offering basic accommodation for educating millions of young pupils. It exemplified the architectural language, scale and functionalism of modernist ideals while helping to form the basic facilities for education and empowerment that the newly formed Zambian government wanted to be seen supporting – domestically and internationally. The Nordic model successfully exported the social, economic and political ideologies of the western social democratic model in the modernist language as it was seen as contemporary. In contrast, finding freedom refers to the construction of monumental projects that symbolised the desired cultural ideologies of newly formed governments while displaying national progress through modernisation. The language of modern architecture and a desire to build signature projects meant that these Nordic architects had the freedom to explore form and types of construction that would boast the government’s desire to accept Western economic and political ideals. Projects of this nature included the Kenyatta International Conference Centre in Nairobi which applied unique environmental strategies that made reference to mud huts, and in so doing created a monument to progress and development for the new Kenyan state. Sources of finance for these projects was generally defined as aid and simply sought to help establish and give credibility to the new government.
Similar to the Nordic states, Yugoslavia was considered a non-aligned partner to newly formed African states and President Tito was a great advocate of development through construction projects. However, despite a strong socialist culture, Yugoslavia undertook these projects through a very capitalist model. Companies like Energoprojekt designed and built numerous large scale projects throughout the continent, such as the ZANU PF Headquarters, Harare, and Kariba Dam, between Zimbabwe and Zambia. Skilled labour, like architects and engineers, were primarily from Yugoslavia while labourers were mainly local. These projects can also be tied to the common principles of development through building freedom and finding freedom. The ZANU PF Headquarters, of course, is intended to exemplify supremacy, authority and modernity to the nation, acting as a monument to the party that freed a nation and its people. The design liberation that such ideological objectives demanded allowed for a modernist freedom of expression for architects that would be found in few places. Likewise, Kariba Dam, built and designed for purely functional requirements, intended to meet the potentially exponential energy demands of the new Zambian state. It could, however, be argued that this project is as much monumental as much as it is functionalist, displaying the nations capability and potential in undertaking vast infrastructure projects as well as meeting future energy demands of industry.
Unlike the Nordic and Yugoslav models, the Korean pavilion addressed the use of architecture and art as a means of defining freedom in Africa’s newly independent nations. Projects undertaken by Mansudae Overseas Project were based on the sharing of socialist ideologies through the extensive use of iconographic architecture and imagery as an expression of political, social, economic forms of influence and direction. Most works depict liberation struggles and prominent leaders located in settings reminiscent of Soviet and North Korean urbanism. Notable works include the Namibia Presidential Palace, Angola Peace Monument, Laurent Kabila Statue and Zimbabwe National Hero’s Acre. These projects sought to define the future of a nation through the visionary ideologies of leaders with a socialist stance. The stamping of this model sought to dictate a path for cultural and political forms through the imagery of architecture that is glorifying of the system and its leaders. The North Korean approach to development was purely based on the exportation of an ideology in a classical form rather than one that was based on a modern, capitalist language that, in their view, modernism exemplified. The works addressed by each exhibition uses architecture as an image as well as a system to epitomize new national identities on one hand and to construct fostered independence on the other.
The exhibiting of these works posed the question as to whether these principles of development in architecture in Africa are still applicable today and to what extent and role they play in future development. There are two spectrums to consider in the current climate of architectural development in Africa. These are based on the aid to business spectrum and the micro to macro scale of projects currently undertaken. Generally speaking, aid based work is on a micro scale in terms of impact – NGO’s and design charities – while macro scale can be more associated with business – governments and multinational corporations. For instance, China is constructing projects on a massive and widespread scale throughout Africa, like the Thika Superhighway, Kenya, and Kilamba City, Angola. These projects, like the ones between the 1960s and 1980s, as mentioned above, can be broadly defined as building freedom, aiding the infrastructure and services of these states on scales of ambition similar to the modernists. Despite this, the architectural ambitions are utilitarian and conventional that exudes no greater social objectives than simply sheltering. The terms under which these projects are undertaken are bias because they are primarily aimed at benefiting Chinese businesses and people. However, the impact of such work is vital in the development of infrastructure and poses a significant question as to whether architecture versus housing, as a philosophical theory for the development of living standards across Africa, is valid. The true success of this model is that it fosters and enhances long-term business relationships, similar to that of Energoproject, creating sustainable economic independence. Interestingly, China seeks not to impose economic and political demands when trading with Africa, unlike those that are imposed by the IMF and World Bank, meaning African governments will continually seek this form of business and development. China has no intention therefore of finding freedom or defining freedom through architecture in Africa as it simply seeks to build and use resources through infrastructure and services whether it is for their own benefit or the benefit of African states. In contrast aid fosters architecture based on the principle of finding freedom. This work is undertaken at a micro scale and emphasises architectural and social ambitions that are personal and participatory. This is the twenty-first century form of architectural development that seeks a bottom up approach in terms of scale and effect. The work is widespread and continuous seeking to find freedom through a vernacular modernism that is hyper localized and scaled accordingly. Design cooperatives and charities, like BC Architects and Orkidstudio, have built small scale infrastructure projects like schools, medical centre and housing. Primarily financed through funding from aid organisations, they aim to be perceived as a business. These models of small scale impact are very different in scope and ambition to the modernists and base themselves on a considerate approach to design and participation. International development policy in terms of finding freedom is still very much based on an aid rather than trade model. These opposing models of architectural development in Africa differ greatly in ideology and scale. Where in the past models have sought to address building freedom and finding freedom simultaneously, and at similar scale, today there has been a shift towards singular objectives at set scales. Similarly, projects that define freedom have been less explored by architects and governments as a means to development of the physical landscape, but more importantly, the cultural landscape.
Future models of development in Africa must seek an architectural principle that is holistic and visionary. Until these models and ideological objectives meet at a midpoint it is hard to imagine how long-term, sustainable benefits can come about that constructs a nation’s infrastructure while exploring new cultural and ideological forms. Architecturally, this requires large scale projects that build freedom, aspiring to systems and models of the modernist era in terms of its social ambition through an architecture that is inspiring and progressive – most like the World Bank School Project in Zambia. The approach to vernacular modernism is one that is proving successful because of its approach to design that is considerate, participatory and of an appropriate scale. Its impact does not only lie in what it offers physically but in the social relationships and ties it creates at a personal level. Despite its roots in an aid model, these personal relationships create a grassroots culture that is beneficial to all through social and economic cooperation as well as design appreciation. However, linking Africa’s riches to development and to develop this model more significantly requires a greater business-like relationship between all parties – defining freedom. Interest in profitable investments seems to be detached from interests in development but they cannot be the same thing. This approach can be envisaged as the embarrassment of technology and the mass producing ideology of Jean Prouvé, as touched on by the curators of the French pavilion, which uses a modularised system along with an appreciation for the vernacular approach, as seen is small design organisations – finding freedom. These systems can be produced locally allowing for the multiplier effect in the economy, increasing national income, through employment, and the creation of an industrial backbone – building freedom. With a mutual partnership it is important to define what each party must contribute. Contribution from external sources include: infrastructure that is participatory, scalable and sustainable economically; an architecture that is a form of vernacular modernism; personal and long-term relationships. From Africa must come: a free and less bureaucratic market; economy of scale for industrial production; increase in long term benefits like education, skills and lifespan. The large scale impact of nations and multinationals is crucial to development and unquestionably beneficial to long term development in Africa. However, a more versatile and adaptable forming of national identity, culture and freedom is a bottom up approach rather than a top down one and an intermediate model that takes the benefits of discussed scales and principles is ideal. This requires small design cooperatives to seek more of an ideological approach that is experimental and systematic while attempting to reap rewards from Africa through business. Africa wants to conduct trade, not aid, with the world and a continued reliance on such models may prove detrimental in the long run. The local partnership and long term relationships created through a scaled system is increasingly important and must continue to exist. Additionally, the encouragement of a strong and considered architectural language that finds freedom must be continued. Building freedom through government and large multinationals will always exist but the meeting of scale and principles will create notable benefit and development to cultural and physical landscapes.
The creation of new national identities through architecture and its principle forms of development have shifted since the early years of independence of African states. The key players and principles of their development have altered and an understanding of these in vital to the future trends with which architects and governments approach construction projects in the future. Africa must seek, through architecture, to build its future, find a language of progress and development for itself and direct cultural and political desires of its own - on its own terms. Architecture allows development to become physical and tangible, through functionalist, monumental and iconographic works that establish new identities and solidify old ones. This may demand architects, and governments, to consider the ideals and ambitions of the modernists while allowing for greater consideration for today’s vernacular modernism that is scalable and sustainable. With contrasting scales and values, these are the most exciting models that can be adapted as required for a future that is progressive for the long term prosperity of physical and cultural landscapes in African states.
