8 Social & Legal Studies 000(00) Figure 2. New buildings in Lombard style in Ascona <strong>and</strong> Locarno, photographer, Eduard Keller (from Keller, 2001:18). Figure 3. Casa Catterina. Drawing by the architect Eduard Keller (from Keller, 2001:16). architecture’ (Keller et al., 2001: 23). In his own account <strong>of</strong> the story, Keller noted that ironically ‘big windows <strong>and</strong> facades without ornaments’, which earned the designation ‘Nordic import’ from Maraini, were seen as ‘southern style in northern Switzerl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> 8
Guggenheim 9 Germany’ (Keller et al., 2001: 22). Indeed, the architect Paul Bonatz denounced the German Weissenh<strong>of</strong>siedlung in Stuttgart, one <strong>of</strong> the most famous projects <strong>of</strong> modernist architecture, as ‘suburbia <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem’ (Hammerbacher <strong>and</strong> Keuerleber, 2002: 16) <strong>and</strong> a postcard showed the Weissenh<strong>of</strong>siedlung as an ‘Arab village’ with Bedouins on camels as inhabitants (Hammerbacher <strong>and</strong> Keuerleber, 2002: 12). Two years later the situation seemed to worsen. Herman Metz obtained permission to build his new villa ‘Rocca Vispa’, designed by the architect Carl Weidemeyer, who had already built the modernist theatre San Materno. Construction had begun <strong>and</strong> the shell was already finished when the building authorities received complaints about the architecture from the local population. <strong>The</strong> authorities issued a decree to stop construction, but failed to inform the building owners. Only when they sent police <strong>of</strong>ficers on site did construction came to halt. After the lawyer Marcionni called the federal court on behalf <strong>of</strong> Metz they were allowed to go on with construction work. Again Maraini was asked to provide an expertise <strong>and</strong> this time he maintained that the building did not disturb the l<strong>and</strong>scape <strong>and</strong> that he could not underst<strong>and</strong> the behaviour <strong>of</strong> the authorities. Maraini now distinguished between good <strong>and</strong> bad modern buildings <strong>and</strong> found the Villa Rocca Vispa to be a good exemplar (Keller et al., 2001: 25). With this decision, modern buildings with flat ro<strong>of</strong>s were established as legitimate exemplars <strong>of</strong> Ticinese architecture. Eduard Keller, in his account <strong>of</strong> the story, tried to interpret the case as an encounter between an enlightened pr<strong>of</strong>essional architect, who derives his knowledge from modernist ideas, <strong>and</strong> natives steeped in tradition. Referring to the size <strong>of</strong> windows he noted that the traditional house in Ticino had small windows to which the ‘natives’, who ‘lack the need to unite with nature’, ‘stick with dogged energy’, since they prefer to sit in ‘dim half-light’ (Keller et al., 2001: 34). However, the ‘foreigner (among whom the Swiss from the German speaking part has to be counted) . . . wants to see the beautiful l<strong>and</strong>scape even in bad weather’ (Keller et al., 2001: 34) (see Figures 4 <strong>and</strong> 5). Keller also noted that the traditional houses had granite ro<strong>of</strong>s, or more recently tiled ro<strong>of</strong>s, <strong>and</strong> he deplored the tendency to add attic conversions – <strong>and</strong> the failure <strong>of</strong> the authorities to prevent them. In contrast, he praised the flat ro<strong>of</strong> for providing either a terrace or being <strong>of</strong> lighter construction. To build flat ro<strong>of</strong>s, Keller maintains, it needs an ‘expert <strong>and</strong> a significant budget’ (Keller et al., 2001: 38). With this, he not only meant to argue for modern buildings, but to redefine the idea <strong>of</strong> mutilation <strong>and</strong> divert it away from specific forms to the bad practice <strong>of</strong> lay people in general. Keller complained: ‘Every mason, apprentice <strong>and</strong> layman can call himself architect <strong>and</strong> what results from this is well known’. <strong>The</strong> practice <strong>of</strong> modern architecture should thus include the ‘education <strong>of</strong> the people’ (Keller et al., 2001: 27). <strong>The</strong> resistance against the new architecture for Keller was ignorance: ‘Before people try to underst<strong>and</strong> the new, they fight it’ because it is an ‘ ... uncommon picture, that [they] cannot process in [their] brains’ (Keller et al., 2001: 19–20). <strong>The</strong> fight between Keller <strong>and</strong> the other modernists against the authorities <strong>of</strong> Ascona provides an example <strong>of</strong> the central problem <strong>of</strong> all legal attempts to protect the cityscape. If such laws should protect the existing, they have to define it in a formal language <strong>and</strong> they have to create stable networks between building parts, meanings <strong>and</strong> uses. <strong>The</strong> study <strong>of</strong> Ascona shows how both parties struggle to discursively create such stable networks <strong>and</strong> constantly fail. Two problems intersect. First, the place <strong>and</strong> time <strong>of</strong> the 9
Change language