Eszter | The relevance of a roof

We just had to write an essay. And we were just forced to read 30 pages of a book. Both terrible. 

But I went home and when I was asked how do I like CEU, I started to talk about the book. The book was The art of relevance by Nina Simon. It deals with the question of how can you make people to come and see your exhibition, your presentation or read your thoughts? Make your topic relevant to them. It means that they need to have a basic connection with that. They need to find something in your topic that is already in them but that is offering something new as well.

But there is also a vital rule: that you can't use trics. You can't cheat.
Offering free food at an exhibition can help but it’s not enough- what is more, sometimes it’s disturbing, blocking people to go for the things that they are really interested in, that they really came for.

Concerning this statement I have the feeling that we have to think about how we use visuality -like graphics, nice pictures, posters, beautiful buildings. Are they also only trics? Do they only blind people with their shine? Or are they basic tools? It is obvious that you have to use visuality for catching the right audience. But if you use them in a wrong way: you are lost. Your audience is lost. You have to use them for making your topic relevant. To invite people who want to be a part of your project. That is a challenge also for architects.

The essay that we have to write is about the architectural plans in the Garden of Ruins in Székesfehérvár which is happened to be in my hometown.  

In Székesfehérvár there are the ruins of the basilica where 38 kings out of 55 were crowned and 15 were buried. It is a very important historical place, often named as ‘national memorial site’. The site was explored and a museum was build next to it in 1939. But the ruins of the old walls still needed protection. After some unsuccessful architectural competitions a huge metal arched roof with a glass cover was built above the ruins in 2000. Well, we are not surprised on the fact that it did not won the locals love. They found it too robostious, too industrial.

But the roof was not tolerated by the archeologists neither as the pillars were built just inside the ruins of the old walls: the workers drilled and put iron rods in them, shuttered them around and poured concrete on the top of them. One of the archeologists said: ’I would just burst on the ruins and cry’. In the end as a result of the protests the roof was destructed in 2004.

Some years after the topic was on the table again as Székesfehérvár made a historical rout in the city and the ruins of the basilica were meant to be the first stage of the ‘Royal Walk’. New competitions happened and in 2010 a discussion was held among experts: archeologists and architects. There was a winner plan by Zsófia Csomay that still did not happen, because it was again - not surprisingly - too modern for the local people.

It was a plan that wanted to make it possible to conservate ruins and at the same time make people feel that this place is important. The attention of the public is already raised: everyone in the city had an opinion about the roof. Local people in general all agreed that it was ugly and had to be demolished. They are happy that they got back the open-air romantic garden. Even if they don't go in but at least it looks nice again. I'm sure if something would happen for them, they would go in to see. Also because of the rumour. But this scandal also means that somehow this place is important. It is important to archeologists, architects and people also. Because people know that the grave of Stephan I. was found there. They know that a lot of Hungarian kings were crowned and buried here. They know history happened here. They know it, but they don’t feel it. There is a contradiction, a tension in them. A new building, a new exhibition that is not ’only’ about preserving the ruins but also about telling, showing something, could connect the place to the people. It could teach them their history and make them proud. It would be relevant. 

But how the visual side of the plans are relevant? Who is it relevant to? Is the appearance of the Csomay’s building relevant only for those who understand the intention of showing that we live in the 21st century? Or would it be relevant anyway despite of its look? Creating a modern building seems to estrange locals from the site. But what kind of architecture is relevant then? Or should the style of a building serve relevance at all?