COMRIE AND WILKINSON

CHAPEL OF LIGHT
VAAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, VANDERBIJL PARK

Architects:
Comrie + Wilkinson, Architects & Urban Designers, Pretoria.

Words:
Prof. Paul Kotze, School of Architecture & Planning, University of the Witwatersrand.

Any route to the new Chapel of the Vaal University of Technology in Vanderbijl Park traverses a relatively bleak and featureless landscape. The campus, situated not far from the banks of the Vaal River, is in the midst of the desolation of suburbia. It is surrounded by over scaled roads and what appears to be a rustbelt of industry. The park-like quality of the campus lacks any distinctive qualities of ‘place’ due its lack of spatial definition and it appears to be on the ‘periphery’, far removed from any ‘centre’ of intellectual debate and economic activity. Its context, in the fullest sense of the word, can be viewed as marginal to any sphere of intense scrutiny, debate and focus for serious professional/academic endeavour. It thus could arguably be an arena of dangerous pitfalls for any architect. Dangerous first and foremost, in its lack of social and cultural clues and secondly in terms of its lack of architectural constraints to enable the architect to find an appropriate strateg. It is also however, an opportunity for the serious minded architect to make a poetic interpretation of the wishes and needs of a society through the means of the client’s brief. On the other hand, it should be noted that there are also many remarkable examples worldwide where architects have been faced with the same challenges and have produced works that have made a fundamental and lasting contribution to architectural culture. Such buildings all bear testimony to a soundness of architectural and professional judgment, knowledge and individual talent.

The client’s requirements were relatively straightforward, namely a desire for a non denominational place of worship on the campus that would accommodate approximately 100 people. The accompanying budget for the project was equally small. The campus is on an elongated site stretching form north to south. The educational buildings are situated on the northerly portion and the residential quarters on the southerly section. In between these broad functional arrangements is a shallow valley that is a virtual no-mans land traversed from west to east by a stormwater channel culminating in a retention pond just outside the eastern boundary. The chapel is placed on this middle part of the site and the only feature that the architects could respond to in this vicinity is the previously mentioned retention pond. Furthermore, the built form of the campus can be characterized as buildings as objects in space without any clear spatial concept or framework. The buildings housing the academic functions are placed on a grid structure organized along a central north-south axis. However, this axial arrangement has no relationship with the housing component of the campus. This component has no recognizable spatial concept other than that it consists of free standing buildings totally unrelated to each other. This part of the campus is furthermore particularly uninspiring. For example, the overly elaborate security arrangements of each building bear testimony to the inability of the built fabric to engender a sense of community and human dignity. Apart from the lack of spatial continuity between the northerly and southerly sections of the campus there exists no discernable common agreement or architectural language on the campus and it is a virtual ‘free for all’ situation. There is thus, no apparent tradition of urban space/place making. In this kind of void it is particularly difficult for the architect to find clues, limitations or constraints, other than the wishes or budget of the client, on which to base a conceptual position or to find a freedom of expression within chosen confines. For the serious architect, the base on which to work can then only come from an understanding of the context, appropriate use of the ‘first principles’ of the traditions of architecture, a theoretical understanding or position and the judicious use, through sheer talent and insight, of a wide frame of reference in the making of architectural space. In other words, a physical and conceptual ‘site’ has to be constructed in which to locate a building.

In the design of this chapel the architect, Chris Wilkinson [partner in Comrie + Wilkinson, Architects & Urban Designers, Pretoria and Morné Pienaar [currently a final year architectural student at the University of Pretoria] had to draw extensively on their particular architectural frame of reference. Their dip into this source of inspiration was done in a refreshingly honest and open way and they did so as homage to other architects and architectural traditions. From their work it is clear that they inherently understand the principles of the architectural precedent that they have looked at and in no way have they devalued these traditions. They focused their study on architectural precedent regarding the making of ecclesiastic space, the manipulation of light, structure and materials. Such space could bear the characteristics of seclusion and contemplation, route and spatial continuity/hierarchy, serenity and timelessness, and an unambiguous use of materials and tectonic expression. In many ways, to be successful, this kind of space needs to gather around it the unity of the spirit of its place and its users. It can become the symbol of a community’s innermost life and it can represent the shape of their individual and collective destiny. The use and moulding of light is a common theme and it has emotive power in this kind of context. Collectively, their chosen precedent represents the aforementioned attributes and includes:

The Anglican Cathedral in Pietermaritzburg designed by Heinrich Kammeyer and Norbert Rozendal.
The work of the architects Álvaro Siza, Luis Barragán and Carlo Scarpa.
The Great Zimbabwe ruins.
Le Corbusier’s Notre Dame du Haut chapel at Ronchamp.
The Hector Peterson Museum in Soweto by Mashabane Rose Associates for the use of red bricks.
The community centre at Steinkopf designed by Roelof Uytenbogaardt.
The famous Nolli map of Rome and the way that it distinguishes between public, semi private and private space.

A deep seated understanding of the characteristics and elements of the above aspects appear in their design in a completely reworked and original form.

Wilkinson was a brilliant and well respected student and his early exposure to the work of Uytenbogaardt, specifically the building at Steinkopf, left a lasting impression. There exists a clear reference to the Steinkopf building in the way that they have handled the section and roofing of the Chapel. Yet there are also distinct differences – Uytenbogaardt uses the ceiling to mould the light in a way that Aalto might have done it, while in Wilkinson and Pienaar’s work the roof floats effortlessly and delicately, as if supported by air. The triple roofline at the Steinkopf building serves as a datum line for the profile of the mountains on the horizon while in this chapel the roofline is hovering above the horizon in a way that it frames the sky and draws it down to the level of humans - like a giant weightless parasol. In this aspect, it resembles the manner in which le Corbusier designed the roof of the Chapel at Ronchamp to be a dark hovering mass ‘floating’ above the main space. These architects all had in common the intrinsic understanding that it would be the profile of their buildings etched against the sky and the passing sun that would become the iconic memory and symbol. At the chapel in Vanderbijl Park the highest section of the roof extends partially over the entrance courtyard making a gesture towards the entrance and at the same time linking inside with outside in the way that windows are placed. From the inside this extended roof can also be viewed - this enlarges the sense of space of the relatively small interior of the Chapel. The vertical element of the chapel, rounded in plan, is placed in relation to a street immediately west of the site. This act leads one to the building and its entrance where the route to the interior starts. The tower is placed on a low podium, enabling the space to be used for outside services – not unlike similar possibilities at Ronchamp. Entering the courtyard the visitor faces east and a low level opening in the southern wall forming this court yard is a last reminder of the outside world, while a bench provides seating for quiet contemplation in a serene space. Immediately to the north in this space, a purposefully jarring and incongruous architectural element is placed, housing ablution and office functions. Its shape and colour is reminiscent of a giant boulder – a last ‘obstacle’ in the way of the pilgrim to reach the inner sanctuary. It is placed in front of the entry and it needs to be passed or negotiated in order to find the entry behind. This is a highly successful device to heighten the expectations upon entering the inner space of the chapel beyond. Once in the chapel, the visitor is treated to a virtuoso, but muted and elegant, play of direct and indirect light. No real direct views to the outside world exist from this space – a lesson learnt from the study of the Nolli map. The height to floor ratio is perfectly judged and it engenders a quality of simultaneous humility and grandeur. The reality of the smallness of the building disappears completely in its inner sanctum which, in terms of absolute space has the smallest area of all the spaces. In this aspect it resembles the Dutch Reformed Church of Welkom West by Uytenbogaadt and it is the inverse of the circular drum of the Anglican Cathedral in Pietermaritzburg where the dominant form appears much bigger from the outside than from the inside. The use of light and resultant interior qualities is far more predictable and restrained in the last two mentioned examples than in this chapel where it is obvious that the architects derived and, at the same time, provided much pleasure in their use of light. This symphony of light is not unlike Jorn Utzon’s groundbreaking design for a church at Bagsvćrd in Denmark.

On the exterior of the building the multi-coloured red brick surface is treated like a taut skin. Its muted sheen reflects and shimmers in the sunlight while its shapes create an expressive play of light and shadow on the surface. This makes the building highly sculptural in form - it is ‘alive’ and it constantly elicits surprises when viewed in the round. In contrast, the interior is restful, serene and ethereal and pure in its whiteness. The interior is however, warm and humane to the touch due to the softness of the bagged plaster finish, the slightly uneven slate floor and the warm glow of the wooden panels of the ceiling. The west facing wall is a tour de force in the way that the requirements of structure and the manipulation of light have been handled. Its interior and exterior qualities are in complete contrast to each other. The structure of the building is clear and unambiguous and it displays how the building was made. Many smaller elements like the ceiling, doors and finishes are applied in the same layered way as in which the sequence of the building’s spaces unfolds. These elements always allow views to what is behind and to what can be expected. The detailing is crisp and similarly direct. It is in tune with what can generally be expected from and achieved by the average South African builder. The craftsmanship and general built quality is enviable. The combination of the architects’ skill and builder’s ability will ensure that the building will endure physically.

Predictions about the longer term influence and value of buildings are intrinsically dangerous and should, at best, be avoided. This building was unsuccessfully entered in the SA Institute of Architects Project Awards program. The results of this round of awards were published in Architecture South Africa of November/December 2003. It failed to impress the assessors, Dr. Gabriel Fagan, Mr. Glen Gallagher and Ms. Jean Nuttall, sufficiently to be included in the list of awards. Between this submission and its realization the structure of the building was marginally simplified while some accommodation was added during the construction process. This indicates the inability to truly reflect the building’s real qualities and impact on paper. The scale and budget of the building is small and arguably insignificant when compared to many other buildings of note. Yet it reveals its delights slowly, humbly and in a very straightforward manner. It is this authenticity that captivates and holds the attention. It makes open and honest references to strong and relevant South African and international traditions of architectural space making. Yet it is not derivative in the least as it makes it own contributions to these traditions. In a world where architectural ‘worth’ is sometimes more driven by fashion, whim, the ability to shock, the inherent aggression of the non-referential architectural statement or personal attributes/connections this building could be viewed as the total opposite. Here the architects, Comrie + Wilkinson, assisted by Pienaar, worked respectfully and humbly, but masterfully, with the opportunity they have been afforded. Over time, the serious architect and user is bound to find a rich source of inspiration, delight and influence in the chapel on the campus of the Vaal University of Technology that will, by far surpass its physical size.