THE STAIR THAT LEADS NOWHERE

* [CONTRADICTIO IN TRMINIS] NACHO RUIZ ALLN

First Act

It is 19644 at 8330 Miillman street in Chestnut H

Hill, a suburbb of Philadelphia. A youngg American architect
a
has just
j
completeed his first buuilt work. Thee Vanna Ventturi House, thhe house for his mother, will become one of the most
m
significannt architecturral manifestoes of the seccond half of the twentieth
h century. Att the time, itss author, Robbert
Venturi, w
was immerseed in the writinng of the boook that will caatapult him intto fame, Com
omplexity and Contradictionn in
Architectture. In their parallel development, thhe cross-conntamination becomes
b
inevvitable. It waas deliberate. In
this way, house and book,
b
book and house, m
morph into thee same object that is suscceptible of beeing represennted
through ttwo complim
mentary techniiques: writingg and drawinng. And drawiing, as is usuually the casee in architectuure,
ended upp becoming matter.
m
From
m within the ccommotion of
o all the com
mplexities thatt take place in the house, we
find one element, harddly relevant, which
w
we prop
opose to rescuue.
t renown m
main stair thatt connects the ground flooor to the first floor, forcingg its
We are taalking about a stair. Not the
placemennt between thhe chimney and
a the porchh. We are refferring to another stair. On
One that is sm
mall, discreet and
a
that hanggs above the previously mentioned
m
maain stair interrrupting the void
v above it.. This stair springs
s
from the
room on the first flooor and ends against
a
a walll. Because of this it cou
uld be considdered, using the words off its
author, w
whimsical. Evven though, on
o the other hhand, he rem
minds us, it se
erves to cleann the window
w on its side and
a
paint the ceiling abovee it.

Second Acct

We are nnow in Cornw

wall county, Connecticut,
C
1975. Placeed in a naturral setting andd hidden am
mongst the treees,
rises a sstrange housee whose nam
me hints at thhe possibility of finding sim
milar construuctions in othher places. ItI is
House VII. Designed by
b New York architect Pete
ter Eisenman as a vacation
n home for clo
lose friends. Its formalizattion
respondss to ambitiouss spatial strategies in an eeffort to dism
mantle the estaablished canoon. He attem
mpts to eliminnate
the habittual discriminnation betweeen exterior aand interior, front and back, frontal and oblique,...by forcing its
simultaneeous coexisttence. To do
o so he useed color, among other sttrategies. Foollowing a sttrict codificattion
process, all of the ellements that define the rresidence aree painted whiite or gray. The conflict arises out thheir
interactioon.
The two stairs are thee only elements of the hoouse that aree colored. On
ne is green. The other red.
r
Their foorm,
layout annd pigmentatiion respond to the same ggame of recipprocities which originated tthe project. The
T green staiir is
the one tthat ascends from the gro
ound floor to the first. The red one, is the one whic
ich supposed
dly ascends frrom
the first floor to the second.
s
We say supposeedly becausee even though
h from below
w the stair ap
ppears to be the
o the first, shhowing the neegative of its steps, the house
h
does nnot have a second floor. And
A
rotated eequivalence of
this stair is not such, rather,
r
it is onnly the inversse of the real one.

Third Act

Years latter, at the otther end of the world, inn Fukuoka, thhe largest ciity in Kyushuu, Japan. A Dutch architeect,
emulatingg his merchaant ancestry, overcomes JJapans legenndary insularr hermetic naature and buillds in 1991 a 24
unit resiidential compplex.

Its called
c
Nexus World.

Itss author, Rem

m Koolhaas..

The projeect explores the

possibilitties of merginng the urban grid of a rom

man city wheere the objectt quality of thhe residencess is diluted, with
w
the expeerimental grouuping of Miees van der R
Rohes courrtyard housess. The two blocks in whhich the projject
materializzed serve as a virtual plinnth for the neever built tow
wers that were
e supposed tto have beenn erected behhind
them.
Each onee of its resideences is devveloped in thrree levels groouped around
d a patio. Thhe most publiic spaces of the
homes arre located onn the upper leevel. Living R
Room, room with tatami and
a terrace. The great height of the livving
room alloows, in somee cases, to place
p
a balcoony at a higher level. Thiss balcony, haalf interior haalf exterior, iss of
generouss dimensionss, has typical handrails aand wood floooring... All in all, its inh
nhabitable. Nevertheless,
N
its
missing aan indispensaable element for its use. IIt does not haave a stair.

Robert Venturi, Peter Eisenman and Rem Koolhaas. The audacity of mentioning three architects with such distant
positions in the same text, as well as associate them under the common denominator of a stair requires at least an
explanation. It is a simple one: they are not so divergent. The three share a similar critical attitude towards the
complexities of the world in which they have had to build, whether it be theory or buildings.
In terms of theory, a comparative reading of their principles, interests and objectives, makes it possible to venture
that beyond what might appear at first sight, there lies a deep connection. All three have come to the same
conclusion: the only way to regenerate the discipline of architecture in the postmodern era, a period in which the
confidence of its ideological function has been lost, is by calling into question the coherence of its internal nature.
In terms of practice, it gets even more complicated. If the faithful transfer of the world of ideas into matter already
presents itself as a difficult exercise, it will be even more difficult to verify the link that, in theory, keeps them
together. The similarities, equivalences, reciprocities... are diluted in practice, where the reality of the built work is
imposed over mental abstract constructs.
Nevertheless, occasionally, the similarities of their theoretical frameworks have successfully transcended the
conceptual plane to materialize into matter. Examined through a carefree Benjaminian perspective we could say
that we are dealing with fortunate coincidences. This is possibly true without a need for further questioning. But,
why not venture an alternative hypothesis? If we accept that, in the end, they all follow the same libretto, even
though interpreted in different keys, we should stop talking about coincidences. And considering the absolute lack
of innocence that has guided their respective professional careers, we would not fare well to consider them
fortuitous.
Jeffrey Kipnis claims the architectural tale only makes sense if it generates a productive fiction. Following this idea,
we will put forward an alternative interpretative view of their architectural connections. To prove it, we will
concentrate on three particular versions of the same architectural element: the stair. Venturis whimsical stair in
the Vanna Venturi House, Eisenmans unreal stair in House VI and Koolhaas non-existing stair in the Nexus World.
The stair in the Vanna Venturi House does not lead anywhere1 as it is absolutely unnecessary. The only motivation
that we can assure it responds to is the elaborate play of juxtapositions and coexistences that define the residence.
Venturi has no objection in considering it whimsical. Like other elements of the domestic narrative, this stair does
not have a structural2 meaning, nor a functional one. It only has value as a simple de-contextualized object. Its

Robert Venturi described it as the little nowhere stair. See Venturi, Robert, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, New
York, The Museum of Modern Art Press, 1966, 118.
2
Here the term structural is used in a sense close to the structuralist discourse. According to which in every form one can
distinguish, on the one hand, its elements first, and on the other, the relationships that are established between such elements that
guarantee the existence of the ensemble as a system. The most synthetic proposal of structure was formulated by Louis Hjelmslev for
whom it is, essentially, an autonomous entity with internal dependencies.

existence is only justifiable as a symbolic representation of the stair as an architectural element, and not as a stair
itself since what matters the least is that it responds to the expectations of use that its presence suggests.
The stair in House VI cannot be considered real3. Even though it aspires to be so, or at least it appears to be. It is
not just another element, placed freely wherever. Its form, design and dimension are justified by the play of
relationships that gives form to the house. Moreover, this stair forms part of the spatial and conceptual core of the
project. Even so, it cannot be utilized. And contrary to the previous case, it does not pretend to symbolize the
object commonly known as stair, since this house is conceived in a way that all of its elements strip themselves of
their habitual semantic connotations. Therefore, that which looks like a stair, as is the case for the rest of the
architectural elements, only has meaning as a syntactic notation of an abstract compositional process. Nothing
more.
In the Nexus World there is not even a stair, even though it is necessary to access the unreachable balcony4 that
projects over the living room of some of the residences. An inclined mast, that would be difficult to climb, is the
only element the connects the living room and the balcony. Its presence makes the absence of the stair even more
palpable. It does not even appear as a mere symbol or notation, as occurs in the previous examples. Nor signifier
nor signified. Even though its function is more than justified and there is a place to be reached, it is nowhere to be
found.
If there is something the three cases have in common is the incomplete presence of the object/stair. Only part of
its internal nature is exhibited. The stair in the Vanna Venturi House only has a symbolic presence, the stair in
House VI is nothing more than a structural notation; the one in the Nexus World only gets alluded to by a functional
necessity. If we were to add these three qualities we would obtain a complete stair whose presence would be, at
the same time, symbolic, structural and functional. As is usually the case.
Each one of the these stairs is the physical materialization of the main arguments that have guided the trajectories
of their authors. Venturi maintains a close relationship with the semantic aspects of architecture. Eisenmans
efforts have concentrated in divulging his idea of architecture as syntax. Koolhaas shows a special predisposition
for everything concerned with program, or in other words, the programmatic component of the discipline. Their
respective work represents the three currents in which the postmodern practice of architecture has split into, once
consummated its transformation into language.

In an article about House VI, Robert Gutman called it the unreal staircase. It was his understanding that this staircase was used to
inform the visitor that this house could not be read according to typical architectural conventions. See Eisenman, Peter, Gass,
William y Gutman, Robert, House VI: Residence, Critique of Weekend House by Pilosopher, Sociologist, and Architect Himself,
Progressive Architecture, n 58, June 1977, 65.
4
Hard-to-reach balconies as understood by Roberto Gargiani. See Gargiani, Roberto, Rem Koolhaas/OMA. The construction of
merveilles, Lausanne, EPFL Press, 2008, 185.

Without abounding in their dislocated physical presence, but rather in what the stairs suggest as an ensemble, it is
possible to venture that all of them respond to an act that is, in essence, the same: the decomposition of the
internal logic of what has been normally been called a stair, making it unnecessary, not useful or non-existent.
These other stairs are the built version of the common crusade that these three architects have carried out against
the substance of architecture as it is traditionally conceived.
The choice of the stair as the theme is not circumstantial. Most likely, this was the first complete architectural
episode in history, one in which we simultaneously find space, determined by form, and time, necessary for the
development of action that the stair suggests. On the other hand, when communicating different levels, it is not
absurd to consider the stair as the embryo of the vertical component in architecture. Putting into question its
nature means, in a way, to dismantle some of the most rooted principles of the discipline of architecture that have
been passed on from generation to generation since the beginning of time.
In addition, to dislocate a stair inscribed in a domestic space supposes an act too perverse to be considered
innocent or merely rhetorical. In doing so, the architectonic dogmas, as well as the social conventions that are
responsible in many ways for giving historical consistency to them, are put into question. Implicit in this act lies
the insinuation that, as we are already settled in post-modernity, the only way in which o can do architecture is to
situate ourselves beyond the limits imposed by the dogmas and the conventions. Wherever its influence does not
reach and the legitimacy of its precepts crack.
In those years, in which this last cultural period was starting to be given built form, Venturi, Eisenman and Koolhaas
were not the only ones to operate this way. Perhaps the most clear example we find in Lars Lerups conceptual
drawings.
For Lerup, the home was the most apt battlefield in which to explore the conflict between architecture and a set of
conventions in which it has no place5. Lerup proposed a series of planned assaults whose aim was to subvert the
logic of all that formed part of the domestic phenomenology. In this way, besides the stairs, he also dislocated
other habitual components, such as doors, windows, floors and ceilings. The result are intertwined fragments of
house and architecture, he claims, defying any complete readings and rejecting all dogma 6.
Venturi, Eisenman and Koolhaas produced similar operations over the course of their respective careers. If there
was something guiding them, it was their eagerness to distort in different ways a pretty ample repertoire of
common architectural elements. Amongst them, the choice of the stair seems of special interest because it adds
an extra dimension to the matter: the metaphoric.

5
6

Lerup, Lars, Planned Assaults, Cambridge, Massachusetts, The MIT Press, Canadian Centre of Architecture, 1987, 55.
Lerup, Lars, bid, 56.

Their reformulations of this element are the synthesis of two consecutive impulses. One, as Umberto Eco would
say, has to do with the effect that the stair produces as a universal architectural sign: it stimulates one to climb7.
The other, added by them, is new and it is presented in dialectical opposition to the first. Once one is invited to
climb, the ascent, in one way or another becomes impossible.
Nothing stops one from using the stair at the Vanna Venturi House, but it lacks a destination. The stair in House VI
suggests the existence of an upper floor, but this one does not exist. In the Nexus World there is a place to be
reached, but the absence of a stair makes the attempt to do so worthless. Even though in the three situations the
ascend is tentatively insinuated, it is not possible to reach that other place, whether it is because it does not make
sense, because it does not exist or simply because it is unreachable. If we add the received stimulus with the
possibility of its accomplishment, one can conclude that these stairs lead us nowhere.
The stair that leads nowhere is the cruel metaphor of the postmodern architectural condition. The modern myths of
progress and utopia have lost their redemptive capacity, and the most recent architecture does not pretend to be a
promise of a better future. It does not even maintain its faith in the classic belief that the evolution of the discipline
continues ad eternum in an ascendant line to higher levels. It no longer aspires to erect towers of Babel nor Jacob
ladders. The doors to the beyond have been closed. The faith in architecture as a necessary vehicle to transform
the world has derived into a skepticism much closer to the complexity of the present reality. Lets not get scared.
Perhaps it is only the transition from puberty to maturity. Contemporary architecture, at last, has lost its innocence.
The reactions to this situation have been varied. Some wandered over the rubble of past beliefs, trying to
reconstruct conceptual armatures without much resistance. Others maintained a happy and carefree adhesion to
reality, this is what there is, they must have thought. The rest took refuge in a telling silence. Nevertheless, despite
these divergent attitudes, none of them was able to free themselves from the verdict pronounced by Tafuri: if
something distinguishes architecture for some time now is its sublime uselessness8.
To deal with this situation, Venturi, Eisenman and Koolhaas were able to embody an interesting alternative. And
what is more, they learned to provide an answer that was implicated in the matter, transforming that uselessness
into an operative tool. Their reasoning would be the following: if architecture has definitely settled into a sublime
uselessness, lets make use of this circumstance. Let's make it vox populi that the architecture itself reveal this
new condition from its interior, that it rip to shreds the formulation of its discourse; that it rebel against it, that it
stop aspiring to perfection and coherence, that it show its scars, lacerations, contradictions and hidden
repressions. In short, that it come clean with its own anguished reality.

Eco, Umberto, La struttura assente. La recerca semiotica e il metodo structturale, Miln, Bompiani, 1968.
Tafuri, Manfredo, Progetto e utopia: Architettura e sviluppo capitalistico, Bari, Laterza, 1973 (English edition: Architecture and
Utopia: Design and Capitalist Development, Cambridge, Massachusetts, The MIT Press, 1979, IX)
8

If in addition, it is also able to shake the consciousness, putting into question the image of the world that has been
described, penetrate the cracks of reality, understand that other sensible horizons exist and point towards new
aesthetic paradigms, that is, propose a critical positioning, an aspiration that guided its first theoretical impulses,
the road ahead presents itself productively.
And since we are talking about the road ahead, lets not forget that it no longer has a ascendant logic. It is a
truncated road due to the way it enters into territories from which it is no longer possible, nor indispensable, to look
for a way out. This is fuel that feeds an activity that no longer is concerned with going in a specific direction, but
rather, extract the maximum profitability from a situation in which, as Reinhold Martin has recently expressed, there
is nowhere left to go9.
Venturi, Eisenman and Koolhaasstairs are the precise reflection of this circumstance, when metaphorically
manifesting the incoherence of a movement as impossible as it is useless, that does not lead anywhere. In them is
held, at least implicitly, the distorted logic that guided the drawing of Piranesis Carcieri series. Responsible in
Tafuris view of a negative utopia whose grandeur lies precisely in its denial to create alternative possibilities10.
And also, why not, something of the architecture without purpose of the city of the immortals described by Borges,
whose creators, esteeming all exertion vain, resolved to live in thought, in pure speculation11.
In conclusion, every time the dysfunction of a stair implies the risk of falling, we will have to conclude that the
modern promenade has finally turned into the postmodern precipice. But not so that we jump, but rather so that
the temptation of the abyss reminds us, that for some time, the seams of the road have become undone.

Reinhold Martin considered that postmodernity had meant the rupture and fragmentation of modernitys linear narratives. The
result is an architectural panorama in which there is nowhere to go. The best way he found to explain it was through a story similar
to the one told here. Using the logic of architectural circulation sequences, he compared Le Corbusiers conciliatory and cinematic
promenade architecturale of Le Villa Savoye of 1929, the anticlimactic truncated circulation routes of James Stirlings
Neue Staatsgalerie in Sttugart of 1983, Oswald Mathas Ungers never built Wallraf-Richartz Museum in Cologne of 1975 and
Charles Moore and Richard Chylinskys Rogger Hofflander Condominium in Los Angeles of 1978. In this last building, Martin
detected numerous stairs that lead nowhere in particular. He related the frustrated connections of its interior spaces with Piranesis
engravings in which the sinister and the sublime took place. For Martin, this project, as well as the previous ones, has been content
to exchange the master narratives of modernism for any number of inconclusive, episodic, and noncommittal micronarratives that
add up, exactly, to nothing. See Martin, Reinhold, Utopias Ghost. Architecture and Postmodernism, Again, Minneapolis, University
of Minnesota Press, 2010, 153-164.
10
Tafuri, Manfredo, La sfera e il labirinto: Avanguardia e architettura da Piranesi agli anni 70, Turn, Einaudi, 1980
11
According to Borges, in this city there where corridors that led nowhere, unreachably high windows, grtandly dramatic doors that
opened onto monklike ceels or empty shafts, incredible upside-down staircases with upside-down treads and balustrades. Other
staircases, clinging airily to the side of a monumental wall, petered out after two or three landing, in the high gloom of the cupolas,
arriving nowhere. Borges, Jorge Luis, El Aleph, Buenos Aires, Editorial Sur, 1949.