Interview

Nicole Howard with Roger Riewe

nh: Design education is often such an undefined process that one must be aware of prescribed procedures taking hold. With regard to conditioned openness how does your design process evolve?

rr: Well, first of all we try to figure out how the project we are about to design will work and at the same time try to set up different scenarios of utilization.

We try to analyse the possibilities of utilization, but we don’t define them!

Then we start thinking of structures which create space for the scenarios of utilization to develop. Abstract structures offer more possibilities of utilization than non-abstract structures. We don’t try to define a space in a classical way but rather try to outline a space in terms of a conditioned openness – a space with contents so to speak.

nh: How do you see personal artefacts fitting into your architecture?

I know that the way I make a space/place for myself has changed dramatically since beginning my architectural training. Can you describe your personal space/place in the world?

rr: When I see personal artefacts being fixed into our architecture I feel satisfied because it is a sign that the people are taking the building into their possession. It is their’s and not our’s any more. That is important.

Being something like a global nomad I either have no place in the world, or my place is everywhere. I prefer the second option.  

When being a nomad you are never part of the society. You are always outside. You can never change this state. As a nomad, you can only influence the degree of acceptance.  

But that’s fine, because from the outside your possibilities of observing society are far better than from within. You can be critical without hurting anybody.

nh: To what extent does your client appreciate your user-interpreted schemes. Do they accept your version of abstraction?

rr: We actually don’t tell the client anything about our scenarios of utilization. When the people move into a building of ours, they are usually skeptical, combined with a certain element of uncertainty. When they start utilizing the space, they start appreciating it, but we will never be able to convince every inhabitant of the positive features of a project.

Abstraction means richness - not reduction! But hardly anyone knows that. So we don’t talk about these very specific terms. It is also of no importance in our method of planning. Abstraction is merely a result of the planning process.

That’s all!

nh: Can you elaborate on how you envision the user defining their own space? How does the architecture recede to allow the person to ‘inhabit’ it? How do you prevent creating homogeneous spaces while at the same time making them functionally specialized?

rr: Imagine moving into an old, historical building. No kitchen, only a toilet and a tap somewhere, no power plugs, just a large non-determined space. Now you have to start thinking of how you want to utilize the space, where you want to sleep, to cook, to eat, watch TV etc. and then you notice this non-determined space has the potential to trigger off your fantasies. Just think of how lofts are inhabited!

When developing non-determined spaces architecture actually automatically begins to recede. The more architecture recedes, the more freedom the inhabitants will have.

The spaces we create are functionally not specialized, they are open. The spaces we create are a result of a design process, so that’s why we don’t have to take care of preventing homogenous spaces or of deliberately creating heterogeneous spaces.

nh: Although your office tends to distance itself from the traditions of Modernism with regard to functional specificity, you do subscribe to the simplicity of materials and detailing or what you call low-tech. You also describe your work in relation to the utility of the spaces taking precedence over the formal qualities. The Technical University project involved a rather extravagant method of pre-ageing the formwork in order that the in situ concrete would have a certain appearance. How do you resolve contradictions such as these?

rr: I don’t see any contradiction. The ageing of the formwork is not extravagant, it’s just somewhat unusual. And that’s the point. It’s not so important what you see but rather how you see. It is the point of what happens to you when you perceive, when you see something unusual, something that is not common to you. And here we go off into the field of minimalism. For a better understanding, I would define low tech as sophisticated simplicity and that’s what the university building is all about.

nh: You stated in your lecture that the necessary self-confidence is achieved by contextualizing the building in terms of urban development”. There is a strong delineation between building and landscape in your work. The university project appears somewhat self-referential and in many ways quite introverted. It does assert confidence but how does it address contextual issues?

Why is this delineation so important to your work and how do you feel it enhances the contextual relationship?

rr: The sequence of volumes allows the university project to be something like a missing link on quite different levels which opens up many possibilities of contextualization. The aspect of utilisation is more important than the interpretation of the characteristics of a town in terms of proportion and space and both are more important than the formal aspects of fitting the project into it’s environment. This ranking is the total opposite of conventional ranking methods for trying to qualify good or bad projects.

Do farmhouses or even grain silos fit into their environment? Yes and no.

In terms of a formal approach they don’t fit in their rural setting. The shape, the material, the colour, nothing matches. The delineation between building and landscape is strong! But still we would never say that farmhouses are alien elements. We have become accustomed to them being there, because they have always been there but in terms of a subconscious perception we have also noticed that there is a reason why they are there. These buildings have the potential of utilization and herewith the general discussion can be lead on a higher and far more interesting level than merely elaborating on formal aspects.

nh: This exhibited self-confidence is mentioned following a reference to Peter Smithson’s statement regarding a building that fills the surrounding space with a “quietude which our perception has not yet recognized as architecture at all”. How does one make a distinction or correlation between your architecture of self confidence while at the same time pursuing the subtleties of quietude in architecture?

Can architecture achieve both simultaneously? If so, can you offer us an example of your architecture that achieves this simultaneity?

rr: Only the architecture containing the potential of self confidence is able to pursue the subtleties of quietude in architecture. I think the university building is all about that. You should visit it and experience it yourself.

nh: Architectural forms and positions have always been closely knit with artistic and philosophical movements. Your firm doesn’t pursue a certain style – but is there anything that you search for within your own Austrian traditions that has inspired you?

rr: Being a stranger within the Austrian society I’ve become something like a critical observer. The Austrian traditions don’t interest me, so they also don’t inspire me. I’m a person living in the present and at the same time I’m deeply concerned about the future. So there’s hardly any place for the past and none for traditions. But that doesn’t mean I reject traditions. I see the quality of them and the potential they have, but they are not mine. Architecture is not based on the rejection of tradition or of the past. Our architecture is very often the visualization of our self-critical position in our society.

Nicole Howard is an MArch student at the University of Calgary and the Editor of Volume One / 98.99.