How did you get in touch with architecture?
I grew up in a rather radical architect’s house from the 1960ies. Due to my father’s job I came to know many artists and architects in my childhood and youth. This strongly formed me.
What was it exactly that teased you?
The interface between art and engineering, which architecture always is. But much more I was attracted by the individuality. In private projects it’s the personality of the owner, in corporate or institutional clients the corporate culture and phylosophy are key drivers for a project. I like the human interaction. At the end architecture is not only a service for a client, but much more a communal process of creation, which involves the user and which will, only with the full engagement of all involved parties, result in the aimed result.
What is your role in this process?
The architect brings all parties together on one table. I don’t aim for a strong authorship in architecture, although I fully believe that in very important projects it is justified and necessary. My personal aim is the finding of solutions, that specifically respond to the clients’ needs. A project must nevertheless be an evolution for a client, a next step of architectural challenge.
You are fascinated by the architecture’s interface of engineering and art. Did architecture change in the age of high tech?
I have always been fascinated by technology, but not as an end in itself, but in order to make things possible, which otherwise would not have been done. I am therefore not a unconditional proponent for technological solution. Exactly the opposite is the case: true high-tech architecture is low tech. An architecture, which due to its conception and construction, responds to all requirements with as little technology as possible.
Clarity and readability of the detail are key aspects I am interested in. For example, my own expectation on the perfection and clarity of a floorplan is extreme. I don’t believe in “designed” facades, but on the development of a buildings hull from the inside out. This means from the function, the floor plan and the spaces.
Is there a specific style that you follow?
I don’t follow any specific aesthetic style. My aim is to design modern, contemporary buildings, that in close interaction with the client generate the possible maximum of functionality, satisfaction and identification.
Following a specific style would, from my point of view, not allow me, to accomplish my mission. The big chance and responsibility in each project lays in the development of an architecture, that reflects the client’s requirements and identity appropriate in our time.
An architecture that also respects social, cultural, local and regional needs. Might it be an internationally operating, future oriented company or a family.
If I would follow a specific style, I wouldn’t be able to fulfil my responsibility.
I am for example clearly against generating additional constructive efforts simply due to an aimed stylish shape. My understanding of good architecture is, that is has to be timeless, durable and honest.
timeless, durable and honest: how do such buildings look like?
I feel obliged to follow the idea of transparency, clarity, plausibility and honest of materials, readability of the built form and durability in my projects.
Buildings should be self-explanatory, easy to understand und functional, creating the surrounding and not the content of our life and work. Spaces, might they be in a room, a building or an urban space have different requirements on function and scale. Important is for each space the appropriate scale, that comforts the people.
Are there architects the formed you?
There are many examples of architects that have formed my understanding of architecture. Most important for me is it, to see, which evolution the architect due to the change of requirements has undergone.
Concerning the human scale, WAHRNEHMUNG and appearance of space, Le Corbusier was important to me - but also the traditional Japanese architecture. The step into a higher, contemporary complexity of projects from my point of view was best achieved by architects like Richard Rogers, whose social and human studio set up also fascinates me. Momentarily I admire the works of Herzog & de Meuron, whose buildings are all special, specific and extremely well executed.
After more than 20 years in the job you started you own studio in 2015. Why did you do this?
During my time at ingenhoven architects I had a high responsibility in the office and in projects and was mainly responsible in the internationalization of the office. Of course, it was fascinating to be travelling the entire world for projects and to work together with internationally recognized clients.
The reason for starting my own studio at the end was the independence and own creative process associated with it. I now have the ability, to generate autonomously and in each project scale solutions for my clients beyond their expectation. All this can now be done in a process that is much more positive for all involved parties than it would have been possible in my former professional life.
The texts are the result of several discussions and conversations that I have had with various people over the past 10 years. I would especially like to thank Layla Dawson (+ 2015), who has made a significant contribution to clarifying my ideas and goals and putting these thoughts into words for the first time, and Miriam Witsch, who helped me to complete them.