Part 1

Our office has been in existence for 40 years. For the first fifteen years we were a relatively small team.
There were never more than 15 architects working with us. We worked in the Stuttgart region in southern Germany. In this respect we could easily have been called regional architects.
But, on the other hand our partners had come to us from other regions, and in a way they were "immigrants". One was from Pomerania a former German province that is now part of Poland. Two came from the Soviet-occupied part of Germany, from Saxony and so on. It’s probably because of this background that we didn’t become truly regional architects; and we hadn’t intended to either.

For some twenty years now I have tried to ensure that as many as possible of the architects, who work in our office are from other regions. Today we have around 100 architects working with us and probably 80 of them are not local people. Many of them are from Hesse (I taught at the Faculty of Architecture in Darmstadt for two decades). Several come from other European countries and there is a big overseas contingent.

For some twenty years now I have tried to ensure that as many as possible of the architects, who work in our office are from other regions. Today we have around 100 architects working with us and probably 80 of them are not local people. Many of them are from Hesse (I taught at the Faculty of Architecture in Darmstadt for two decades). Several come from other European countries and there is a big overseas contingent.

With this composition and given the fact that we usually work together in such a way that the architecture evolves from the problem itself influences due to regional peculiarities, if there are any, can have only very little impact.

Now people who derive their importance from reporting on and writing about our work like to put us in different categories. We are called late Expressionists, then Constructivists; then we are late Modernists, then Regionalists, then Functionalists. It seems that people like thinking in categories

I see it differently. The different styles of the pasts were a way of finding solutions to different problems. New methods were developed. One of Venturi’s achievements for instance was that he introduced elements of trivial architecture into academic architecture. Sullivan adopted ideas and elements that had already existed for a long time in industrial buildings. Frank Lloyd Wright reduced the conventional “box” form to its constituent elements from anonymous architecture; Le Corbusier introduced phenomena which until then had been customary in the Mediterranean region. Rietveld evolved formal orders consisting of lines and surfaces- the forms in which many industrial products come to us - etc. Developments and discoveries of this kind extended the horizons of architecture, increasing its "room for manoeuvre". And thus, architecture was given the means with which to satisfy the demands that reality placed on it.

(It is difficult to satisfy new demands with an old consciousness, technology and an old formal order.)

But I if we believed that new developments would eliminate the old, we would be missing the point. Rather, we should understand such development as means of making good shortcomings and filling gaps in the existing repertoire, enlarging and enriching it. After all, the invention of plastic floor coverings did not cause wooden boards to be abandoned and nor did the development of industrially produced, prefabricated rooms destroy the formal order of traditional solid building. Our repertoire has increased, there are more options open to us - that's what has happened.

Today we have many methods, many different materials and many ways of organizing form. Today, where previously only one or a few answers were possible, we have a choice of several, and sometimes a large number of answers. Today we can produce a specific, specialized answer - and thus the appropriate one.

Of course, it's also possible in architecture today to choose the wrong answer, or one that is less than appropriate. We can palaver, and talk nonsense. But we can also experiment, seeking what is new, what’s appropriate; just as easily as we can cover all questions and requirements with a single answer.
A great deal is possible today. That's how I see it.

Well, in our office we take a certain pleasure in experimenting. In our work we get to know the world. We try to identify the new, the special features of every job; in the job itself, but in the context, too, for instance with regard to the people working with us. And because this is so, I find it understandable that our designs tend to appear special, and different. I find it hard to identify many regional influences.
Where would they come from?

In former times it was different, of course. Materials, methods of production, consciousness, traditions and so on were regionally specific, and differed from region to region. Under those circumstances, a farmhouse in the Black Forest, for instance, had to be different - and look different – from farmhouse in Lower Saxony or in your country.

But today, now that production methods, materials, our consciousness etc. are international - at most graded according to levels of development in individual countries - factories, office buildings, façades and so forth are becoming increasingly uniform. The same applies to our images of the world. They are coming closer to one another, too.

The differences are becoming smaller. And they are originating in other places. In the past, the peculiarities of a building's appearance were mainly due to the peculiarities of the locality and the region. Today, because the peculiarities of the localities have come closer to one another, the peculiarities of buildings derive more from those of the individuals who plan the buildings, from the way they see their task. And that is no doubt only partly linked to the region in question. I should perhaps point out here that what we call “anonymous architecture" was very strongly I influenced by regional peculiarities. Academic architecture was dictated first and foremost by supraregional forces; even when those forces contained regional elements. On the one hand, for example, Baroque architecture spread throughout Europe. But on the other, the Baroque of Apulia is clearly also influenced by the soft, easily sculptured local stone and the steady climate. In contrast, the Baroque architecture of southern Germany bears the stamp of the harsher climate there. Where the weather tends to be cold, with snow, ice and rain for several months of the year, the freedoms of Baroque tend to retreat into the interiors of the buildings. The exteriors were weatherproof housings, with the Baroque style elements as decoration, in stucco and paint.

But today, now that we can eliminate climatic influences with curtain walls and air conditioning - with the same results all over the world - the buildings that are "conditioned" in this way will tend to look alike ... all over the world.

I believe we can regard the following as valid statements:

• Previous centuries anonymous architecture was dictated by regional peculiarities.

• Academic architecture was regionally influenced as regards its "basis", but supraregionally determined by its "superstructure".
(These are concepts from Materialist philosophy. The "basis" includes resources, means of production etc. The "superstructure" is the image of the world that evolves from the basis- the way we co-exist, tradition etc.)

• These supraregional influences affected the regions covered by the cultural world in question. Today since we communicate globally, influences have a global impact. Hence there is an unmistakeable trend towards global architecture.

• Given this situation, influences from the "basis" of the region can still have an effect on architecture if we voluntary limit ourselves with regard to the means; for instance if we forgo air conditioning plants, so that we once again have to put up with sun, wind, cold, rain and so on; or if we forgo certain materials and methods, so that we have to make do with old building methods again.

• However, if we make use of the possibilities available to us in this day and age, the kind of architecture we produce will tend to be global architecture. And the individuality of things will be the result of influences that are not restricted to a particular region, and so it will also be global. It may derive from the intended purpose or function of the building. As a rule, however, it derives from the way see the architectural task, and the world.

• Architecture has become more detached - from the influences of Nature, for example. And I believe I can see signs that it is also shaking off its links to practical functions.

• But this has also made architecture more open to interpretation and commentary. It has become freer, more open, more amendable to our hopes and desires, to our ideals, our higher world.

Now I would like to show you, taking some of the buildings that we have designed as examples, how we have filled out these new freedoms.

Part 2

I'd like to present some buildings to you that were designed in our office at about the same time.

In 1987 we completed a factory complex for Leybold AG.
Actually, it isn't really what you'd call a factory- it's more a research establishment where the company investigates new problems and finds solutions to them, develops production processes and prototypes of machines, for itself and other companies. Seventy per cent of the company's employees work in labs and design offices, and only a small number in the assembly shops. Most of the employees are university or college graduates.

In this case the principal requirements in the brief were formulated by the company itself, by Dr. Alfred Hauff. He specified the kind of teamwork he envisaged in the new building, his concept of the overall nature and function of the new factory, how scientists and technologists should co-operate, the close links between the design departments and assembly shops etc. His view was that if one expects everybody to give of their best, then one should give everybody good working conditions. And good architecture, too: the same quality at all workplaces – in the assembly shops, the design offices, the executive suites, the canteen etc.

The building was to be precise and clear-cut, and each part of it was to display individuality. We succeeded translating these and other requirements into architecture.

The factory was designed and built within a very short time. There wasn't really time for the architecture to develop and mature gradually, and this doubtless explains the uniformly light, open overall impression of the complex. We developed a few individual areas in more detail, for example the canteen and the foyer.

The factory was built on a site that had already been "exploited". So the site had to be recultivated. We also did what we could to improve the micro-climate in the vicinity of the factory, because the company only wanted air-conditioning in a few parts of the building. In other areas they wanted windows that-could be opened. A lot of trees were planted and a large pool was built beneath the design offices.

On this originally desolate site the company created a world of its own, both inside and outside the building.

The architectural task we undertook for Leybold AG had plenty of substance of its own, so there was little scope for experiments, for something out of the ordinary, for example in the formal sphere. But there was no need for such experiments, either.

Architecture critics and reviewers seem confused by the Fact that the building we design lock different.

But we don't find it surprising. On the contrary, we find that it could hardly be otherwise: after all, every architectural problem has its own parameters and herice also its own special solution. But other people seem to see it differently.

I believe, quite simply, that we all only see and recognize what we are capable of seeing and recognizing. And therefore a person's judgment is also a reflection of his or her own capabilities.

As for us, we also quite simply enjoy experimenting in architecture - looking for something special, something new. I'm sure this shows through in our buildings, for example the Hysolar Institute at the University of Stuttgart.

As far as the basic planning was concerned, this was a very straightforward brief:
a handful of laboratories, some workshop facilities, a storeroom. There wasn't really anything that couldn't have been housed in two or three sheds.

But the client, in the person of the Director of the University Building Office, had clearly not called us to have us design two or three sheds. Obviously something else was expected of us.

This was a job which offered us scope for experiments in architecture in the formal aspects, and we exploited that scope. We did so with the support and encouragement of the University Building Office; they saw it as their task to apply government procedures and regulations in such a way that our work was helped rather than hindered.

I can think of several administrative bodies that could learn from this example. Usually, of course, the constraints and regulations imposed by authorities are transmitted to us direct, and with amplified vigour, by their representatives.

Certainly, opinions may differ concerning the architecture of the Hysolar Institute. One must admit, however, that it shows that if one resists restriction and imposed difficulties, and instead of passing them on creates a measure of freedom, then the experimental, the pleasurable side of architecture has a chance to develop; or at any rate, things that aren't subject to the constraints which those involved have to live and work with.

And I hope you agree that in the world of architecture there should be a pointer to a world that isn't marked by the constraints of empirical reality: one that may be better, freer, or perhaps even just different.

As you're bound to have noticed, in this project we created a kind of collage; and in arranging the collage we experimented with, applied and aestheticised a method of dealing with industrial products.

It was fun for those involved, and although the building is a rather one-sided experiment, it's compatible enough with the University. There are many other buildings around it, some of them interesting, some more conventional, and they help to integrate it into the overall picture of a varied world- one that's perhaps also fun from time to time.

My next example is the new library of the Catholic University in Eichstätt.

Eichstätt is a small town in Franconia, between Nuremberg and Munich. It has been a bishopric since 741 AD. Today it is the smallest diocese in the Federal Republic of Germany.
In the Thirty Years' War - that is between 1618 and 1648 - Eichstätt was destroyed. It was rebuilt during the Counter-Reformation, in the Baroque style. The town survived the last war undamaged, and so in Eichstätt today there are a lot of imposing Baroque buildings, testifying to the renewed vigour of the Catholic Church after the Thirty Years' war.

Into this architectural context the Diocesan architect Karl-Josef Schattner integrated a number of modern buildings. Other, older buildings 1were converted, to accommodate the only catholic university in the Federal Republic - in my opinion - very skilfully.

The town of Eichstätt lies in the romantic valley of the River Altmühl. The site for the new Central Library that we designed is on the banks of the river outside the old town centre. Here, the building could develop more freely, was less subject to restrictions than in the already crowded town.

A large, high room for the 1ibrary itself opens out towards the river and the town. In this room we incorporated a second level, resembling a large gallery (or a dress circle). At the rear of this library room, in another part of the building, there are rooms for two faculties on the upper floors. Below, on the ground floor, is the library administration. The main book stacks are underground.

Relational lines radiate from the centre of the library, linking it to specific points in the town 'and the surrounding landscape. In this case we had plenty of time for design work; in contrast to the Hysolar building, for example, where the job had to be completely finished in just over a year. We worked for at least four years on the library in Eichstätt. And thus, while the design for the Hysolar Institute had to be implemented practically immediately, there was time here for various strata and a lot of problems to develop. The road from preliminary design to completed project was a long one, and the buildings appearance changed and evolved on the way.

If only because of these conditions, the new library is more differentiated, more complex, less categorical; rather, it is capable of many different relationships.

Today we see this building not as a single, united whole, but rather as a structure consisting of various individual areas and individual forms. That is, as a multifarious complex which does not I disintegrate, but is coherent as a result of its intrinsic unity. Each area has been able to develop according to its own conditions. And within these areas there are smaller areas, parts and elements that stand out by virtue of their individuality.

In the library room there are reading carrels along the large glass wall facing the river. There are other reading places on the gallery, and still others in inner rooms etc. The chairs and tables are the same, it's true (if we designed another library we would perhaps make them different) but each place is above all characterized by its individuality.

We tried to evade the "laws" imposed by the machinery of officialdom - the production, planning, administrative, technological and other apparatuses - or at least, not to obey them. And we tried instead to provide freedom, scope for other aspects to develop- the special, smaller, weaker elements etc.

Nor did we attempt to give the building as a whole formal harmony, or to draw the individual forms together. We believe that the individual elements, and the spaces between individual forms are the most interesting; the points where larger units come into contact and don't quite harmonize. Just as, in a cultivated landscape, the borders of the fields, with their heaps of stones, hedges, trees, bushes, animals and so on are more interesting than the larger areas of the fields themselves.

There is no doubt that the space between the library proper and the faculty rooms is outstandingly typical of this; where many things come together - staircases, lift, fanlight, glass wall, galleries, foyer and so on. This is where there is an overlapping, where one catches interesting glimpses of other areas etc.

We avoided the seeming perfection of technological systems, whether the structural system, the façade system or whatever. We wanted each thing, each part, each area, each element to obey its own law rather than those of the systems it was associated with.

One must also consider the whole complex in terms of the way we work: we try to make every job new and interesting. Things that we have discovered and examined in past projects don't have to be the focal point of our work a second time. That probably sounds rather self-centred. But if we had no personal interest in our work, if we didn't enjoy it, if we couldn't discover anything new, how could we become committed to it? How could we dedicate ourselves to our work the way we do?

At the moment we are building the new plenary assembly hall for the existing Bonn Parliament, in a context that includes buildings. The architecture will certainly have a somewhat more general character, be more moderate than in our previous buildings. We are taking care to ensure that this parliament building will be acceptable to all levels of society and all groups of the population in the Federal Republic.

In Frankfurt, the German Postal Museum completed.

And in Stuttgart a kindergarten. It looks like a ship- an ark, a refuge for children in the ocean of our over-rationalized world.

We designed a conference centre in Hanover, for the Hanover Trade Fair. Unfortunately, the contract wasn't awarded to us: the work would definitely have been very interesting.

In this summer we completed a special school in Bad Rappenau.

In one of Stuttgart's older districts we were designing a station approach complex with underpasses, stops for commuter trains, bus stops etc.

We have just been awarded a contract to design a second building for the "Diakonisches Werk"- the charitable organization of the Lutheran Church, and another contract for a second Institute in Stuttgart.

And now and again we still have work in the Olympic Park in Munich. At present we are designing a new restaurant in the swimming pool building, a workshop next to the sports stadium and a car park building.

Perhaps I should also mention that in our office we usually work with young architects. They come from university, work in the office on one project, and then leave us again. We have a very small mainstay group of older colleagues. This type of manning has its advantages, but also its problems. I see the advantages in the fact that the young architects are very dedicated, and unencumbered by negative experiences: they are optimistic in their work. You can no doubt see the problem as well as I do: in the office these architects first have to learn everything that practical work requires over and above what they learned at university. But I believe that this constellation helps to explain the diversity and variety of the architecture that comes out of our office.

Finally, allow me if you would to give you my views on one last topic:

It doesn't please me to see that we and our work are now being labelled "Deconstructivist". A short while ago we were classified as Late Expressionists; someone else called us Regionalists, others decided we were Constructivists etc. Everyone sees what he or she is capable of seeing. And everyone classifies and categorizes his world in the way he can understand it and cope with it.

What occurs to me in connection with the term “Deconstructivism" as applied to the work of our office? I would like to try and explain certain things the way I see them. Let me add, though, that it isn't my intention to convert anyone to my way of thinking:-

Architecture does not simply reflect "nature". But it doesn't merely satisfy functional requirements, either. It also reflects, for example, problems of the social and
economic situation in which it is created, as well as problems that may also have been subjectively felt or objectively recognized by those who make architecture or have been able to influence it.

In the case of an institute building, for instance, the fact that such a building is to be built at all, in a given environment etc., is usually preordained, and we can hardly take the responsibility for that. However, we can take the responsibility for the fact that we work as architects, and for the way we do our work. In the way that we select and emphasize certain features and elements, we declare our views about our age, our reality, by selecting, supporting, aestheticising, or suppressing.
(What value do we place on what things?)

We do this all the time, even unintentionally; even when we might not have been aware of this ''mechanism"; and even by simply letting things take their course.

So why does our work contain tendencies which enable people to classify it as deconstructivism?

In my early years as an architect I tried to keep my designs compatible with the laws inherent materials and the crafts.

Today, I believe that such a tendency leads us astray. What used to be right is probably wrong today.

Earlier, we yielded to the laws of building materials and the craft trades - laws that are part of a higher order - and thus we subordinated our works to that higher order.

Nowadays we refuse, to do this, because we have, recognized that identical or similar concepts such as “in keeping with the materials” and ”compatible with the craft” have changed their meanings.

What was previously "good", now tends to be "evil" or at least "dangerous". The "divine" order of nature has been replaced by a presumptuous order- that of the idols of production and the "system".

They want to force us to accept their order, an order which we can recognize in most high-rise buildings, in industrial buildings, supermarkets, system furniture, metal façades etc. ...

They demand that we take them into consideration before all other factors. They want to dictate our everyday lives, our clothes, our houses - in fact everything. And we resist this claim by showing that there are other solutions which are just as good, and, in fact, even better.

And so we create “zones of freedom” where other forces, usually weaker but very probably more valuable and more likeable, can find a niche and develop. And sometimes we do just as we please with the principle of technology and technology's arrogant demands.

We get pleasure out of doing this; and it shows that there are quite a few things that don’t have to be taken so seriously at all, and don’t have to be straight, so right-angled, so limited and predetermined as some people maintain and demand.

◀ zurück