querkraft: Human in Architecture

In 2005, you had an exhibition at the Fragner Gallery. Do you follow what is happening in the Czech architectural scene, has anything caught your attention?
I'm not exactly sure. I know that it is definitely developing, but unfortunately I don't remember the names...

In the meantime, you have won significant competitions. What has changed since you had your exhibition at the Fragner Gallery?
The biggest project is the "brand center" for Adidas. Also new is the Museum Liaunig in Carinthia. Since then, we are perceived and interpreted no longer as a young office but as an established office.

Has the office also grown?
Well, partially. Today we have 15 to 20 people working with us.

Museum Liaunig, Neuhaus, 2008. Photo: Lisa Rastl

Which project was particularly interesting for you?
On one hand, it's like asking parents which of their children they love the most. We love all our projects. But for example, the museum is a very interesting project, an interesting theme. Our biggest challenge with the Liaunig Museum was how to integrate our philosophy. As our philosophy becomes more and more clearly defined, we focus on the question of what happens to a person in architecture. It is easy to create something beautiful with great design, but what matters to us is where the person is. This is easier to achieve in residential building projects. We do a lot of subsidized residential buildings in Vienna, and there it is relatively easy to focus on what makes the best apartment, how to get good light into the apartment, how the communication zones work, so that apartments have large balconies where you can grow flowers, etc. But the position of a person in a museum - this topic was our main problem. The idea was that it is a private collection of an industrialist who was successful and came into considerable wealth, who created a collection of 2500 paintings and sculptures and creates a museum. Basically, we immediately knew that he wanted to create a monument, that was our interpretation. He doesn’t just want a heated hall for storage, where it doesn’t rain, but wants some special building. A bit of a monument to what he achieved during his life. Now comes the big problem, where we place the individual person, the visitor, who arrives by car from Vienna or Prague, so that he does not feel small, so that he does not feel uncomfortable out of respect for Mr. Liaunig’s monument. Architecture must be something special, great, yet the person who enters must feel comfortable.

How did you achieve this?
There is only one entrance for visitors and for the delivery trucks bringing the paintings, which is unusual. Usually there is a nice main entrance and then a back entrance for suppliers, which is not as monumental because there are crates or packing paper... In our design, a person enters the museum along the depot, which is basically a storage area (about 500 artworks are on display in the museum and the other works are in storage). So we enter the museum through the storage area. One museum director told us at the grand opening that it is excellently solved because a person immediately feels integrated. He does not feel like a stranger walking through the museum in awe, but is integrated, even though it is a large, monumental museum. The second trick is that the museum does not concentrate only on art, nor does it focus on being some special building. This is the case with many modern museums that consider themselves more important than the art. Then one faces problems hanging paintings, even if the space is great. We said that we wanted only a simple space that is 150 meters long. Remarkably, at the end of this space there are terraces that connect with the landscape and from where there is a particularly beautiful view. About 10% of the building is visible, the rest is underground, hence it is an especially efficient building in terms of construction costs and energy. We also have feedback from visitors who feel very well in the museum. From every place in the exhibition hall, there is a view into nature. One never feels underground, even though the entire building is buried.

Museum Liaunig, Neuhaus, 2008. Photo: Lisa Rastl

This was already the second competition for this building, right?
After the first international competition, the project by Odile Decq won. However, there were problems and conflicts between the architect, Mr. Liaunig, and the client. We were in a situation where we felt it would be nearly uncomfortable if we won. We were concerned that we would not get along with this complicated builder, which was generally known. He had projects with Coop Himmelblau, Tom Mayne. But the collaboration turned out excellently, the client makes decisions quickly, it was problem-free.
A year after the museum opened, Mr. Liaunig came with a request for an extension of the storage space for sculptures. We thought we could build a simple building that was not intended for visitors. But it would be more interesting if visitors could catch a glimpse of the stored sculptures. This idea was very much liked in the end. After all, the principle of our office is always to rethink the assignment. So when someone comes saying they need storage space, that is option one, option two is whether the hall can be used differently, whether it can be made accessible to the public, if some celebration can be organized there... One can either create a hall for so much euro, or we build an object that is underground made of reinforced concrete, with an opening for light in the middle above. Concrete has the advantage of creating a good climate even when it is not heated, temperature fluctuations are not extreme.

Your floor plans are always very simple...
For us, there are two things we focus on in architecture. On one hand, the focus is on the person. The second is simplicity, reduction, minimalism. When the assignment is complicated, we try to simplify it. We have a slogan: Not a gram of fat more! With a lot of finances, we can build something great, but can it be done with industrial materials? Just like in the kitchen, when it’s about cooking well with excellent and at the same time as simple as possible ingredients.

Has your approach to architecture changed? You studied under Helmut Richter, who represented more high-tech architecture...
Helmut Richter is important to us. For three years, we worked with him alongside Gerd Erhardt, and the other two founding members of the office, Peter Sapp and Michael Zinner, studied with him. Zinner separated in 2004, but Peter Sapp still has a significant influence, and Helmut Richter is alive. It is a blend. Helmut Richter is high-tech, but at the same time very low-tech (restaurant Kiang); it can be high-tech, but also very simple. He was a great teacher for us. It was interesting how he interacts with the school, students, the building. When I open our book here, all visualizations and renders are with people, yet every time a project is finished, architects want photos without people. We strive for such photographs to show that the building is alive. Architecture must be strong enough to endure these things. Modern architecture often has a bit of a problem with that; we try to make it work.

VIT - operational building, Asperhofen, 2003

And if we return to Helmut Richter, what do you consider his greatest significance for you?
Above all, in the method, to ask questions again and reconsider them. Helmut Richter never accepted anything just because it was a law. He would say that there is a bad law, regulation, and we have to fight against it. Or if the builder wants something unintelligent that does not seem right to us as architects, we must fight against it, convince him. In this respect, we learned the most from Helmut Richter.
We worked on a project, the headquarters of a company (VIT company, Asperhofen). The project was liked by the company's management, they just wanted him to have his office on the roof of the building to have a view of the landscape. We could have done that, but it seemed too hierarchical to us; he already owned the company, had the most money, and it felt wrong for the atmosphere in the company for him to sit right at the top. That was the moment we said we would offer him something different. His office is a bit higher, but it's not so obvious. Like English tea. The important thing is not to accept everything immediately but to say that we will propose another option. Or in extreme cases, one must stand by one's convictions. That was Helmut Richter for us. And of course, technical questions, details, etc. But the most significant was reflection and thinking. Essentially "Querdenken" (thinking across, through). Our office is called Querkraft because this is what is essential for us.

How does your office operate?
For us, it is extreme, perhaps extremely uneconomical. When we work on any project, we always do so together, meaning three partners and team members, interns. We often sit around the table, six or eight people, brainstorming about the project's structure. There is continuous discussion. It doesn't matter who comes up with the main idea, whether it's Gert, Peter, Jakob, or an intern. I am happiest when ideas come from interns. It gives them great motivation and makes us happy. Then, once the project is complete or the competition is finished, everything goes back to normal. For example, I was at the opening of the museum, but specific tasks and construction were handled by another partner. Of course, if problems arise, we meet again in larger numbers.

What is your architecture like - do you speak of poetry in architecture? Is architecture more emotional or rational?
Architecture needs both. We approach things incredibly rationally, almost like mathematicians, but on the other hand, we know that it is not enough for something to be intelligent. Emotions are at least as important as intelligence, as pragmatism. So emotions certainly play a role; for example, that a gray panel is not green (residential project Lee, Leebgasse, Vienna). That introduces poetry into the picture. A bit like yin and yang, both head and heart are needed. And even that is not enough; we always have to think about what benefits the people, whether it brings them something.

In individual projects, do you focus mainly on space, materials, or perhaps on the concept?
We distinguish ourselves from other great offices that focus on space. Wolf D. Prix always talks about how Austrian architecture, done by Coop Himmelblau, refers back to baroque, the baroque conception of architecture, interesting spaces... With us, that is not such a theme. The first question when we sit at the table is not about how we can create amazing spaces; in every project, we try to find a reason why or what it is.

ADBC - adi dassler brand center, Herzogenaurach, 2007

When we did the Adidas headquarters, it was a competition where 380 participants from all over the world entered, and Adidas invited 29 offices. Among these offices were names like Zaha Hadid, Delugan Meissl, a lot of super offices. We knew exactly that it was a project where space matters; it was a "brand center," essentially a large exhibition hall where Adidas invites its customers from all over the world for a few days every year, in spring and autumn, to showcase their products - t-shirts, shoes - and where contracts are closed. We knew that this was a hall, and we knew that the other 28 offices would create great halls. Adidas is a manufacturer of sports equipment; it must be dynamic, fashionable, crazy. We thought that we definitely wouldn’t win if we did it the same way. Because no one is capable of doing architecture that is sexier than Zaha Hadid or Coop Himmelblau. We can’t be better than them. So we thought about what we would do; we refocused on the person.
People come to Adidas near Nuremberg from Tokyo, Sydney, New York. Before one travels from Tokyo to Herzogenaurach, it definitely takes 24 hours; one has to change several times and finally take a taxi to a small village near Nuremberg. We wanted to offer these people a beautiful building where they can briefly open their laptop between two demanding meetings and wish their daughter a happy birthday. Or a manager calls her husband and simply wants to talk to him. We had to create such spaces. That was not in any spatial program; it was not, of course, the topic of the project for Adidas. Therefore, we designed a very simple architecture, very radical, not a gram of fat more, reduced, minimalist. There are stairs like in a stand where one can rest, relax. We received emails from Adidas saying that they also hold various events there, for which it was not planned, which makes us very happy.
We were not only concerned with what kind of fashionable, dynamic space we could create. The building is so radically simple also because we were dealing with what distinguishes Adidas from its main competitor Nike. It is not as the assignment stated that Adidas invests a lot of money in research and technology and working with athletes, and between the lines, one read that Nike are the ones who only do design and marketing. That is not true at all, as Adidas does just as much design and marketing as Nike, conducts just as much research, and works just as hard on products as Nike on the Air product, etc. But we asked ourselves how architecture could express the difference between these two brands. One of the ideas was that Adidas was founded in 1920 and has an incredible history. Nike was founded in 1978. When we want to visualize the history of a company that has been around for many decades, the building should be timeless and not dynamic. We managed to explain this to the jury and the board. They believed us, and we built an absolutely timeless building.

So that was a great success among significant competitors...
Being invited among the 29 selected was considered a great thing. At that time, we were doing only smaller projects, and then we ended up in first place along with three other offices. The first five projects had presentations in front of the board. The jury selected five projects, three in first place and two in second, and then the board decided that we won.

Who did you share first place with?
With Delugan Meissl and Lab architecture studio from Melbourne. I don’t remember the other finalists. We were very worried because we were the least well-known office. We went to the presentation relatively relaxed and well-prepared. The project begins when you meet and think about it, or when you work with landscape architects, structural engineers, interdisciplinary. Our approach to the Adidas project was that we would work from the very beginning with a brand specialist who knows what the Adidas brand means. He was the director of one of the largest Austrian advertising agencies. We sat with him here in the office and intensely discussed what Adidas means. This was very valuable. It wasn’t about space; the spatial solution came at the end, how we would implement it. We were the only ones who made that exhibition hall rectangular. Everyone else morphed those halls into various heights, which was unnecessary.

Karree St. Marx, project 2009

What are your plans or dreams for the future?
To be honest, the main dream is not to be so heavily dependent on competitions. It is incredibly demanding because you invest an immense amount of energy and time into a competition, where statistically, the chances of winning are small. That is a pragmatic wish for the future. The second wish is to acquire various projects; we do not want to be an office that only does one type of task. It is not fun to constantly build museums or residential houses; we are interested in everything mixed together.
And to have builders who know that the person is always at the center. We have just completed the Karree St. Marx project, 160 apartments, and as you can see, these are large structures. Our idea was that the architect does not just create apartments, which in subsidized residential construction are mostly very similar; in such cases, one cannot do everything differently than what the architect designed. Here you have fixed room dimensions, but we wanted a lot of free space, which is why we designed a balcony with three elements: flower boxes, large but simple and cheap, strips along the railing for privacy, and drying racks. The client actually did not want to build that, but people notice that completely normal things in life are important. Everyone knows that drying racks usually stand in the living room. It is a small thing, and no one in the world cares about such things.

---

The office querkraft architekten was founded in 1998. It currently consists of three partners: Jakob Dunkl, Gerd Erhartt, and Peter Sapp, all graduates of the Technical University of Vienna. They have already made a name for themselves several times, the best-known buildings are the House for a Family in Vienna (2004), the bookstore in MuseumsQuartier Wien (2001), and winning two major international competitions - the Adi Dassler Brand Center (2006) and the Museum Liaunig (2008), for which they were nominated for the Mies van der Rohe Award. They received the Young Architect of the Year Award (2004), honorary mention Piranesi Award (2008), and the Austrian Building Prize (2008). In 2004, they represented Austria at the Venice Architecture Biennale.

The interview was conducted with the support of Kompress, the contact office of the City of Vienna. Special thanks go to Madlen Kordova and Karin Krisper for the opportunity of the "Visit to Vienna" and the facilitation of the interviews.