Interview with Jürgen Mayer H.

Exactly what you just described. Everything has developed very well in the last ten years, with stimuli primarily coming from art, especially when it came to staging space or certain questions of space, which then evolved into larger projects like houses, urban constellations, or furniture and smaller objects. Through this experimental approach, a spectrum emerges, but we rarely look for tasks; rather, they come to us. Thanks to various commissions for installations, stands at conferences, competitions, and projects, we always encounter new challenges, and precisely from this tension between small and large scales, or jumps between different disciplines, we reflect on our work from various angles and push it further. This means that change, the shift in scale, is partially characteristic of our work, that I see architecture more as an object rather than an architectural project.

In connection with what you are saying, I am thinking of your project/object dupli.casa? How is its progressive form received?
Among others, there is dupli.casa, which is somewhat specific because it stems from a particular place and task. What is essentially a rule in most of our projects - we seek specific characteristics that we elevate, abstract, and thus transfer the character of the place and attempt to uncover a new potential of the given place and bring development to the area around the city. It often involves architecture or projects that arise in problematic urban zones, which necessitate a new identification of the place. With dupli.casa, it was different - it was a private commission, and at the same time, the clients requested a renovation of an existing house from 1948, which had been remodeled and expanded several times and felt it no longer suited their taste. On the other hand, they had a very emotional connection to the original house. We created a concept where we left part of the lower floor standing, and based on the geometry of all the other expansions, we created the shape of the new house. This sets it apart from those other projects I spoke of earlier because it is realized based on the previous design and original geometric arrangement, which was translated into the language of contemporary architecture. Dupli.casa attracts attention; it can be received ambivalently, and I think that is as it should be.

Besides that, you are involved in installations and "data protection pattern"?
This is a significant starting point for my work, which I will elaborate on further in the lecture, but above all, I am currently engaged in important projects - our most important project is the Metropol Parasol in Seville, which will be completed in about ten months. It is a very complex project, located in the historical center as contemporary architecture. Spain is an amazing country for avant-garde architecture, also in a historical context, but generally as a country, it receives it you could say with open arms. We were surprised that our project did not face more resistance; there was one demonstration with twenty or thirty people, but this demonstration was more directed against the modernization of the historical center - that is, the reconstruction of the square, the removal of cars from the center, and the introduction of tram tracks, which was essentially the opposing viewpoint.
Otherwise, I am almost moved by how emotionally this project has been received, we receive emails like: "Hello, my name is Chico, I am seventeen years old and I want to thank you for this great project, this is my city and my future, and I look forward to its completion." This is of course great; it almost brought me to tears, one feels that they have done something for the people who live in that place, it opens a perspective into the future, uncovers new potential. When architecture manages this, it is excellent.

I also really like Metropol Parasol. And for example, another your project Stadt.haus? How does it work, what feedback do you have?
There are various levels to how that project functions. The city is very satisfied; it works perfectly as a marketing vehicle for the city, we received the Mies van der Rohe Award for this project, so everyone in the world of architecture knows Ostfildern, which wasn't the case before, and it is visited by classes of architects, architectural tourists, as well as people who want to get married there, since the city hall also functions as a wedding hall, they have a very good gallery and cultural program. The city needed a new showcase because that part of the city used to have American military barracks, and therefore it had to showcase quality architecture as the client. The people who work there are also quite happy, if I know correctly, the whole building is then taken over by its inhabitants. Inside, there are many monitors with decorations, flowers, posters, calendars, calendars with cats, etc., but the architecture somehow tolerates it...

What do you think about the relationship between architecture and art? Some architects perceive art as mere decoration of buildings...
And artists argue that architecture is just applied art, right? I don't like that distinction. As I mentioned before, our work is typically characterized by jumping from one discipline to another; sometimes we create an installation that is discussed in the discourse of architecture, or in art, or design. There are interesting themes through which our work is viewed, and this discussion provides us feedback. And after all, art is a broad field; architecture is mostly a building, but art can be anything from cooking to sound installation and painting, so I think everyone has to find their medium through which they express themselves in order to somehow comment on contemporary society.

So if you yourself design a house, and at the same time some installation, it should have some meaning, be a commentary...
I perceive architecture itself as art, but a great connection can also occur. Like the works of Karin Sander, which connected art and building, that was interesting for me. It was about a rather ugly police academy, just completed. I don't know the architect, but everything was more or less built up, and she had to create something there. What she did was transfer all surfaces using an archaeological technique - she copied all the surfaces onto paper with charcoal or graphite and cataloged all the surfaces in that way, bound them like books, and placed them in the academy's library. Such works are interesting when they bring commentary on space or architecture; such interaction between architecture and art is exciting. Decorating a house with a sculpture or painting is not necessary.

You are building projects across Europe, from Spain to Denmark; how do the individual countries differ? What are your experiences?
Our experiences are indeed very varied, starting from how specific architecture arises, or who is responsible and what the client's requirements are. For example, in Denmark, the quality demands are very high, even for individual details and materials. There we did a project where we were only "design consultants"; we designed the plans and oversaw the execution of details, etc., but the project was carried out by a local office. I was thrilled with the precision and seriousness with which the work was done. But also because we as German architects do not have permission in Denmark or abroad. In Spain, I became a member of the architects' chamber because I held the position of plan leader. However, the quality of architecture there is more hit or miss, and quality needs to be fought for somewhat. Likewise in Belgium, where the market is dominated by firms that do not sufficiently care about craftsmanship quality. Germany and Denmark are therefore different, and of course Switzerland, which is ideal in this regard. So the question arises of how much one can expect that their ideas will be translated into reality. And we just completed a hotel in Poland, in Krakow. The project came about due to a lecture at the Goethe Institute in 2003; the collaboration was very pleasant, and on October 8th, the hotel will be ceremoniously opened. Such nice exchanges also happen, leading to the connection of different cultures, thanks to the Goethe Institute. Contact with Eastern European countries is becoming increasingly significant for us due to their rich culture and also because of how modern contemporary architecture is contested here even in relatively intact historic cores; in Germany, on the other hand, there is more of a tendency to historically reconstruct everything, but of course, there is also space for contemporary architecture.
For Stadt.haus, for example, a crucial church by Plečnik serves as one of the inspirations. In 1989, we traveled with the University of Stuttgart to Brno and Krakow and visited this church, and what is great is the brick wall that protrudes at the top, and individual stones stand out; Stadt.haus is also slightly inclined, the windows hang slightly vertically down, and this really comes from the image I remembered from this church, with that slanted wall.

And one more important topic for you that I have noted is inspiration and the connection between nature and technique...
I think this is a discussion of today's world, where there is a boundary between the artificial and the natural, or technical, artificial, and natural, and then ambivalent buildings emerge, such as the cafeteria in Karlsruhe, where one is unsure if it’s half a forest or already a building, thus creating a structure that appears ambivalent from the outside and inside; there are certain pre-figurations of spatial constellations and technical construction possibilities that are very interesting. And it's about exploring and pushing the boundaries of architecture. So the tension between the artificial and the natural is important to me.

Last question, you studied in Stuttgart, in the United States, so you had many opportunities, why did you ultimately establish your office in Berlin?
I studied in Stuttgart, but at that time I felt that there was a certain pedagogical deficit in terms of finding one's own approach, one’s own way of expression. I looked for schools and found Cooper Union in New York, which seemed to me like the missing element. At first, it was very difficult, because the approach to architecture there is completely different. So when in Stuttgart you receive a defined piece of land and a project assignment, and you make a nice design with some idea, everything is fine, while at Cooper Union you get the text Noah's Ark and have to figure out how to create an architectural design from it. When you work through how that could work, it is fantastic, but it really takes several years of study. But it supports creative thinking, which is very helpful. When I finished my studies in 1994, I went to Princeton, and at the same time in America, there was not much work, and Berlin was then in a boom period, so it seemed comical to me to stay in America when my own culture was transforming - Berlin was completely being rebuilt, so I moved, and everything has been developing well since then.

That's great, thank you for the interview.