conclusion of the inaugural lecture by Michiel Riedijk on the topic Drawing, which took place on January 29, 2009, at the Faculty of Architecture, Delft University of Technology
Interview with Michiel Riedijk
“Designing means thinking about the future. About a future we do not know, or rather about a future that has not yet become the past. The future is essentially an unknown past. Designing can never be an extrapolation of the world and reality as we know it. Because the extrapolation of the present cannot provide answers to an unknown reality. Since the beginning of the world, people have built or erected monuments only when they had confidence in the future. Architecture cannot exist without trust in the future. If we have no idea about the future, we cannot design. Where there is no idea, there is no drawing. Without drawing, there is no architecture.”
On the occasion of the launch of the 11th year of the Landscape Festival, a lecture by local experts and a trio of foreign architects took place on June 18, 2024, at the site of the Žižkov Freight Station, where they presented their current work during the conference Industrial Topography Cultural Clusters Czech Republic-Europe. One of the foreign guests was also Michiel Riedijk, co-founder of the Dutch studio Neuteling Riedijk, whose name is familiar to the Czech audience. In April 2004, his colleague Willem Jan Neutelings spoke at Architecture Day at IBF during the Building Fair at the Brno BVV, where he gave a lecture of the same name as their first substantial monograph At Work (010 Publishers, Rotterdam 2004). In 2005, the Prague Gallery of Jaroslav Fragner prepared an exhibition Behind the Curtains and in 2009, Zdeněk Zavřel, then Dean of FA CTU, facilitated the Czech translation of Michiel Riedijk's inaugural lecture on the topic of Drawings at TU Delft. In 2012, Michiel Riedijk appeared with Juliette Bekkering at the Bethlehem Chapel for a joint lecture. The striking objects from the duo Neuteling Riedijk are gradually becoming pop culture icons, the essence of which can be captured in a single comic strip drawing. The bold shapes adorned with small decor certainly guarantee ample attention, although they are never about arbitrary mannerism. Aaron Betsky, an American theorist and long-time director of NAi (Dutch Architecture Institute), described the work of Neuteling Riedijk as “plain weirdness” (text Plain Weirdness in El Croquis 94, 1/1999, pp.136-141), which nonetheless generates sincere interest and joy in inhabiting.
In your presentation today, you showed three reconstructions and three different principles (side extension, roof extension, and internal installation) for how to approach older buildings that may not necessarily be historic monuments. It seems to me that attention to reconstructions has increased only in recent years as we become more aware of the need for sustainable building.
Reconstructions have never been the main focus of our work, but since founding our practice in the mid-1980s, we understandably had to consider existing buildings and their surroundings. However, in the 1990s, it was not as apparent as it is today. This can best be seen in the example of the STUK cultural center (1998) in Leuven, Belgium, where all three strategies I presented in today’s lecture are applied to a single building. We used a roof extension, placed two acoustically isolated halls inside, and also constructed from the side. The twenty-story residential building IJ Tower (later renamed Y Tower) on Java Island (1998) in Amsterdam was deliberately composed to rise high to preserve the low structure of the harbor docks, where shops are located today. Residents in the area feared that the original development would be demolished, but we made sure it was preserved. We factored the existing buildings from the very beginning of the design phase. We dismantled them, completely cleared the insides, created a parking house underground, and subsequently returned the original hall to the site. From this perspective, it is a very old strategy we use in our studio. The third example is the post office building in Scherpenheuvel (1996), where we added a new wing at the back, where we placed all functions that did not fit into the original building.
Perhaps in the past decade, the topic of reconstructions has received more space in discussions and media.
In our studio, the issue of reconstructions has been addressed for at least thirty years, as evidenced by the post office building in Scherpenheuvel or the IJ Tower residential building. Our realizations are also undergoing reconstructions and transformations. For example, the Veenman printing house in Ede (1995) is now serving as a Protestant church. Worship services now take place in the former production space.
Your buildings are hard to overlook. They appear as residential sculptures, yet at the same time, they are always considerate of the place and derive their form from it. This is not a mannerism that could arise anywhere else.
Buildings must fulfill their own function but at the same time have duties to public requirements. They should contribute to strengthening the identity of the urban structure. On one hand, the building should clearly express its purpose, what it serves, and at the same time share a broader responsibility. We are always interested in how the sculptural qualities of our designs ultimately manifest in the urban environment. The building should complement the character of the public space while simultaneously expressing its own function. It has to meet the dual expectations, which is what we strive for with our buildings.
Another characteristic element of your work is the use of ornament and decor, making it not only about prominent form but also about attention to detail. For context, it should be mentioned that at the turn of the millennium, the minimalist movement peaked, which rejected ornamentation and decoration similar to Adolf Loos over a hundred years ago, but your studio has never stopped working with decor (the second monograph Neutelings and Riedijk, published in 2018 by Hatje Cantz, is titled Ornament and Identity).
We believe that buildings should communicate not only with the surrounding place but also with the audience passing by and spending time inside. It can be argued that the building helps shape the community. This is significantly aided by the iconography of buildings. People can better identify with the object. You inhabit spaces that are not anonymous but relate to you and speak. Iconography and ornament assist this significantly.
Before the advent of digitization and computer visualizations, you extensively used comic drawings, which could quickly and simply characterize your buildings. You are still inclined towards hand drawing in the 21st century. You even published a book on the subject (Drawing: The Architect's Raison d'être, FA CTU 2009), which was translated into Czech. Could you briefly summarize the significance of hand drawing for the architect in today’s digital age?
This small book is fundamental for me. It is a transcription of my inaugural lecture at Delft University of Technology, but it also embodies how I think about architecture. There are at least three different ways to perceive our profession: through the building itself, its impact in a broader urban context, but you can also perceive the qualities of the intellectual process. Architecture as a transfer of ideas appears precisely in the drawings. We consider different kinds of drawings, which I discuss in my book. There are distinct ways of presentation, but there are also various kinds of drawings that express a concept.
In your case, you have a connection to comic drawing, where you capture the essence of the design with a simple shortcut.
We are still associated with caricatures, but we use all kinds of drawings that always conform to what we as designers are trying to convey. So if we wanted to create a drawing that describes a structural solution, we would probably never use a caricature, but in this case (pointing to the sketch of the music halls in STUK art center - translator's note), we very conceptually indicated with arrows which part of the building is soundproofed, and it is immediately clear to everyone from a single image where the noise is and where the silence is. We always strive to create specific drawings that utilize certain aspects to help understand the design as much as possible.
During my visits to your buildings, I noticed that not only ornament but also the choice of material reflects the given place.
We believe that a building should be specific, so when designing a building in Žižkov, it should address the needs of the people from Žižkov, which differ from those of the residents of Hong Kong. With every design, we diligently seek out its local specifics.
Most of your designs are based on winning architectural competitions. The projects you presented today in your lecture are also the result of success in competitions. Although you have a number of successful realizations behind you, your large office with a long history still participates in competitions with uncertain outcomes.
That's right. From a business perspective, it is a difficult model to maintain, but from an intellectual perspective, participation in competitions is very important for us. We just discussed the intellectual strength of drawing. After all, architecture is thinking about the needs of society and what kind of response we can give to these societal needs. The tension of participating in an architectural competition lies in forcing you to provide very clear answers. That is why we participate in challenging competitions. Of course, we would like to receive direct commissions, which is a much simpler business model, but we still receive offers for interesting competitions, which we always eagerly accept.
In your presentation today, you showed three reconstructions and three different principles (side extension, roof extension, and internal installation) for how to approach older buildings that may not necessarily be historic monuments. It seems to me that attention to reconstructions has increased only in recent years as we become more aware of the need for sustainable building.
Reconstructions have never been the main focus of our work, but since founding our practice in the mid-1980s, we understandably had to consider existing buildings and their surroundings. However, in the 1990s, it was not as apparent as it is today. This can best be seen in the example of the STUK cultural center (1998) in Leuven, Belgium, where all three strategies I presented in today’s lecture are applied to a single building. We used a roof extension, placed two acoustically isolated halls inside, and also constructed from the side. The twenty-story residential building IJ Tower (later renamed Y Tower) on Java Island (1998) in Amsterdam was deliberately composed to rise high to preserve the low structure of the harbor docks, where shops are located today. Residents in the area feared that the original development would be demolished, but we made sure it was preserved. We factored the existing buildings from the very beginning of the design phase. We dismantled them, completely cleared the insides, created a parking house underground, and subsequently returned the original hall to the site. From this perspective, it is a very old strategy we use in our studio. The third example is the post office building in Scherpenheuvel (1996), where we added a new wing at the back, where we placed all functions that did not fit into the original building.
Perhaps in the past decade, the topic of reconstructions has received more space in discussions and media.
In our studio, the issue of reconstructions has been addressed for at least thirty years, as evidenced by the post office building in Scherpenheuvel or the IJ Tower residential building. Our realizations are also undergoing reconstructions and transformations. For example, the Veenman printing house in Ede (1995) is now serving as a Protestant church. Worship services now take place in the former production space.
Your buildings are hard to overlook. They appear as residential sculptures, yet at the same time, they are always considerate of the place and derive their form from it. This is not a mannerism that could arise anywhere else.
Buildings must fulfill their own function but at the same time have duties to public requirements. They should contribute to strengthening the identity of the urban structure. On one hand, the building should clearly express its purpose, what it serves, and at the same time share a broader responsibility. We are always interested in how the sculptural qualities of our designs ultimately manifest in the urban environment. The building should complement the character of the public space while simultaneously expressing its own function. It has to meet the dual expectations, which is what we strive for with our buildings.
Another characteristic element of your work is the use of ornament and decor, making it not only about prominent form but also about attention to detail. For context, it should be mentioned that at the turn of the millennium, the minimalist movement peaked, which rejected ornamentation and decoration similar to Adolf Loos over a hundred years ago, but your studio has never stopped working with decor (the second monograph Neutelings and Riedijk, published in 2018 by Hatje Cantz, is titled Ornament and Identity).
We believe that buildings should communicate not only with the surrounding place but also with the audience passing by and spending time inside. It can be argued that the building helps shape the community. This is significantly aided by the iconography of buildings. People can better identify with the object. You inhabit spaces that are not anonymous but relate to you and speak. Iconography and ornament assist this significantly.
Before the advent of digitization and computer visualizations, you extensively used comic drawings, which could quickly and simply characterize your buildings. You are still inclined towards hand drawing in the 21st century. You even published a book on the subject (Drawing: The Architect's Raison d'être, FA CTU 2009), which was translated into Czech. Could you briefly summarize the significance of hand drawing for the architect in today’s digital age?
This small book is fundamental for me. It is a transcription of my inaugural lecture at Delft University of Technology, but it also embodies how I think about architecture. There are at least three different ways to perceive our profession: through the building itself, its impact in a broader urban context, but you can also perceive the qualities of the intellectual process. Architecture as a transfer of ideas appears precisely in the drawings. We consider different kinds of drawings, which I discuss in my book. There are distinct ways of presentation, but there are also various kinds of drawings that express a concept.
In your case, you have a connection to comic drawing, where you capture the essence of the design with a simple shortcut.
We are still associated with caricatures, but we use all kinds of drawings that always conform to what we as designers are trying to convey. So if we wanted to create a drawing that describes a structural solution, we would probably never use a caricature, but in this case (pointing to the sketch of the music halls in STUK art center - translator's note), we very conceptually indicated with arrows which part of the building is soundproofed, and it is immediately clear to everyone from a single image where the noise is and where the silence is. We always strive to create specific drawings that utilize certain aspects to help understand the design as much as possible.
During my visits to your buildings, I noticed that not only ornament but also the choice of material reflects the given place.
We believe that a building should be specific, so when designing a building in Žižkov, it should address the needs of the people from Žižkov, which differ from those of the residents of Hong Kong. With every design, we diligently seek out its local specifics.
Most of your designs are based on winning architectural competitions. The projects you presented today in your lecture are also the result of success in competitions. Although you have a number of successful realizations behind you, your large office with a long history still participates in competitions with uncertain outcomes.
That's right. From a business perspective, it is a difficult model to maintain, but from an intellectual perspective, participation in competitions is very important for us. We just discussed the intellectual strength of drawing. After all, architecture is thinking about the needs of society and what kind of response we can give to these societal needs. The tension of participating in an architectural competition lies in forcing you to provide very clear answers. That is why we participate in challenging competitions. Of course, we would like to receive direct commissions, which is a much simpler business model, but we still receive offers for interesting competitions, which we always eagerly accept.
The English translation is powered by AI tool. Switch to Czech to view the original text source.
0 comments
add comment
