interview with common room and ifau & jesko fezer

binna choi and axel wieder

this text originally appeared in casco issues xii: generous structures, 2011 and is reproduced here with kind permission.

binna choi and axel wieder: one of many interesting echoes between the work of common room and ifau & jesko fezer is the emphasis you both place on incompleteness or openness (‘never finish’!) in building practice. it seems to us to have a curiously ambivalent status. on the one hand, as architects you limit your control by giving space for the inhabitants/users to work things out on their own, on the other hand, your approach is not about a refusal of interventions, rather you define certain parameters. it almost feels like a game in which rules are established by the architects as ‘masters of the game’ so that people can start to play. would you agree?

common room: we can understand the ‘master of the game’ in two ways; firstly, as someone who sets up and defines the game and its rules and controls the play, acting as the authority, or, secondly as someone who is an expert at playing the game. referring to the first meaning, we establish rules for the game and these define boundaries within which to play, but these rules do not provide a full definition of what is possible. the rules may allow for potential misinterpretation or misuse. we are the authority only as much as we state the rules but choose not to control the play beyond that. in reference to the second understanding, we hope we play the game well but only as well as other users/players.

there is always a set of rules, but they are not always identified. the five obstructions (for architecture) that have informed our practice and collaboration were identified somewhat retrospectively – a reflection on the shared principles that seemed to shape the first few years of our practice.

ifau – christoph heinemann (ch): i would say that mastering the game is an inherent feature of every planning and building process, whether it is controlled by architects or by non-professionals. there are facts and existing patterns to deal with. but most of all a space should be enabled to go beyond an established set of rules (as common room puts it). consequently, openness and incompleteness are characteristics provided by the design, ambivalence is inherent and intended, playful adoption is what is hoped for.

binna choi and axel wieder: what would be the condition for this process of spatial negotiation and adoption that could be described as playful? given that a number of your works were realised in contemporary art institutions, did these spaces set performative parameters?

ifau – ch: whether architecture takes an interest in open-ended processes – allowing for conflicts and negotiation – is dependent on where it is grounded, on the approach chosen and the attitude advocated while designing a space. as long as architecture is part of a social movement and strongly linked to ongoing political debates and struggles it has the potential or, so to speak, the power, to establish correspondent and respondent spaces.

there have been numerous discussions about function, use and meaning,[1] there have been turning points and revolutions within various modern architecture movements, but the often claimed capacity of architecture to be a representation of society, as well as its instrument, has never been properly contested. spatial interventions in accordance to societal goals were backed up by practical politics, governmental or not. resistance and advocacy were in no contradiction to top-down approaches – a building for the working class could be designed with the same attitude as a building for a king. i’m painting quite a palliative image of (western) modernity here, but i would say the large common ground is lost and that the top-down philanthropic approach to design today remains merely formalistic and leaves us with exclusive spaces and superficial attitudes. architecture serves as a territorial tool only; form, content and action don’t correlate anymore.

thus, to allow for appropriation, negotiation, and conflict means to stress and support the performative or transformative actions made by the inhabitants as an opportunity to reach, or develop, social goals.it is a reaction and critique towards the contemporary production of space, an approach not limited to specific functions. and it is no surprise that this fits within art institutions that seem to define themselves more and more as hubs for social issues and debates. they allow for radical approaches and progress, offering a room in a way that is rarely found elsewhere. they could be a catalyst for an aesthetic and political consciousness initiating a transformation of space.

binna choi and axel wieder: it can be said that you implement a frame where the dynamics of plan and non-plan, control and openness are operative. the way a space can be experienced as open, or potentially appropriated by the users, as in many of your recent works – shack and fence in the casco space, for example – is determined by the parameters of the design. the small interventions in the event space of the goethe-institut, new york, in the wyoming building is another example, especially the metal ring that very literally intervenes in the audience area. empowering the user requires acts that in themselves are powerful. i understand your working theses as tools to approach this dilemma, could you elaborate on your working method?

ifau – christoph schmidt (cs): modernism promised a functionalist approach to resolving the architectural needs of the twentieth century, yet the design of cities and buildings often appears to confound the needs of those who use them – their design and layout being highly regulated by restrictive legislation, planning controls and bureaucracy. non-plan considers the theoretical and conceptual frameworks within which architecture and urbanism have sought to challenge entrenched boundaries of control, focusing on the architectural history of the postwar period to the present day. by slightly shifting the focus from a dialectical debate to an even more contradictory development in the present, the progressive deregulation of common and social demands challenges the understanding of cultural and architectural production not as a rash-pledged compromise, but as a direct query of reality.

questioning the commission or the initial brief implies relating to particular circumstances and specifically evaluating the relationship between clients, users, planners and craftsmen. our working methods refer to the programme and the degree of programmatic precision assumed by the existing structure.

in general terms, our projects aim to be sufficiently generic as to transcend a precise cultural, temporal, and local demand.in that sense, we seek to go beyond the solution-oriented nature of the brief and to guarantee a persistency beyond the reach of the archetypal assignment. this fact causes a number of problems that have to be argued in each project: how to contribute (common) spatial models, characters or types that are open enough to allow programme related changes in use? what are the basic minimum and non-negotiable elements? which of these elements might undergo a change in order to adapt a given structure to the given reality? that a particular structure encourages different or future forms of appropriation, at the same time as guaranteeing flexibility seems essential, both from the point of view of the evaluation of resources that are going to be invested into it and in terms of the dialogue between the user and the infrastructure that will necessarily unfold over time.

the projective or even utopian potential of architecture is definitely not the intensification and marketing of competitive design strategies but rather approaching the question: to what extent is architecture capable of relating to existing social problems and conflicts? challenging the radical opportunity to act and to negotiate could provide new or different forms of appropriation and use.

jesko fezer: indeed, since we act as architects and users in a space so inescapably determined by powerful demands and exclusions (set up by the economy, the political system, social conventions, technical requirements or by formal and informal regimentations of habit and usage), it is fundamentally necessary to intervene in this field, to open it to other forms of practice. working with and in such spaces, that don’t exist without strong preconditions, we feel the necessity to rearrange their disposition radically, to open them up towards other practices and imaginations. since a plan, as well as a non-plan, seems impossible to us in these powerful spatial settings – allowing neither a plan nor something not part of a plan to happen – we try to enable ourselves, the space, and its users to appropriate the environment in different ways through spatially and socially limited, but strong, interventions. these design interventions – which directly ask for a response, including its negation or misuse – are always accompanied by ‘un-designed’ or ‘low designed’ zones or structures that are very open to further adaptations, or even need them. one could say that our role is from this perspective: to construct a spatial setting which allows ‘playful’ use, by buffering some of the established rules and inventing some new and sometimes quite ridiculous ones…

binna choi and axel wieder: we are curious about the ‘ridiculous’ rules… it would be interesting to see what happens with them in design projects with more restrictions and existing demands. after many projects for cultural institutions, most of them re-designs or re-configurations, you are currently working on the realisation of a new building for a printing house. we wonder in which way your design activities are informed by a critical approach? in a conversation that appears in this publication (‘always play the music when you get stuck’), john tilbury mentions the problem of dealing with the very complex situation that can arise during an improvisation piece, that is, somebody doing something that you find utterly distasteful. his guide is: ‘you try and change a situation by playing.’

jesko fezer: the adjective ‘ridiculous’ is usually defined in relation to normative routines, restrictions, expectations and demands. so it may be absurd to minimise an already small space to enable specific kinds of social events or to build a circular barrier into a space intended to be ultimately flexible as we did in the wyoming building project for goethe-institut, new york. in this case we tried to complicate an already quite complicated socio-spatial setting; this can be read as abstruse in its approach to ‘not solve a problem’, but also as very pragmatic, since it accepts architecture’s inability to deliver solutions for social problems. in the new building for a printing company, or in the collective housing project we are working on at the moment, the economic restrictions and the technical regulations are probably tighter and also the expectations of the clients are more specific. nevertheless we believe in the importance of questioning these determinations: for example, to reduce costs below a generally accepted standard, to question the relation of different activities in a building or reject the dominance of the visual dimension of design, its formal spectacle. it’s more about rearranging the hierarchies. sometimes it is strategically important not to think too much about how it looks but to emphasise how it performs.

binna choi and axel wieder: perhaps you could tell us about common room and how it operates as a collaboration, how does the collaboration work in your practice? what kind of impact does it have on your work, given that architectural practice is inherently collaborative but spectacularly and notoriously authorised at the same time.

common room: for common room collaboration means acknowledging that each of us has a different point of view. often we don’t agree on a unified idea for a project, we find a way of working without an idealised consensus. this is only possible through a mutual trust of all those involved, a trust that is gained gradually through an open dialogue about the goals of the project throughout the process of development. we have confidence in each other’s decisions even if we don’t agree with them. it is easier to relinquish control when there is a trust that the values for a particular project are the same, and when they address a wide range of social issues beyond the formal or aesthetic expectations for the project.

our practice and working process is inclusive. ideas (planning, architecture, installations, publications) under discussion shouldn’t be exclusive territory; input and feedback from the rest of the group are important. the collaborative process for us is contentious and this often simply means relinquishing control. this process is reflected in our designs by openness for the user to engage in choices or by necessitating choices to be made.

elaborating on collaboration and control, common room couldn’t agree on a single response to your statement: ‘architectural practice is inherently collaborative but spectacularly and notoriously authorised…’ some of us relate the word ‘authorised’ with ‘the author’ of a work, the originator. others at common room respond to issues of control and power implied by an ‘authorised’ practice. we can agree that control is the significant term here. the author’s control over the thing created; the authority granted to an individual in a group or the difficulty in assigning authority to a group of anonymous authors.

these are interesting issues for us as we define our practice. we have found that they are difficult issues within the current conventions of the media, press or public definitions of architecture and architects.

binna choi and axel wieder: speaking about the conventions within architecture, do you refer to a system of star designers? this has indeed created a very formal idea of architecture, as something that can be identified very easily as a style. you seem to relate this to another notion of authorship, one that is closer to the idea of the auteur in cinema, who takes responsibility for all of the aspects of the final product (which can be a collective or anonymous person).

common room: we take responsibility for our designs whether it be as individuals or as a group.the second obstruction, ‘never finish’, proposes that there is no final product per se; the user ultimately takes on part of the responsibility of the design. the notion of style can certainly be applied to collaborations but this often includes a dominant figure. the ‘public’ continues to look for the singular, heroic figure of the architect, even where one does not exist. we often work with other individuals or groups and as such our collaboration process is quite open and because of this ‘style’, if there is one, becomes diluted. as we look back on five years of work we more easily identify a certain approach, a series of ideas or theories rather than a consistent style. the obstructions might be suggestive of this aspect.

to give some concrete examples from our work, the public school (for architecture) in new york started in autumn 2009 in collaboration with telic arts exchange. as an educational model, the public school (for architecture) does not apply to a traditional set of values related to success and failure. participation in the public school requires a different type of commitment to process.it is discursive. participation turns the tables; reverses the authority of student and instructor, architect and public. perhaps the general public, the groups and communities that are defined through participation, understand this better than architects themselves. dimensions and relations, another project from 2009, was a series of architecture and photography workshops for students aged 8–11 at the abrons arts center in the lower east side. in this project we looked for ways that the abrons arts center could be re-imagined as an expanded community architecture/art facility; a ‘place of production of space and encounter’. the dimensions and relations project lead to funding for a publication that starts with the abrons arts center as a case study to revisit and re-evaluate education and architecture through civic structures and institutions (especially those built in the 1970s).

binna choi and axel wieder: talking about these examples, we are reminded of a text that giancarlo de carlo wrote in 1969 about architecture for schools and universities, where he fundamentally criticised the idea of built spaces ‘for’ education, and rather suggested a process-oriented approach. deeply impressed by the student revolts, he understood the question of education as being closely linked to mechanisms of ‘opinion control’, and asked for possible methods to design different schools. he asked himself four questions, of which the most radical (and final) one was: ‘must the planning and construction of buildings for educational activity be entrusted to specialists?’ de carlo, himself an architect, was suspicious of the specialists’ involvement in the very institutions that he sought to overcome. instead, he gives the example of the french revolution during which the real centres of public education were ‘the clubs, the streets’. he saw the role of the architect rather pessimistically, and instead shifted the emphasis toward the readjustments made by those who appropriate the buildings. this view also resonates with the transcripts of a lecture by paul elliman featured in this publication (‘a school is a building with a school in it’). how do you see the role of the designer in relation to ‘the discipline’ and specialisation?

ifau – ch: certainly de carlo is right to be suspicious of specialists. actually, it applies equally to specialists and specialisation (of space), in the sense of a rigid setting not allowing for an unimpeded readjustment. the capability of readjustment is vital for buildings as well as for cities; no wonder there is a great fascination for informal urban structures today, structures that are adaptable, can be transformed without instant ruptures. modernism introduced a scientific approach to planning and many regulations were deduced from there, in the belief that these were the best solutions for everyone. this set of rules and typologies still shapes the urban space, but (as we pointed out before) the common ground and goals are not definite anymore, society has become much more fragmented. so these regulations and the structures they create do not provide appropriate space and often hinder adaptability and participation in the building process.

the self-conception of ‘architects as specialists’ (and even scientists) developed in the twentieth century and relates directly to the definition of architecture and the profession of the architect since the renaissance. the palladian approach was about the sublime; disconnecting, exposing, creating a work. architecture was understood as an independent art and something that qualified as architecture had to stand independently. the public dialogue on architecture became a peer-to-peer discourse. this attitude was adopted for large scale developments and extended to urban planning, the everyday, to ordinary architecture. this works as long as there is a certain kind of societal consensus.

de carlo, but also aldo van eyck, john habraken and many others, strongly criticised this position very early on, not as a countermovement to modernism but within the modern movement (which is remarkable compared to the polarised discussions we witness today). van eyck introduced the concept of relativity into architectural discourse, trying to allow for dialectics and continuity.[2] in a similar way, habraken pleads for a more informal approach, inviting architects to identify with and embrace their space of action as ‘a part of the field’ he defines as ‘built landscapes and the people that inhabit them’. ironically, many other architects were already working in this field on different levels but with the wrong premise.[3] so allowing for readjustments indeed is tightly linked to the attitude of the designer and we consider it as crucial to go on with that discussion which started some fifty years ago.

common room: we agree with de carlo’s suspicion of the specialist. the specialist is someone who needs to define the boundaries of the discipline to reassert his/her expertise, and consequently authority. however de carlo seems to reassign the role of the architect to the user.we feel the architect can still play an important role when there is a direct engagement with the user. the knowledge of the architect can be instrumental in combination with the user’s input and it exists only when there is input from the user.

for example, our project dimensions and relations explored and documented the use of a community arts and educational institution with children taking classes in the building. this gave us the opportunity to ‘see’ the building/institution through the eyes of an eight-year-old. although we ourselves guided the project, the children played around with the guidelines. we gained new insight into how the building is used, and the children (and other users) gained a renewed appreciation of the building.

binna choi and axel wieder: how can this kind of ‘participatory’ approach be differentiated from populist or neoliberal notions of user involvement? the structures that ifau & jesko impose on spaces often function as points of negotiation, to open up a dialogue and involve the ‘participation’ of users.

ifau – cs: understanding architecture not as a didactical and/or sublime occasion but in the broad sense of use allows a more relaxed and perhaps more genuine approach to the question of participation and user involvement. taking architecture as a site of everyday actions requires spaces open for negotiation, appropriation and change by the user – participation in terms of everyday practice and use. so the question might be more about how to provide ‘a functional openness’ and resistance in the architectural design to promote and provoke different possibilities of appropriation. relating to working thesis no.7: ‘produce obstacles to interrupt normative routines’, a spatial intervention could be conceived as a detailed articulation of a social and functional problem.

intentionally introduced complications and superimpositions induce the articulation of conflict in a productive way. consequently, integrated forms of appropriation and practices of the everyday construct relationships with actuality that constantly question the social relevance and political competence of architecture.

jesko fezer: indeed, the traps of a populist or a neoliberal discourse – which both tend to ‘leave it to the people’ by, on the one hand, a reactionary simplification of social complexities and on the other by an intensified exploitation of the subjectivities via an escalating process of self-determination and regulation – are pervasive. this is especially the case for cultural actors, model figures in these discourses, where a critical approach towards these consciously hidden ideologies is essential. a laissez-faire dogmatism, which at least names its political perspective, could be one model. this is probably not against participation, or its methodologies at all, but against an inclusive model of participation that excludes the contradictions actually existing between those who are asked to participate and the contextual framework of that process, which limits participation to a well measured degree.

binna choi and axel wieder: while the criticality seems to be fundamental, even to constantly differentiate itself from the opposite force that is constantly able to incorporate it, we’re wondering if you could speak of the so-called ‘projective’ dimension of architecture, that is to say, reclaiming its instrumental nature for a certain direction.

jesko fezer: the potential, and dilemma, to unavoidably change the world (or at least some small parts of it) by design as a tool of domination as well as a tool of emancipation, is probably the main challenge of architecture. but as i suggest here, the relevant question is: what kind of project is pushed forward and how do we receive and conceptualise the world that we intervene in (or some small parts of it)? unfortunately, in respect to the prevailing contemporary practice of architecture, i am not that optimistic about a perspective of projectability, if that is assumed as being a position against criticality. what could that without any critical perspective be other than a further reinforcement of the overwhelming conditions of late-capitalist dynamics? i feel compelled to mention this matter as it refers to an ongoing discussion in architecture around the powerful discourse of ‘post-criticality’ as introduced by north american architectural theorists robert somol and sarah whiting.[4] they ask for an end of criticism and postulate a projective practice that builds upon the transformative power of the making process. rhetorically based on a (quite plausible) critique of the ‘criticality’ of a few influential north american architects, they condemn any kind of critical/political reflection and conceptual perspective, since (as some examples of these architects showed), this approach could not be implemented in reality as absolute. of course architecture is not autonomous and is involved and bound to a net of different actors and interests with all their inherent contradictions, but it seems too banal to me to try to avoid these contradictions and troubles by capturing a whole profession in some self induced a-political or post-critical boundary. such naivety not only underestimates the political dimension of design, but it must be regarded as a defamation of architecture as a possibility of thinking and practicing a critical position in relation to the boring and suppressing reality of late capitalism it faces together with those involved in and excluded from it. so why affirm post-criticality if there was never any real (social and political) criticality?

we do need methods and strategies for research and design that question normality and the conditions bound to it, to find out about the gaps and limitations of contemporary architectural practice, and to develop new perspectives for design from that starting point. we still need a radically critical perspective on urban reality, which is not limited and pre-structured by the paradigms of productivity and feasibility. of course we shall not stay at a critical distance, propagating some politicised rhetoric. we would prefer to negotiate and reformulate exactly this border: the thin line between an analysis that rejects the ruling conditions and a practice that works with them. any transformative perspective, even on a micro-political level, is bound to the need to formulate an intention based on an interpretation of the status quo. if this is anything more than an affirmative ‘yes’ it can be called critical, i would say.

ifau – cs: jesko, i agree with your skeptical perception of the post-criticality debate, even if you especially focus on the implication of the operational aspect of pragmatism. you describe this architectural discourse as a popular architecture theory phenomenon. i would also take into account that the north american discussion has especially adopted postmodern approaches or earlier critique on functionalism, such as advocacy planning or considerations inherent in each design concern – between abstract representation (sign, symbol, commenting) and common interests (negotiation, appropriation, performance). the problem with it is a substantial reduction of architectural production to an only ‘perception based’ control of architectural concerns. terms like immersion, atmosphere and presence enhance the affirmative impact of architecture on the hegemony of neoliberalism. i am reminded of the multidisciplinary and cross-cultural any conferences on the condition of architecture between 1991 and 2000.

binna choi and axel wieder: since we are using the term ‘criticality’ it might be useful to note the differentiation irit rogoff made between criticism, critique and criticality in speaking of any practice engaging in visual culture, in order to avoid any assumed enclosed, autonomous area of judgment and principle which criticism and critique are based on and instead to be critical ‘operating from an uncertain ground of actual embeddedness’. according to her, this criticality has a stronger transformative power than criticism or critique as it inhabits and occupies the space where your critical objects are lived with the subject. perhaps the fact that both common room and ifau & jesko fezer are also involved in many projects and enterprises beyond the design of spaces, which includes the organisation of exhibitions, editing, writing, teaching, can be seen in light of this understanding of criticality?

common room: an ‘expanded practice’ has become the familiar term to describe the activities of architects beyond designing spaces.we recognise that our practice is among the several offices and institutions exploring this idea. however, we would like to consider that common room is trying to re-form architecture practice. this means redefining the way architecture is understood as a discipline by the public and by architects. we don’t want to ‘expand’ the boundaries of the current discipline (conventional or critical). expanded practice creates a bigger footprint. this leaves conventional values in place and tacks on a few more. reforming means re-learning. or as educators being involved in the re-learning of what architecture is. it is a form of resistance to the external network of finance and power and to the internal autonomy of professional discourse. this is the motivation behind writing, editing, teaching and curating.

jesko fezer: our demand no.12: ‘minimise design activities to enable programmatic interventions’ can be interpreted from this perspective. part of our personal and collective experiences is that some of our approaches, interests or projects do not make that much sense in the context of the usual architectural discourse. however, we feel the necessity to think, discuss and work on those issues kept outside of architecture for pragmatic or political reasons. by minimising design activities we produce space (budget and time) for other activities, maybe more related to other disciplines, but in the end essential elements of a critical architectural practice. this shift between formats and disciplines obviously often produces gaps between different projects. a more radically politicised text on socio-spatial issues for example could even contradict a small design project for an art institution in relation to the issue of gentrification. so non-dogmatism is something we learned to live with, and which is certainly also produced by the necessities of our multi-disciplinary working methods. sometimes i wish for a relaxed dogmatism that is able to formulate a position more precisely and avoids certain relativisms that we are used to dealing with. to imagine something ‘other’ or ‘different’, clarity about what it shouldn’t be, could be helpful and even open up a path to an open and constructive dialogue…

[1] see for instance meaning in architecture, eds. charles jencks and george baird, london: barrie & rockliff, 1969. this collection of essays documents a turning point in the debate on modern architecture. a special focus is given to ‘use’ as an important determinant of form, especially in nathan silver’s contribution, ‘architecture without buildings’.

[2] ‘van eyck’s thinking fundamentally proceeded in terms of reconciling opposites.throughout his career, he applied himself to the exploration and the relationships between polarities, such as past and present, classic and modern, archaic and avant garde, constancy and change, simplicity and complexity, the organic and the geometric. […] he saw that maintaining the dialectics of these opposing factions was a necessary condition for the development of a genuinely contemporary architecture.’ from the lecture manuscript, francis strauven, ‘aldo van eyck – shaping the new reality from the in-between to the aesthetics of number’, cca mellon lectures, 2007. see also by the same author: aldo van eyck. the shape of relativity, amsterdam: architectura & natura, 1998, or an essay by merijn oudenampsen in this publication entitled ‘aldo van eyck and the city as playground’.

[3] see palladio’s children: essays on everyday environment and the architect, eds. n. j. habraken and jonathan teicher, abingdon: taylor & francis, 2005.

[4] r.e. somol and sarah whiting, ‘okay, here’s the plan’. log 5, 2005.