KLab architecture

KLab architecture (Kinetic Lab of architecture), is an architectural firm formed in 2008 by Konstantinos Labrinopoulos, following the success of Klmf architects. Mr Labrinopoulos with a series of experimental projects has cemented his place not only in the pages of Greek architectural history, but also internationally as klab architecture has been featured among the 20 hottest young architectural firms in the world according to Wallpaper* magazine.In the following interview, Konstantinos Labrinopoulos discusses the basic principles of architectural design.

Your projects and texts suggest an interest to novelty and the avant – garde. What do you consider to be the essence of innovation in contemporary architecture and who are its recipients?

I think that every creator ought to search for novelty and the avant-garde. However, they may be found in several facets of the architectural process. For example, differentiation in programme – i.e. how someone experiences space, differentiation in the selection of materials and, naturally, variation in form – are only a few of the countless practices that can confer something new. What is easily written cannot be realised as easily.

Mainly because tradition, in Building, is hard to transcend. People are usually conservative; they want that which is proven to work. But as people desires change, technology continually develops and materials evolve. The architect has to foresee these changes, or should I say, dictate them – without, however, forgetting the reason why such buildings come to be. In our experience, the recipients of alternative and experimental architectural design do not belong to any particular category of education, aesthetics, or even age. Obviously, their familiarity with modern aesthetics helps, but is not an a priori catalyst forsuch an architectural proposal may be accepted.

Distinct geometrical gesture is the basic characteristic of your recent work. Sometimes, in particular, your compositions start off from with a closed rectangle or cube – open box (Horizon House, 2008, Donald Judd summer house, 2009, Terminal House, 2009, habitation unit in Elliniko, 2010, urban cubes, 2011). At other times they move to its deformation (Cubic Distortion House, 2008-09). Would you care to explain your mark on geometry and its influence in your work?

Geometry is the architect’s powerful tool and an endless experimentation laboratory. We are interested in its integrated use in particular concepts and contexts. There are certain sections in our work that we are interested in exploring, but we always take into account the convenience to programme and functionality. Respectful of the building tradition of each place, we use geometry to infiltrate new areas of synthesis without escaping building logic by searching for ad – hoc construction details that will blow costs out of proportion. Our logic is to attempt anything necessary to evade mundane frameworks of geometry, seeking some plasticity or surprise.

Another defining characteristic of your work is the creation of surprises and antitheses through your designs, use of materials and manipulation of daylight – which ultimately evoke emotional reactions from the user (Wunderman offices, 2005, Placebo pharmacy, 2009). Would you tell us more?

The charm of architecture is that you have so many tools to create spaces, but the dominant one is lighting. We work in time based on lighting and its variations. For us, space becomes alive when it evokes and incites different sensations at different hours and seasons.

We are interested in using living materials that have their own aura, texture and odour, and we like to experiment with materials in other roles and uses than what is customary. All our buildings describe a life scenario that is not ordinary and common, but as you say, full of surprises and antitheses. We create from inside out and from outside in. Quality of living in our spaces is of capital importance, and if our architecture evokes feelings that endure over time, this means we will have succeeded. Therefore we believe buildings ought to be designed with multiple reference levels. We are concerned with synthesising concepts; sensations that operate subconsciously in the user.

In the Wide Open Villa (2006 – 09), we read some references to Richard Meier. I would like to use this as an excuse to ask you about your possible internationalist references, in your older projects, and today.

We are all citizens of the world, even more so because of the internet, so the incentives exist, even if subconsciously. However, I believe that finding common intersections with great creators is not flawed but interesting. In art, many have stood on the shoulders of their predecessors, attempting to fathom the greatness of their works.

We are interested in grasping the qualities of some masterpieces and understanding why they are considered as such. It makes sense that we are influenced by great designers, older and contemporary, but our aim is for our buildings to have their own identity, for any subconsciously occurring reference to be invisible. Our references are conscientious when we borrow elements from our building’s landscape, as when we borrow from our traditional architecture.

Your style is certainly internationalist, while the constitution of your office is international. You are also part of a synergy of offices from several European countries, the European Architects’ Alliance. Do you believe that in 21st century architectural design, it makes sense to discuss the international and the local, something that defined Hellenic architecture throughout the second half of 20th century? And beyond this, is there an identification margin for Hellenic architectural projects in the world scene today?

You are not the only one to call our style internationalist. But we insist on trying, in several projects, especially where the landscape is clearly Hellenic and Mediterranean, to magnify the Hellenic ethnicity of our forms, without obvious correlations but by reinterpreting elements of our architectural tradition for a new era. Personally I am not interested in existing as a Greek architect, but when I build in Greece I ought to be Greek, which is not as hard as being English when building in England. I believe internationalism in Architecture is only appropriate for architects who design regardless of context. That is to say, for the majority and also those few who consider their signature style and mannerism to fit greatly all over. Wherever it may be derived from, this local architectural culture still exists I trust, and I think this is good. Japanese architecture has, for years, been based on national tradition and culture; similarly a new Spanish and especially Portuguese architecture has recently emerged in the footsteps of a great master, Alvaro Siza. I would be interested to see a Hellenic example but consider it difficult, as this country has so many different aspects in its tradition and architecture.

Evidently, half a century after functionalism’s homogenizations, the dogma associating form with function unequivocally has been outgrown. How would you interpret the intense need for stylistic phrasing of a large part of contemporary architecture, in relation to your own (Maiandros House, 2004 – 07, Paper Plane House, 2008 – 09) work? Could we speak of neo – modern formalism?

I cannot say I am influenced by particular movements any more. When I was at university I liked deconstruction, but I nowadays view everything with a deeply critical eye. Novelty is important in architecture also. People are impressed by something new, but in recent years we have become devotees of an unprecedented competition for creating new avant-garde forms, while neglecting other very necessary issues in architecture. We are concerned with covering the basics first, to solve the problems of function, orientation, view and privacy, etc. Along with these, we will never abandon our pursuit to take our own design a step forward. We turn to form and experimentation when we lack external stimulation, or an idea derived from the programme, or expressed by the client. We then try to discover the magic, the surprise, by creating our own framework of relevance. We want our buildings to last for centuries, to assimilate and be reborn in new eras. Consequently, we search for elements that render architecture and a building that is relevant for every era, trying not to follow the currents and trends of our times, no matter how difficult this sounds.

Clearly, international architectural theory discusses less and less the socio – political components of urban planning and architecture which used to define the modernistic forefront, turning instead to issues of environment and energy. What would you consider to be the social legalization of new architecture?

I think this stopped because architects and planners were defeated by free-enterprise and land purchase. For us, the political dimension of architecture is not over yet, but it is rather difficult to implement it via single houses. Public funds, for a long time now, in Greece, through obscure conditions, do not go to the best architects but to those operating inside an obscure network. The planning department is non – existent, while big opportunities like the Olympic village produced uninspired results. The social dimension of architecture also extends to environmental and energy principles through sustainable architecture. Lately, some efforts in engaging architects in charitable non-government projects have taken place, with significant results.

To be honest, I cannot recall architects and planners creating anything of urban importance in times of democracy; on the contrary, in dictatorial and authoritarian regimes, the conditions for imposing important urban interventions did exist. Between the two I prefer democracy, even if we don’t get to radicalize the shaping of cities. Social legalization of architecture can be possible, I think, when we remember its principles and choose an anthropocentric design over that of lifestyle, profit or excessive ambition.