Sir David Alan Chipperfield, CH -architect, urban planner, and activist- was awarded the 2023 Pritzker Prize, the highest honor in architecture, in recognition of his lifelong contributions to the field. His career spans over four decades and encompasses a diverse range of projects across numerous countries. Beyond designing some of the most significant contemporary public buildings, including the upcoming extension of the National Archaeological Museum of Athens -Chipperfield is also deeply involved in architectural consultancy. Through the RIA Foundation, he actively supports the development of public architectural competitions in Galicia, Spain, where he resides.

His exclusive interview with ek magazine, conducted at the invitation of the Pritzker Architecture Prize, took place on May 24 in Athens, just hours before the award ceremony at the Ancient Agora.

 

S.M.: What are the key characteristics of a well-crafted architectural competition brief? How can architects influence the questions posed before offering their design solutions? What is the significance of architectural competitions today, and what is the ideal context in which they should be held?

D.C.: In any project, the client must take responsibility. When moving forward with an assignment or tender, no one can shirk the responsibility of clearly formulating the question and establishing priorities. Furthermore, the client remains responsible for providing the necessary conditions for those tasked with answering the question. However, the process of delegation is often misunderstood. For instance, if a client says, “I have a plot of land and want to build a skyscraper there,” they are essentially asking architects to design a skyscraper for that site, even though this may not have been the best idea from the start. So, who is responsible? The architects, who must design a skyscraper without being certain it’s the right choice for the location, or the client, who failed to take the necessary professional steps to ensure its viability?

The reputation of architectural competitions is mixed. In Switzerland, and to some extent in Germany, when a public body decides to hold a competition, it often commissions an architectural firm to create a ‘theoretical’ project first. Through this process, architects realize that it’s not so simple to fit a large number of square meters onto a given plot or to make the traffic system envisioned by the institution actually work.

A young architect should aspire to design a housing complex or a well-crafted school building. The challenge, however, is that in many cases, such projects are not available through competitions, largely because the public system is not functioning effectively. In Galicia, through the RIA Foundation, we are working to create reliable and high-quality tenders. Without this reliability, architects are not taken seriously, and their work is overshadowed by commercial firms that exploit them. Additionally, tenders need to be tiered appropriately. For instance, if a competition is for an airport, I believe even my office should not participate alone, but in partnership with others, as such a project is too complex to tackle alone. I also think it would be more practical for some competitions to be held on a qualification basis by default, rather than being completely open and narrowing down to a shortlist of just 20 in the second phase. Most importantly, I believe competitions should not only be reserved for “flagship” projects. The world is built not just through iconic structures but also through thoughtful housing, quality schools…

As a young architect in Britain, I would have loved the opportunity to learn in the same way that some of my European colleagues in Switzerland or Austria have. There, architects in their mid-30s are able to design meaningful projects like school extensions or bus stations. With hundreds of competitions available, it’s clear to me that having a well-established system for such opportunities is crucial.

S.M.: Are you saying that established offices should refrain from this level?

D.C.: Certainly. They would have done it regardless. In many European countries, the competition system has experienced both highs and lows. In the 80s and 90s, Spain had an exceptionally strong system, which allowed many young architects to win competitions, putting them in a much more favorable position to succeed. For young architects, winning was incredibly important. Could they handle the scale of the project? Yes. Did they have the experience? Yes. Were they technically competent? Yes. Did they have the energy? Absolutely. The more established firms were less willing to invest the same effort into winning, giving younger firms a significant advantage, as long as they could pose the right questions to the right people.

S.M.: What is the role of architectural institutions in this context? Ideally, these collective bodies can serve as advisors to public institutions. At their worst, however, they are often bypassed entirely.

D.C.: Absolutely. We’ve learned this lesson. In England, for instance, RIBA is struggling. They’ve become focused on marketing. Thirty years ago, they chose to prioritize “promoting architecture,” much like the nationwide campaign at the time to encourage people to eat more fresh eggs. However, the true role of an architectural association should be to create an environment that protects the profession. When a competition is announced, the institution should review the notice and determine if the jury is qualified. In Germany, for example, public projects require juries to consist of more experts and fewer “ordinary citizens” or “personalities.” There must be a recognized head of the jury, and all of this should be made clear before the competition begins. The public sector in Germany has a stronger competition culture, and even though the country may be shifting in a different direction, it remains the responsibility of architectural institutions to reclaim this ground. Additionally, a critical responsibility of these institutions is to ensure fair compensation for award-winning projects.

The idea that RIBA should abandon proposed fee levels is utterly absurd, as it would allow young architects to be underpaid at the expense of their more experienced counterparts. When you’re a young architect, the last thing you want is to win a competition without a proper fee. If you ask yourself, “Should we take this on?” of course you give it your all. You’ve spent three years working on a great project, but you haven’t made any money and you’re completely exhausted. This is not sustainable for a new firm—you’re simply being taken advantage of. In contrast, in Switzerland, if you win a good competition, the fee is fair. You complete the project, everyone is satisfied, and you have money in the bank. You can invest that money back into your office. It’s a way to move forward professionally. An architectural project should never be seen as a lottery. Someone might say, “You were lucky to win,” but that’s only true if you haven’t been worn out in the process.

 

Read the full interview at the  279 | July – August 2023 ek issue.

Cultural regeneration

At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, Tacuba became one of the wealthiest areas of Mexico City and was home to large country houses that over time were gradually abandoned. One of these “ruins” was Mar Mediterraneo 34.

 

Building Restoration

Built in 1910 in an eclectic French style belonging to the Porfiriato era, the building currently holds great historical value. Consequently, the project aim was to renovate it, preserving its distinct architectural character. The house was initially split in two volumes, where the first incorporates the main facade while the second is oriented towards the main patio. The spaces were meticulously restored, using primarily contemporary materials. The façade’s carved balconies, iron railings and large windows were preserved and rebuilt, rehabilitating the house’s urban image.

 

Interior Design & Layout

The interior design bridges historical elements and contemporary architecture. In the existing patio, a large volume is constructed, framing the sky, and restoring the old entrances leading to the ground floor. The new openings are double in height, controlling the light and privacy of the space. The house extends in three floors and includes seven apartments in different typologies: a loft, a studio, a family apartment, and a penthouse. The different spaces extend around the three interior courtyards, visually interacting with the historic façades and becoming imbued with ample natural light.

 

Sustainable Design

The project addresses sustainability through the reappropriation and recycling of existing materials. In parallel, it pays close attention to the building’s sociocultural history and impact of the site, aiming to contribute to Tacuba’s urban regeneration.

Progressive transformation

The project involves the reuse of an old office building and its conversion into a modern assisted reproduction clinic. Its aim is to become a new landmark for the wider area as well as promote sustainable design principles.

 

Conservation strategy

The renovation retained key elements of the original four-storey office building, including the load-bearing structure, staircases, elevator shaft, corridors, balconies, and roofs. During the project’s execution, it was also decided to preserve all external steel window frames, due to both technical considerations as well as to minimize overall expenses. The building’s dynamic transformation was initially implemented in its interior to create the new offices, the operating rooms, as well as the reception and waiting areas. An overall exterior design intervention concluded the building’s refurbishment. The staircase divides each level into two distinct spaces. Τhe ground floor houses the main areas of the new clinic: the central lobby, the café and a small restaurant with beautiful open-air facilities are located on one part, while the operating theatres, doctors’ offices and main laboratories on the other.

 

Spatial organisation

Particular emphasis was placed on ergonomic design and the creation of unobstructed circulation routes between the separate rooms and functions. The first floor houses the medical offices and examination rooms. The waiting room, consulting rooms and offices are located around an impressively designed area, while the marketing and accounting services are concentrated in a second section within the building. The administration offices, conference rooms and a few support services are located on the top floor. The basement houses essential support facilities, including additional workshops, preparation rooms, a small gym, and wellness spaces. Additionally, all MEP equipment is situated in the basement, along with designated parking spaces.

 

Façade design

The exterior elevation was transformed, through a bold gesture, into a moving façade of large aluminium and wooden beams: a “fluid” partition unfolds into two separate strips, creating an extraordinary form with curved and elastic shapes, which embraces the building’s existing volumes and elevator shaft. A pebble pond shaped with similar curved lines and the carefully designed paths, outdoor facilities and intriguing vegetation complete the composition.

Sustainable heritage

The residence was originally part of a historic palace located in Chianti, Florence. During the 20th century, it was remodeled as part of an energy redevelopment initiative, leading to radical interventions that obscured its historic elements. This contemporary renovation aims to restore the character of this traditional historic Chianti houses as well as improve the building’s energy performance.

 

Layout Restoration

The design reinstates the continuity and fluidity of the space. The ground floor has an open-plan layout and consists of the living, dining and kitchen area connected by a series of new and existing large square openings that lead to a private garden. The openings are embellished with metallic edge bands. A double-sided fireplace replaces the old, historic one and becomes the focal point of the space.

The first floor is accessed through an old, preserved staircase made from stone. The space is stripped back to its original form and revolves around a single loadbearing wall. It houses two bedrooms with a shared bathroom and one en-suite with a large, private office overlooking the garden.

 

Local Materials

During reconstruction, traditional local materials were used such as terracotta tiles, chestnut wood, stone, and lime mortar. The old façade openings were traced and eventually restored to maximize the natural light entering the space as well as its connection to the surrounding landscape. Many incongruous elements constructed during the 20th century restoration were reinstated to their original typology. Part of the walls were cladded in handmade terracotta bricks manufactured in Imprunenta. The roof was reinforced with the same local chestnut wood and was further insulated using high-density wood fiber.

 

Elevating energy performance

An additional challenge was to increase the building’s energy efficiency using materials and design solutions that were compatible with its historic character. Instead of creating an external thermal coat, a plaster layer of lime and cork was applied to both the interior and exterior walls, adapting perfectly to their complex form and texture. New single-leaf windows in wood and aluminum minimized any thermal losses. Finally, the installation of new radiant panels led to cleaner, minimal spaces adherent to the building’s historic character.

Remaking functions

One of the two 19th century historical buildings, located on a one-acre plot of land, has undergone a complete restoration. Originally designed and constructed as a hat factory, the building is repaired and includes a new extension to accommodate the needs of the owners.

 

Preservation of the existing elements

The architectural components of the building have been carefully restored, playing a pivotal role in shaping the new, aesthetic outcome. The new extension is made of a lightweight metal framework, artfully designed to complement the industrial character of the original building, yet distinctively divergent in both material and form.

 

Functional layout

The three-story building, spanning a total area of 600m2, houses three separate residences. The first occupies the ground floor, along with a portion of the first floor and the basement. The primary spaces include a living room, a pool table area, a dining room, a kitchen, and a lounge. The new, metal extension serves as the lounge and connects seamlessly to the kitchen. The cellar is situated in the basement, accessed through the lounge. The first floor houses the bedroom, cloakroom, and office.

The second residence occupies the remaining first floor. It is designed as an open plan living, kitchen, and dining area. The bedroom, bathroom, and storage space are situated in separate rooms. Finally, the third residence is on the second floor and includes two en-suite bathrooms with a free-standing bathtub, a cloakroom, a gym, and kitchen. The spaces are connected through a communal lounge.

 

Natural materials

The choice of materials, with a focus on wood and metal, takes inspiration from 19th-century architecture, honouring the historical significance of the building while at the same time reflecting the distinct character of its owners.