cullo studio - an interview

project | 'we were radical' interview with europan 15 NL jury member, jacob van rijs

client | architectuur instituut rotterdam, europan NL

role | copy writing

europan NL website, 2019.

background

This an interview I conducted with jury leader and founding partner of MVRDV, Jacob van Rijs. Commissioned by Architectuur Instituut Rotterdam, it aimed to help draw attention to Europan15's competition and encourage young designers working and living in Rotterdam to participate.

I crafted an interview that aimed to capture van Rijs' advice for competitors as a seasoned professional, and to share his experience participating in Europan2 in 1991 - an experience that resulted in he, Winy Maas, and Nathalie de vries founding MVRDV.

read more

excerpt

"We Were Radical" (interview and copy by cullo studio)

You’re a Europan winner yourself. It was your Berlin Voids project for Europan2 in 1991 that lead to the establishment of MVRDV with Winy Maas and Nathalie de Vries. How has the game changed since you participated? Do you think the stakes are higher now than they were in 1991?

“When the three of us participated in 1991, it was really fresh, only the second Europan. There was the feeling that real projects could come out of it. The competition still gives young designers a real opportunity to step up and the confidence to make a move and start for themselves. Maybe back then, the stakes were different, somehow more accepting of young architects. With less experience you could get real commissions, because clients were not so averse to risks. Now, they’re a little more risk averse, so it’s more difficult for young architects. The conditions are certainly more complex and issues such as affordable housing are at the forefront.”

In the Berlin Voids project, “the unexpected is the sublime by-product of communal life.” This is a philosophy that runs through much of MVRDV’s work: that good design produces the unexpected. What approach would you advise participants apply to tease out the bold and unexpected from the latent possibilities in their sites? What kind of balance should participants strike between strategic reflection and design intervention? In your mind, should these be treated equally in terms of time and attention?

“I’m not going to advise them on how they should go about it; this should be for them to discover. The unexpected is in the activities already present in all of the sites themselves. I am pleased that all sites in the Netherlands are in one city, in Rotterdam. I think that’s a great start.

It’s really a gamble how and where you spend your time. Some jurors will favour a more practical approach, depending on the personalities in the jury, so you should consider that. This is always a debate. It’s difficult to say what’s better and what’s not. The question should be: what do I want to achieve with this project, and how can I stand out?

When we competed in Europan, we were radical. Whether or not the project would be built was not our main priority. That was a tactic, that is one way to do it, but not the only way. Return to what you want to achieve with the project.”

back to menu

next

Page updated

Report abuse