The Austrian architect Hermann Czech presents a wide-ranging talk, considering the role that strategies of reuse and transformation have played both in his own work and in that of such Viennese predecessors as Adolf Loos and Joseph Frank. The talk took place May 10 2024 and formed part of the Architecture on Stage series which the Architecture Foundation curates in partnership with the Barbican Centre.
Following the talk, Herman Czech responded by email to questions from audience members.
Hugh Strange: Further to your discussion of Umbau, and works to existing structures, as well as your observation that one’s own previous design decisions are sometimes more difficult to alter than existing structures – could you say something about the particular issues at play, perhaps in relation to issues of consistency and/or your own changing attitudes and preoccupations, when you have been asked to adapt or extend your own earlier projects?
Hermann Czech: One specific case of conflict between altering an existing structure and altering a design decision I mentioned in the lecture: Remember the three decorative arches on the freestanding firewall of the baroque Urbani house of which I intended to use two for uniform windows – until the medieval rectangular stone frame in the wall showed up on the inside. In this case however – having in mind a nondescript outer appearance anyway – I was easily prepared to change the design decision; but the client was not and I had problems to convince him.
Pablo Bronstein: Furniture in the 19th century was very large by our standards, and there was a lot of it. In any modest middle-class dining room, there could quite easily be a 2.5m tall Historismus carved oak buffet with stained glass panels, a 2m wide Italian baroque style marquetry credenza, a pair of Empire-style chiffoniers with marble tops, Regency jardiniere stands, and a full Napoleon III dining table and chairs for 12 all crammed in. Given this backdrop, which was still the standard in the time of Loos, do you think the built-in aspect of Loos’ (and many other early modern) interiors had much to do with a horror and a wish to control this type of furnishing? After all, if a sofa is built into a wall, you cannot put another sofa in that place. Most of the moveable furniture that was added by Loos and his contemporaries (designed by them or otherwise) seems very small indeed by historical standards. I’m not sure this is really a question about Loos, but more about the act of fixing furniture into the cross-section in general. In the closing of furnishing possibilities, is the architect insuring themselves against the bad taste of five years ago? And are they generally conscious of this?
Hermann Czech: Adolf Loos had an answer.
“Dear friends, I will tell you a secret: There is no modern furniture! Or, to be more precise: only furniture that is mobile can be modern. All other “pieces of furniture” (“Möbel”, the German word directly derived from Latin “mobile”), which firmly stand against the wall and so are not mobile and therefore are not proper pieces of furniture (Möbel), as chest and cupboard, glass cabinet and sideboard, today altogether are not existing any more. — Because all of these should be built-in. (The abolition of furniture, 1924).”
So for Loos this was not so much a question of taste (he would accept personal preferences), but of a practical lifestyle.
