Profile

Anne Isopp: But you do work with other teams of architects now and then. When and with whom?

Gernot Hertl: I've had many different working groups over the last few years. Often I was the one who approached the others, sometimes for strategic reasons, for instance for competition entries, or else because it suited the project. I really feel that you profit from the experience, that you learn from one other. Only it sometimes results in architecture that is not entirely consistent. If you're honest you've got to admit that.

AI: One of the architects you collaborated with spoke of your not letting go until everything had been thought through down to the last detail.

GH: I think that is an emotional thing of mine. I can't let go. I always have the feeling that somewhere it is still possible to change, to improve something and that's something you shouldn't overlook. Even while knowing full well that you will still overlook many things anyway.

AI: Could you explain in general terms how you approach an architecture project? Is there something like a routine?

GH: In principle, yes. One of the first two approaches is an urban design one. A completely classic approach. We look at the site, and try to distribute various structures and building volumes on it. Here too, experience from the historic centre of Steyr comes into play in how we situate spaces. I always call that urban design; it also applies to an indoor job. In parallel, we try to define the atmospheres of the spaces. Although this stage is still very abstract, it already has a lot to do with materiality. What should the space feel like? Where should the light come in? And obviously there are mutual influences, too.

AI: Doesn't the atmosphere of a space also have something to do with colour?

GH: I disagree in a big way with the colour theorists who insist that red increases the pulse rate, green is relaxing, and so on. There may well be a tendency in that direction. But I believe that it is equally possible to use red for a relaxing effect. It also depends on the proportions of the space and the lighting conditions. For the Boarding School at the Vocational School Centre in Linz, for example, we did the boarding school rooms in ruby red. There was a lot of scepticism among the teaching staff. The ceilings are made of cherry wood, the floors of a brown rubber, and the walls are painted ruby red. All of them, without exception. It makes for a comfortable atmosphere, almost refuge-like. The students are exposed to social pressures all day long and constantly have to prove themselves. They are not even alone in their rooms, which are four-bed rooms. So it is important to give them a place where they can withdraw, a place in which they can immerse themselves. Now everyone is thrilled and the rooms are very much in demand.

AI: Your buildings seem so skilfully reduced. No big fuss. Usually just a few selected materials and forms. That brings to mind the concept of the appropriateness of the means. Does that play a role in your work?

GH: Yes, a huge one. In fact, time and again, that is exactly the dilemma in the design phase. I personally always vacillate between extreme reduction and having some elaboration here and there after all in order to underscore things I find important for the atmosphere of the space. Just now we are working on an indoor swimming pool. There is an overflow trough in the form of a waterfall that drops down for half a storey. It is really theatrical. But is that still appropriate? This is not at all about costs but really about when does it become an exaggeration, a caricature. It's always a balancing act, a matter of weighing the odds. I always try to reduce everything. But in every project there are a few things that are very strongly emphasized. It is difficult to gauge how far you can go.

AI: If money were no object, would you still ask yourself the question about the appropriateness of the means?

GH: Yes, I would. The budget is part of the programme of requirements. I actually consider the appropriateness of the means more concept- and design-related, less cost-related. Even if there were unlimited money, it wouldn't get any easier.

AI: Don't you make a different kind of architecture when you think in terms of ecology?

GH: No, it is one of the many constraints that are always good for architecture and with which you have to operate, juggling all the while, in every design you work on. That is nothing but positive. But I do not think we should build nothing but spheres from now on just because that is the most efficient building envelope. And another thing: how do you make structures? Time after time, our projects entail courtyard situations that make no sense if you think only in terms of energy consumption figures. But they contribute an awful lot of spatial qualities. Actually, the conservation of energy begins with urban design. Everything else is peanuts. As soon as you build freestanding single-family homes, it doesn't matter in the least whether you put in a lot of insulation or a little. Of course we use a lot of insulation anyway because you can at least bring about change in a small way.

AI: How many staff do you employ in your practice?

GH: Seven.

AI: Is that how you want to keep it or can the firm still grow?

GH: It shouldn't grow too much. Up to fifteen people is all right. Up to that point, things work the same way they always did. From today's perspective, anything else would require too much of an adjustment: a different office structure, a different way of working. I'd have to switch to doing more management-type work. And that is not where I want to go. After all, the main driving force is the desire to build – that childlike creativity.