Nikolaj De Meulder’s romantic functionalism

If there is one watchword that recurs in contemporary architecture, it is sustainability. How do you create a sustainable building? It is something that almost every architect interprets in his or her own way.

Nikolaj De Meulder (Rofu) works from Ghent (Belgium) with a completely unique approach, in which he tries to maximally align sustainable ambitions with a realistic execution. De Meulder, who graduated as an engineer-architect from the University of Leuven in 2010, describes his way of working as ‘romantic functionalism’.

On your website you state that you run a studio characterised by romantic functionalism. According to you, this revolves around designing serviceable, economical buildings that are generous to people. Could you elaborate on this?

“If you want to design a serviceable building, you have to use space, materials and labour in a sustainable and careful way. You don't just do that by combining, condensing and transforming, but also by freeing up space, demolishing and organising. Reuse, repurposing and revaluation are key, and in this way even a conscious decision to ‘not build’ can provide a solution. In my opinion, the key is to not only look for what is needed for tomorrow, but also for what will remain useful in the centuries to come. This means examining what is superfluous and/or unaffordable.”

“What you must never forget is that each project is customised, which means flexibility and sustainability must go hand in hand. Each location, like its users, has its own character and with each project you want to determine the opportunities for today, tomorrow and the distant future. This means that you have to pay a lot of attention to consultation. Listening, inspiring, bringing people together and guiding are key concepts in every design process.”

“When I talk about romantic functionalism, I am simultaneously referring to the functionalism of the 20th century, which made construction feasible and affordable for a wider audience through all kinds of new technical techniques, and romanticism. Romanticism not only idealised nature, but also brought with it a great belief in the malleability and how we can make the world a better place. Bring these two elements together and you end up with romantic functionalism.”

Could you explain that last one a little more? How does it specifically relate to sustainability?

“Functionalism ensured that the removal of technical obstacles made affordable and interesting housing possible for a large group of people. We learned, for example, how we could integrate new materials such as steel and concrete into architecture, especially after the Second World War.”

“However, many decades ago it became clear that we could do all sorts of things, but that we were exceeding the earth's limits. Especially after The Club of Rome published its report ‘The Limits to Growth’ in 1972, we all woke up, including those in the construction industry. Yes, we can build affordably and functionally, but we must do so in a way that is sustainable, which is not so simple. I think we need to inject a little romance into this. Taking inspiration from nature is one of the addendums to modernity that we know from the beginning of the 20th century. It is a bit like the romantic painters incorporating the miracle of the steam train into their canvases. Today, we certainly need to believe that our work can make the world a better place, so that we do not all go under together.’

In ‘100 years of change-oriented building’, which you wrote for LabLand, you state that the construction sector can still learn a lot from recent history and that it should not necessarily be stuck in the past. What exactly do you mean by that?

“We are always talking about circular and adaptable building. That is interesting, but at the same time we have to realise that we have actually been doing this less over the past 50 years than we did before. What I want to make clear is that we should not forget to look at the expertise of the past and apply it. No, adaptable building is not a new concept and I am increasingly convinced that we could go back even further. Look, for example, at 18th-century buildings in which we still find 200-year-old products that are still perfect and reusable, right down to the buildings themselves. I am not saying that you should impose such a building with a large 20th century concrete span. A mansion or even workers' houses simply had good rooms that you could reuse. Adaptability is a little different in every time frame.”

In ‘Multiple dwellings, 6 answers to contemporary housing issues’, also for LabLand, you talk about your special conversion of a parish centre built in 1956, which underwent its first renovation in 1990. What makes it special is that you transformed one space into a multiple dwelling with three apartments.

“I call this a multiple dwelling, but you could just as easily label it co-housing. What I like so much about this project is that three families live in one place instead of one, which makes a difference to the environment because they live more ecologically and more economically. It was great that the clients were open to my proposal not to consider what I, as an architect, could come up with, but how we could simply look at what was there and how we could usher that building from the 20th into the 21st century through a number of interventions that would fully connect with the character of the building.”

“After dividing one unit into three in the first phase, the second phase involved figuring out how to solve the problem of high heating costs due to the use of a lot of glass. The choice was ultimately made to completely wrap the building in insulation, so that the architecture remained intact and the design was respected. We also optimised every part. Take the exterior wall insulation: for this we replaced the traditional plaster with ultra-light aerated concrete (Multipor).”

“What this project illustrates is how you should simply apply a programme that a building can handle. For this, it is crucial that you check in advance to what extent the wishes of the clients are in line with this. This means that you must offer a detailed estimate with the first sketch, so that the client can choose how to get the most for the least input, with an understanding of the costs. This may also mean choosing what not to do or considering how to phase the work. Do cracks in the wall have to be repaired? Is that new, expensive kitchen really necessary? Each item is considered individually, which leads to endless lists to make choices.”

“You can see a very nice example of what I mean in this former parish centre in one of the children's bedrooms. I had specially designed furniture for this room, which would have cost several thousand euros. However, the client found a much less expensive old folding caravan that the children found much more exciting. I just mean that you can't be too embarrassed to admit that adaptability also has to do with opening your eyes, putting your ego aside and realising that this is simply better. We have a lot that has already been made, so just use that. You can't really summarise my approach better than with that folding caravan.”

Low impact, low budget

Would you like to learn more about Nikolaj De Meulder's ideas? You can do so on Friday 16 May at 10 a.m. during ARCHITECT@WORK Kortrijk (Belgium) when he will be giving the seminar ‘Low impact, low budget’ at the invitation of NAV.

Is low-impact building always more sustainable? And is it also more expensive by definition? De Meulder shares insights into budget management in projects that limit environmental impact. How do you enter into dialogue with the client and how do you arrive at sustainable design choices? Where can you find reliable product information and contractors and how do you deal with any uncertainties? And above all: how do you keep everything affordable? The architect illustrates all of this with real-life practical examples that demonstrate how you develop a realistic approach that safeguards sustainable ambitions to the maximum.