Let it grow

The Austrian architect Juri Troy has been building since he was a teenager. Between then and now, he has participated in numerous competitions, completed many projects and won a host of awards. In this interview, he tells us why he wants cities to grow like forests, why it is important to think about the profession of architecture now for ten years from now, and much more.

Being creative, creating something new and thinking it through, engaging with what already exists, taking things into your own hands, in the truest sense of the word. As a teacher, Juri Troy encourages his students to find solutions in a way that seems to have been completely forgotten in a highly digitalised world. For example, calling someone to ask a question, or for example find something out to obtain materials to build a model. “That's really interesting because young people aren't used to it anymore with today's non-committal communication. But when they do communicate directly, they realise that the person on the other end of the line is often really nice, or happy that you've come to pick something up that they're happy to give away or even bring over. People are often very willing because the surplus material is then put to good use."

Are you trying to bring the students back to the analogue world a little?

“Exactly, I attempt to point out how important conscious thinking is as part of their own environment. We always talk about the environment, environmental protection, etcetera, but what one simply notices is how in recent years it has become more and more of an abstract concept. So much happens via digital media that often what is two metres away is considered much further away than what appears to be happening on the other side of the world. I notice this time and again when, for example, a model needs to be built somewhere. I hear people say, ‘I can't do anything, I don't have any cardboard.’ I then say, ‘Look, there's the waste paper container over there, have you looked in it?’ The response: ‘No, I didn't even think of that.’ But I have the feeling that it's slowly coming back, thanks to our initiatives. At the university, we have now created very good conditions for the students by purchasing a lot of tools, with or without cords, and we are currently in the process of setting up a workspace that in its turn can be used continuously. You can already see that a wonderful dynamic is developing.”

What does sustainability mean to you as an architect, and above all, how can it be kept alive without the term becoming too worn out?

“Well, I would strongly oppose the overuse of this term. It is more a symptom of our fast-paced times. A term is discussed for ten years and then people say they can't hear it anymore, that it's been overused. But no, on the contrary, I believe the term is still extremely relevant and extremely important. It is rather the discourse that is becoming worn out, because so much is overlooked in this term, or rather, so much is subsumed under it that is in no way sustainable. I believe that every time we think about this term, we should keep the basic idea in mind. Namely, that it comes from forestry and that this way of thinking describes a process that keeps a system alive, one that is not exclusively subject to my own immediate benefit, but which must be programmed in such a way that future generations can also live with and within this system.

In fact, when translated into architecture and construction, we should simply think of buildings as trees again in the future. This means cities like a forest, where every house represents a tree that was planted at some point, that is there for a certain amount of time, that I can care for if I look after it, that thrives and then lasts longer. In the worst case, when it has to be cut down, i.e. when something has to be demolished, it is very important to have a plan for what to do with the resources and how to use them sensibly. In my opinion, that is the main aspect. However, many efforts are now moving in a completely different direction. For example, wood is often only used to suggest something ecological in visible areas and, in the best case, to improve the characteristics slightly so that it appears sustainable. And that is exactly what wears down a term like this.”

Do you see it as the architects' responsibility to push this topic further, to pass it on to students and, so to speak, to the next generation?

“Absolutely. I think it's a very important topic in teaching to convey this content in such a way that it can be thought through and worked on in a meaningful way. A lot has really happened in this area in recent years. I saw this at the HFT in Stuttgart, Germany, when I started teaching there. There was clearly awareness of this issue, as they advertised a position specifically dealing with climate-friendly and resource-efficient architecture. There is clearly an awareness that something needs to be done here. On the other hand, some of my colleagues have been working there for 30 years, and you can tell that such topics have not yet reached them. As a result, you then have to deal with students who naturally ask why you now see things completely differently than, for example, your colleague from another department. But this leads to great discussions, and you notice that something is changing. I have to say that a lot has changed in this regard at TU Wien in recent years, especially because these topics have now reached most research areas, or at least are being supported. I feel that there is largely a common line.

And, switching back to the first question, you want to know if, aside from teaching, architects have a responsibility in this regard. Yes, that's also a fundamental question: what is our role, especially in the future? We addressed this issue in detail in several exams at the TU. We asked ourselves how our professional profile would have to adapt to all the changes: working conditions, requirements, orientations, what architecture means. But what does that mean for our teaching, and how do we think the profession we are trying to teach will look in ten years' time? What is important to teach so that someone will be in the right place in this industry in ten years' time? I believe that the fundamental values you teach are crucial. Everything else – skills such as getting to grips with details or internalising and translating standards that are constantly changing anyway – can be learned independently. But the fundamental values that guide your decisions, or your attitude towards construction and architecture, how you convey this to the world or argue to clients why certain decisions are made in one way or another, I believe that shapes you, especially during your training.”

I really like the comparison with trees. It's clear that you work extensively with timber construction in many of your projects. Do you see timber construction as the only alternative for the architecture of the future, or are you open to other possibilities?

“No, I'm not that dogmatic, because I believe that in architectural development, these extreme positions have tended to lead to dead ends. Rather, I think that wood is an incredibly clever building material, that it has a very long tradition here, and that we are in the fortunate position of having a lot of it and also having good companies that know how to work with it. It's really a very ideal situation, which is why I believe that building with wood makes perfect sense. But that doesn't mean that everything has to be built out of wood. Not even here. Certain things simply make more sense when they are made from other materials, but it's important to always strike the right balance and ensure that it makes sense. In other areas, it's completely different anyway. Where there are no forests and no corresponding tradition or infrastructure, it doesn't make sense. I would never recommend suddenly starting to build everything out of wood in Morocco, for example. How? Where would it come from? Why?

That doesn't make sense from a climate perspective either. The interesting thing is that humans are so resourceful, including in the development of building culture over thousands of years, that they have managed to build anywhere in the world using whatever materials were available. What's more, the building designs are always optimised for the respective climatic conditions. It would be unfavourable if we only had stone and clay in our region, where we experience such extreme temperature fluctuations. That would lead to greater difficulties. Wood is extremely practical in this regard. Conversely, if there were only wood in Yemen, for example, I am not sure whether these beautiful clay houses would have been developed. But miraculously, you can find something in every place that is actually very suitable for working with in terms of climate. Unfortunately, we have completely neglected this over the last 100 years. Building with concrete, glass and petroleum products has become the norm, and people believe that every house can look exactly the same, no matter where it is located, because building services will take care of the rest. This is simply a point of view that I believe has led to such a dead end because it completely ignores many fundamental issues of architecture and of proper, contextual and climate-friendly construction.”

But if, as you rightly say, everyone built in this way using the materials available on site, then that would in itself be a sustainable system. Do you think there will be a return to this way of thinking?

“I believe so. Last summer, for example, there was a summer school at the TU Berlin attended by 200 international students. The topic was sustainable construction. I gave a presentation in which I illustrated how we are trying to build and where the development is heading. This was followed by a lively discussion, because a lot of questions were asked, exactly the kind of questions you want to hear. One participant said he was from Mongolia, where conditions are completely different and there is no wood. Instead, there is a tradition of building with straw and clay. And then we immediately picked up on this thread. The idea was to revisit the concept of sustainable construction and see how it could be translated into a modern building system. The discussion really got going, and more people joined in, from India, Canada, and so on. Everywhere, there is a traditional form of building, but how could this be translated? I think this is exactly the kind of discourse we need to encourage. Because it is only from this rootedness in a building tradition that completely new paths can be taken that make perfect sense for the respective location.”

Your origins lie in Vorarlberg where you probably grew up with a lot of wood. I don't mean that in a clichéd way, but this passion for the material has to come from somewhere...

“I actually grew up in an old house in the Rhine Valley, a wooden house that is now 240 years old. So I do think that this has given me a great love for this material. But at the same time, my main influence from the beginning was actually working with stone, because my father was a stonemason. I worked with him in his business for several years. But just recently, I was asked how and whether that influenced my thinking and working. I honestly believe that when you work with a material for a long time, it changes not only your view of the material, but also your view of physical interaction with materials in general, because it's always about fundamental issues such as material integrity, joining and the properties of materials. How I can push it to its limits, what is possible within a material, but also within the connections between different materials. I think the difference is more – at least for architects – whether someone has given himself the opportunity to delve deeper into a material or not. I don't think the material itself is that important for an architect.”

I don't want to pin you down on wood. I just think that this emotion has to come from somewhere. But if you grew up like that, you've already absorbed the material atmospherically, without really thinking about it, right?

“Yes, indeed. I should mention that I designed my first wooden house at the age of 19, which was subsequently built. I would say that this had a lasting impact on me. At the time, I was extremely fascinated by how the individual parts were delivered and then assembled within two days. You could already walk through the rooms, everything smelled good and was clean from the start. It's an extremely clever way of building, which is much nicer than concrete construction, for example.”

At ARCHITECT@WORK, ‘transformation’ is the big theme this year. You have something old that already exists, and you transform it. How does that come into play in your architectural universe?

“We actually do quite a lot of conversions, it's been a theme almost since our office was founded. Interestingly, timber construction is particularly well suited to this because it fits in perfectly with the existing structure in terms of prefabrication, load-bearing capacity, material weight, insulation and energy-efficient renovation. One of our most recent major projects in this area is the Windkraft Simonsfeld office location in Schönbrunn, which is essentially an extension and renovation of an office building, but we also do this for smaller projects, which many of our colleagues find too laborious. On the one hand, I think it's good practice to really get to grips with the subject, and on the other hand, I also think it's a certain responsibility that we have in our profession because so much already exists. In Austria alone, there are more than a million single-family homes, and more than half of them are completely outdated in terms of energy efficiency, very often too large for a family, and mostly with floor plans that are difficult to use today. It's a huge task to turn them into something contemporary and usable again. I once calculated that if every architectural firm in Austria were to undertake one such project per year, it would subsequently take them around 140 years to bring the entire building stock up to modern standards. It's actually a great prospect, if it were possible.”

In Switzerland, there is actually no more space to build anything on greenfield sites. The situation is quite similar in Vorarlberg, the westernmost state of Austria. Here, the focus must be on redensification and transformation. Do you see it that way too?

“Yes, that's why a lot is happening there, including in research and in the overall discourse, giving the impression that they are already a good deal further ahead. Here, it's more of a wave that – at least that's my impression – is somehow spilling over from west to east. In Vorarlberg, too, these external constraints have already taken things much further. But the changing architectural landscape and the issue of resource utilisation, as well as rising construction costs and so on, are making it increasingly important here too. I am convinced of that.”

ARCHITECT@WORK is making its debut in Graz, in the southeast of Austria, in September and you have been invited as a speaker. We don't want to give too much away, of course, but perhaps you would like to offer us a little preview?

“Among other things, I plan to talk about the wind power project because it involves transformation and the expansion of an existing facility that – and this is an interesting development – was only ten years old, so relatively young. But because the company has grown so strongly, this change became necessary very quickly. You are then faced with the task of dealing with a portfolio that is not yet old, but nevertheless has a lot of requirements that are sometimes very restrictive. This is also an issue that will come up more often in the future. Time and again, I hear from colleagues that entire buildings that were only constructed 20 years ago are being demolished simply because there have been changes in zoning regulations that now allow two additional floors to be added, or because the locations are more suitable for apartments than offices.

For example, I remember a seven-storey concrete office building in Vienna's second district that had just been completed. It was demolished down to the basement and rebuilt exactly the same in concrete within a year. However, it was now a residential building with new floor plans and an extra storey. Office buildings require 2.80 metres, residential buildings 2.50 metres – that's enough for an extra floor. And you subsequently sell it for 8,000 or 10,000 euros per square metre, thereby financing this madness.

We are currently stuck in a mindset that we should have left behind at the latest with the last century. On the one hand, we discuss how much wood to use to be sustainable, and on the other hand, we treat existing buildings so recklessly. That makes no sense. We are taking one step forward and two steps back.”

Main picture: © Juri Troy

Would you like to learn more about Juri Troy's lecture at A@W Graz? Click here.