Building with responsibility - David Chipperfield on architecture in transition

In 2017, architect David Chipperfield founded the Fundación RIA in remote Galicia to break new ground in architecture. Wood and the circular economy also play an important role here.
Katharina Lehmann travelled to Berlin to talk to the Pritzker Prize winner about wood, concrete and the responsibility of architecture.

David, you won the most important architecture prize, the Pritzker Prize, in 2023. How did you find out about it?

DAVID CHIPPERFIELD ‘I was at home, had invited guests and was cooking courgette soup. Then the phone rang. It was a somewhat inopportune moment, but of course I was delighted. But I didn't want to burn the soup despite the Pritzker prize. So I kept it short. I was then asked to keep the good news a secret. That wasn't easy ...’

What social role do you play as an architect?

DAVID CHIPPERFIELD ‘As an architect, I can build buildings: a museum, a winery, a residential building or a boathouse ... But I could also say: we architects build the world. But what kind of world do we want to build? A world of privileges, environmental destruction and profits? Or a world of solidarity and justice that takes care of the earth's natural resources? If you look at what has been built in London in recent decades, you will realise: Property is first and foremost a piggy bank for the rich. Their most important function is to make the rich owners even richer - and not to make the city more liveable. Architecture has lost its innocence and has become a reflection of the property market. However, I am optimistic that architecture will move closer to society again, because the negative effects of this development have become obvious.’

Are you also referring to climate change?

DAVID CHIPPERFIELD ‘Exactly. We have no choice but to deal with issues such as climate change and increasing social inequality, and I see that as a great opportunity. We architects have abdicated a lot of our responsibility. Now we have to take it back. We can't remain decorators.’

You are known for building in concrete, even though wood is the more sustainable building material. Why is wood missing from your work?

DAVID CHIPPERFIELD ‘I value wood - not only because of its ecological benefits, but also because of the craftsmanship it requires. Timber construction is authentic, as the structure and façade are often one and the same. But therein lies the challenge: wood requires specialised expertise, while concrete is considered a standardised commodity in the construction industry. Everyone knows its costs and properties. Timber, on the other hand, makes the planning and tendering process more complex, as experienced timber constructors need to be involved from the outset. That's why many are opting for the simpler route: a concrete shell with an applied timber façade.’

«We architects must reclaim our social responsibility»

In Switzerland, clients are increasingly tendering for projects in two variants - concrete and timber construction. Would that be a solution?

DAVID CHIPPERFIELD ‘If timber construction is considered as an option from the outset, that's progress. It shows that social and ecological concerns are increasingly being incorporated into architecture. Wood is playing an increasingly important role in the architectural discourse. As concrete architects, we were recently invited to an exhibition entitled ‘Wood's up - The Rise of Timber Buildings’. There we presented a project in South Africa that is being realised with local clay and wood. Individual projects like this won't save the global climate, but they show that the industry is moving in the right direction.’

Could prefabrication in timber construction also simplify construction processes?

DAVID CHIPPERFIELD ‘Yes, that would not only reduce costs, but also promote sustainable and socially responsible construction. Prefabrication and modular construction also make timber construction scalable for larger projects - I see great potential here.’

«Timber construction requires additional expertise. The construction industry, on the other hand, is still characterised by deskilling, i.e. the reduction of expertise in order to save money.»

What structural limits do you see in timber construction? Or to put it another way: would the extension to the Kunsthaus in Zurich have been possible as a timber construction?

DAVID CHIPPERFIELD ‘When we started the project for the Kunsthaus extension in 2008, we still lacked the current understanding of the structural and ecological potential of timber. Now we know more about the possibilities of timber construction - and where its limits lie. We would have approached a timber extension in a completely different way, because each building material requires a different approach to shapes, proportions and details and leads to different architectural accents. With a timber extension, we might have pursued similar conceptual ideas: a ‘house of rooms’, the atrium as a link between the city and the garden. But aspects such as the spatial experience and the relationship to the material would have resulted in completely different design ideas and ultimately a completely different architecture.’

You have offices in Berlin, London, Milan, Galicia and Shanghai - how did you find your way to Erlenhof seven years ago?

DAVID CHIPPERFIELD ‘Our first meeting took place as part of a potential timber construction project in Graubünden. At the time, I was often in Switzerland anyway, partly because of the extension to the Kunsthaus Zurich. After a meeting, we visited the Erlenhof. At the same time, we had just founded our Fundación RIA in Galicia, where topics such as sustainability, regionality and the circular economy play a central role - as does wood, as the region is rich in forests. The Erlenhof impressed me with its mix of tradition and innovation, which was reflected not only in the buildings and machinery, but also in the people. This comprehensive expertise along the entire timber construction value chain reminded me of our work in Galicia - which is why I asked you to become a member of our RIA Advisory Board.’

«At Erlenhof, I was touched by the unique combination of tradition and innovation - noticeable in the buildings, the machines and above all in the people who work there.»

What do you want to achieve with the Fundación RIA in remote Galicia?

DAVID CHIPPERFIELD ‘RIA is a response to my experience that as an architect I am often just a decorator. Back in 2012 as director of the Venice Biennale, with the motto Common Ground, I wanted to question the isolated role of architecture and draw attention to its cultural, social and ecological significance. The Fundación RIA is my attempt to fulfil this responsibility. In Galicia, where nature, tradition and craftsmanship are still deeply rooted, there is more room for manoeuvre than in our hyper-capitalist cities - even though the region is struggling with rural exodus, unused resources and decay. With RIA, we want to actively shape society through architecture.’

What does that mean in concrete terms? What does RIA do? 

DAVID CHIPPERFIELD ‘Firstly, we build up knowledge about economic and cultural cycles - for example, about forestry: who owns the forest, why is it hardly used? We research, provide information and promote dialogue between the population, companies and politicians. As an agency and think tank, we bring stakeholders together and broaden horizons - for example, by networking leading timber companies from Galicia with international pioneers such as Erlenhof.’

One last question: How did you organise your succession? Is David Chipperfield Architects conceivable without David Chipperfield?

DAVID CHIPPERFIELD ‘My office bears my name, which is typical in our industry. There's a bit of artistry to it, which has been reinforced by the idea of signature architecture. However, this trend is on the decline - for the reasons I just mentioned. The individual is becoming less important, the community more important. So I am also trying to continually neutralise my role in my office by handing over more and more responsibility. Our largest office - the one in Berlin - could already function without me. And what about Blumer Lehmann? Is the sixth generation already waiting in the wings?’

KATHARINA LEHMANN ‘Are you asking me about my successor? Unfortunately, I have no direct descendants. But like you, I am convinced that Blumer Lehmann must remain a family business and function as a family. With or without the Lehmann name. It is much more important that we remain a family business.’