Amir Abbas Aboutalebi Interviews Matthias Boeckl

Mr. Matthias Boeckl, with your esteemed background as a professor of architectural history at the University of Applied Arts Vienna since 1999, I would like to explore a specific architectural subject: The Villa. As noted by the eminent architectural historian James Ackerman, the villa transcends specific architectural types, cultures, and historical periods, and instead represents a social and ideological phenomenon that has persisted throughout history. I am interested in gaining insights from you on how this phenomenon, the villa, has influenced the trajectory of modern architecture in Austria?

Momentous innovations in architecture in Austria in the 20th century occurred both in the fields of public and private buildings. Before World War I (1914-1918), the design of public buildings such as Otto Wagner’s Steinhof church, his Postal Savings Bank, or his Railway stations buildings showed a new awareness of the structural aspect based on new construction techniques such as iron and iron-glass buildings. Around 1900 and after World War I, the private sector grew more and more important. Multifunctional buildings in the city such as Adolf Loos’ house at the Michaelerplatz demonstrated a new urban elegance, also based on new construction techniques such as iron-concrete frames. The most eminent innovations then developed in the field of residential architecture and social housing: Single family houses by Josef Hoffmann or Josef Frank presented a strong English and life reform influence, while collective housing types such as the seminal “Gemeindebauten” (large municipal housing projects with up to 1,000 units) eased the pressing housing shortage of the 1920s up to the 1970s. Classic “villas” (upscale single family houses) were rare and mostly did not provide many innovative aspects to the architectural discourse in Austria. In many cases, these “villas” negotiated the role of the landscape and its influence on design and well-being of the residents.

 

Additionally, I would like to inquire about the Austrian architects who have had the most significant impact on contemporary architecture in Austria?

Today we do not see so much the lone architect hero as the single genius innovator of a whole generation any more, but rather collectives and interdisciplinary planning groups. Also, not only “Austrian” architects of the recent past had a significant impact on contemporary architecture in this country, but rather the manifold and global experiences of young planners, who studied and practiced widely in the international field before returning to Austria and starting their own offices together with several partners. The last “star architect” figure was/is Wolf dPrix/Coop Himmelb(l)au, who introduced the free form design in Austria. Nevertheless, the key innovations of recent times did not take place in the field of elaborate designs, but rather in the type, technology and social/environmental responsibility of buildings. As this is in turn a global phenomenon, I would advise against pointing at one or more “Austrian” architects as “main influences”.

 

I would appreciate your recommendation for a notable villa project, whether built or unbuilt, in Austria that holds substantial importance for architecture scholars to study.

According to the statement above, it is hard to single out one contemporary “notable villa project” in Austria. Architects today are skeptical against the building type of a “villa” in general because it claims too many resources, and we already have a serious shortage of building land in Austria. The last innovative and influential “villas” in the classic sense were built in Austria and abroad in the 1960s to the early 2000s and designed by Robert Venturi, Wilhelm Holzbauer, Hans Hollein, Rem Koolhaas, and Coop Himmelb(l)au. These architects and projects imposed a certain influence on similar building tasks in Austria.

 

Since 1999, you have been the Editor-in-Chief of architektur.aktuell magazine. What do you think about: the tradition of villas often serves as a platform for architects to experiment with new ideas and manifest their theories?

I ended my activity as an editor-in-chief in 2022. But certainly the single family house (not so much as the upscale “villa”) is a very important experimentation field for young architects. Producing new living space for young families e.g. with an ecological agenda, but not much money to invest, is a very sensitive task and usually requires much more devotion from the architect than e.g. large office with their standard solutions. So we should look out for innovative potentials rather in “houses” than in “villas”.

 

In this regard, would it be appropriate to draw a comparison between villas and Formula 1 in the field of architecture? Both can be seen as testing grounds where theories are put into practice and innovation is embraced?

Honestly, I do not see too many common elements between the planning of a residential building and the construction of a racing car. The smallest common denominator might be the urge to optimize given technical solutions, but that is also true for almost all other fields of cultural activities. Also the “machinic” aspect of the racing car does not fit with the old villa’s contemporary idea of a contemplative refuge close to nature in the villa very well.

 

According to the book “Brothers, Cammy, Michelangelo, Drawing, and the Invention of Architecture” (Yale 2008), the Villa is considered a utopian setting for discussions on “Architectural Inventions”. In light of this perspective, could we further explore the notion of experimental villas as manifestations of architectural new styles?

This is only partially true. Already in antique times, but even more intense in the renaissance, the intellectual discourse of artists and connoisseurs in an inspiring architectural setting was always part of the villa agenda. As the architect of the contemporary “villa” in the classical sense (Rem Koolhaas, Bordeaux house) is only responsible to the educated owner, it is easier for the architect to develop elements of a “new style” in accordance with him. On the other hand, “style” is not a stable criterion for contemporary architecture anymore. Rather, certain stylistic or formal elements are being proliferated. “Style” in the classic sense – meaning that a very large group or even all the buildings of a given time and/or region are designed in a similar way – does not exist anymore.

 

You are the author and curator of numerous essays, books and exhibitions on modern and contemporary art and architecture. What is your opinion about the role of unbuilt villa projects in writing (about?) contemporary architecture?

This question concerns the virtual sphere of architecture. Unbuilt “villa” projects are designed in large numbers by architects using the potent digital tools of today. But rarely any of these projects manages to gain enough attention in the media or cyberspace to really execute some kind of “influence”. In most of these cases, we already are in the sphere of social media, their “influencers” and “followers”. This is in turn a matter of lifestyle, not so much of architecture. The seriousness of this realm is sometimes deeply questioned when a printed architecture magazine publishes a sensational new “villa” built in an attractive landscape setting – and later it turns out that it actually never has been built at all. In one case that actually has happened, some photo realistic renderings seduced the magazine editors to take the project for real, which proved to be wrong and a terrible embarrassment.

 

According to “Archer, John, Architecture and Suburbia: From English Villa to American Dream House, 1690-2000 (Minnesota 2005)”, “The Villa was a site where the mind, fatigued by the agitations of the city, will be greately restored and comforted, and be able quietly to attend the studies of letters, and contemplation, and where, unlike the city houses one could easily attain to as much happiness as can be attained here below”. 

Yes, certainly, this would be the classic definition of the villa. It also is to do with the life reform project of modern architecture which had been pursued in various different, sometimes even contradictory ways (garden city vs. “villa” and/or urban multilevel residential buildings).

 

In your opinion, what are the environmental, well-being, social, and equity effects of “Villa life” in the challenges of global urban development? 

As I mentioned before, we have to be aware that the classic villa is a building type of the social elite and that it does not fit with the needs of social groups without much leisure time and other resources. The villa will hardly contribute to large scale positive “environmental, social, and equity effects” due to the high costs in terms of money and environment consumption. Just imagine what would happen if everyone from a million inhabitants’ metropolis would be given their own “villa”! Accordingly, “the challenges of global urban development” certainly can not be solved by this building type.

 

Can we refer this to “OTIUM” vs “NEGOTIUM”? 

Also, this simple dichotomy seems quite old-fashioned and outdated. Nowadays, we are not exclusively in activities or leisure anymore, but keep mixing up these types of behavior and living spheres all the time. The otium-negotium alternative stems from times when work was hard, and you had to relax from it in a systematic manner to stay well. Today, we should rather try to develop flexible urban building types that reflect a contemporary way of living and not stick to old types that do not suit our current everyday anymore.

 

According to James Ackerman’s book “Villa, Form and Ideology,” he states that “A house tends to be simple in structure and to conserve ancient forms that do not require the invention of a designer, while the villa is typically the product of an architect’s imagination and asserts its modernity.” This raises the question of whether villas are an ideal setting for the conversation of “architectural inventions.” Do you agree?  

I agree only in a very limited way. As I pointed out above, the main contemporary innovations in architecture do not take place in villa planning, but rather in urban development, housing, landscape planning, and technologies coping with the climate change. “Idealistic” approaches will not help us much to solve the most pressing problems of global environmental design. Planning nowadays has to be much more down-to-earth, technology-open, and involve stakeholders and communities for a more “democratic” planning process etc.

 

I would be interested to hear your opinion on the matter. What are your thoughts on the comparison between villas and houses?  

We used to define the “house” as a free-standing single-family residential building, usually surrounded by gardens. Today, we either have to change this definition and include also duplexes and terraced/row houses in the extension of this term or face the problem that there will not be much to discuss about if we do not consider condensed forms of individual residential architecture. “Villas” are rare and tend to be elitist and expensive, while “houses” should be affordable for middle class families. Unfortunately, this is not possible anymore nowadays. Up to the 1980s, the hard-working middle class was able to afford a family house and one or two cars after ten or twenty years of occupation. Unless you inherit your house or villa, this is not possible anymore today because of the enormous rise of realty prices and the growing social division in western societies in the past decades’ neo capitalism. No middle class family has the realistic chance any more to create these traditional material values – which means that we have to think about alternative ways to create a fulfilling life environment for the majority of the population.