Marta Schreieck, henke und schreieck Architekten, Neubaugasse 2
The evolving office: In our conversations with contemporaries, we examine the claims, clichés and ideals that circulate about our workplaces. The location of the offices of henke und schreieck Architekten has a nearly symbolic character: high above the pulsing Mariahilfer Strasse, in the middle of modern urban Vienna, with large corner windows looking down on one of the liveliest parts of the city, where thousands of people cross paths day after day. - For Marta Schreieck, who studied architecture at Vienna’s Academy of Visual Arts and has worked with Dieter Henke in the same office since 1982, diversity, urban space and interaction quality are terms that are central to her work.Always looking for ways to grapple with new topics, the award-winning projects by henke und schreieck Architekten take on a broad range of challenges: whether it’s office, administrative or business buildings, such as cityspace 7 at Mariahilfer Strasse 37, the Borealis Innovation headquarters in Linz, the "Hoch Zwei" high rise in Vienna’s new development district, "Viertel Zwei", or the inner-city k47; public or private housing projects, such as Frauenfelderstrasse or EFH Hernals; tourism projects like Parkhotel Hall in Tyrol; public spaces like the Baden train station or the Hackinger Steg bridge; or school and university buildings.
Marta Schreieck, a member of the Berlin Academy of Arts since 2005 and president of the Austrian Architects’ Association since 2009, talks with Brigitte Schedl-Richter about education-sector projects and her own workspace.
Ms. Schreieck, henke und schreieck have done several projects in the education sector, such as the University of Social Sciences and Economics in Innsbruck, the University of Applied Sciences in Kufstein, the AHS Heutstadlgasse in Vienna, the EWZ in Hall, or the Bruno Kreisky school in Leberberg. What does a "good" school or university have to be able to do? And what can architecture contribute?
Basically, the most important task is of course to provide functioning spatial frameworks for pupils and students. The difficulty, however, is to find out what the optimal framework conditions are for the project at hand. What we lack most here is the inclusion of the users in the planning process.
Clearly, pedagogy has changed in recent decades. And that means that it’s only logical that structural and spatial requirements have changed as well. But the question is "how?" We architects are only laymen from a pedagogical perspective, which is why there’s a very close exchange of ideas with directors, teachers and pupils. We seek to understand the educational concept that they’re working towards so that we can create the right environment for it. In reality, though, we don’t just discuss educational concepts; we also are dealing with axis lengths and room programming that are fixed.
How do you solve this dilemma?
It’s really difficult. In architecture, we’re always trying to provide the optimal space for a specific content. If I don’t know the content well enough, then unsatisfied users will stay away from the space. That’s why the Hellerup School in Copenhagen is so exciting and pioneering. There was an intense discussion process that incorporated all of the participants. The process led to a fully open, "class-less" building, which is an interesting result. From my perspective, the history of the idea’s development is the really fascinating thing about it. As well as the fact that, after the project’s completion, this discourse and evaluation of the finished structures according to all of the major points will go on forever.
Does this mean that you also want to try this kind of approach in Austria?
Of course. And I would also like to dispense for once with the usual approach of holding competitions among the architectural proposals and start up a pilot project in which users, builders and architects come together to develop the optimal educational facility.
Although I would have to admit that things are changing. Like at the educational campus at the new Vienna Central Train Station, which described the instructional ideas that were supposed to be implemented. Nevertheless, I believe that the dialogue must become must more intensive, and we’re currently in a difficult intermediate phase where people are still talking past each other. In the education sector, we need visions that then find their architectural equivalents.
How did you overcome these difficulties in your own educational buildings? The Heustadlgasse, for example, is often described as the most advanced school building in Austria...
It was always clear to me that a school has to offer several different possible applications. It’s a bit like a modern workplace – people need room for concentrated work, for group work, for phases of play and relaxation, room for administrative work. You need closed and open structures. We’re not focussed exclusively on the question, "classroom: yes or no?" Instead, we want the space to have enough flexibility so that people who use this space can help to shape their surrounding and can react to the space.
This also leads to the idea of multiple use. If you think about how schools and universities are enormous enclosed cubes, it would be absolutely absurd to not use this space in a way that is also optimal in terms of "technological occupancy". Many educational buildings have large lecture halls and foyers – these are outstandingly suited not just for event spaces, but also as public space. Schools and campuses are increasingly becoming part of social life and to a culturally significant component of the local environment. This works wonderfully in Kufstein or in Hall, for example.
So every building offers different possibilities of use...?
I think what’s exciting about architecture isn’t the development of a bunch of similar spaces. I find hybrid buildings much more interesting, and we have always tried to work out different possibilities of using a single building. Several projects today are only successful because they have this diversity, which corresponds in the final analysis to the diversity of their users. This applies to business buildings just as it does to a university. By the way: School and university buildings always have a very beautiful urban dimension...
Now a personal question; you mentioned the keyword ‘workplace’ – what does your perfect workplace look like?
I can basically work well anywhere. Here in the office or at home – it doesn’t make that big a difference. What’s important to me, though, is space. I simply need a certain kind of space around me. This is necessary because sometimes we work here like in a workshop.
You have an individual office – can you imagine working in an open-plan office?
When we moved in here, the first thing we did was to tear out the walls and put in flexible walls. In the meantime, we’re busting at the seams and we’ve taken on a second floor. Nonetheless – even if it’s the current trend, the open-plan office wouldn’t be the right thing for me. I value privacy and a certain degree of confidentiality.
You don’t have a laptop or PC on your desk?
(laughs) I don’t need a laptop – my medium is a pencil.
Ms. Schreieck, thank you for the interview!
