On this evening, Bart Biermans outlines how the start of HUB Architects emerged from two simultaneous movements. On the one hand, there is the changing architectural climate in Belgium at the beginning of this century. On the other hand, there is the personal search for the meaning of architecture. This search leads to more abstract, philosophical and socially engaged ideas. Ideas develop that range between, for example, the principle of ‘being a good ancestor’ and the meaning of collaboration and networks. The concept of the ‘Long Now’ by Eno, Hillis and Brand forms an important reference point here. Biermans connects these abstract observations and thoughts with a concrete and direct question when it comes to building: What is this stuff for?

In the lecture, Bart takes us through a series of projects that begins with a long-running project in Brussels: ‘Art Basics for Children’. A former laundry is transformed step by step into an art museum and academy for children. The project began in 2004 and continues to develop. Reuse and repurposing don’t capture it fully. HUB is concerned with giving new meaning to what already exists. This mantra runs as a common thread throughout the lecture. In the lecture, we encounter the historic city hall of Antwerp, the provincial courthouse and an everyday office building. Alongside this, fascination grows within HUB for the question of how the physical construction of a building can create space for other, often unforeseen uses. These projects and ideas culminate in the concept of the ‘shadow client’. The recurring question is: who are we really building for? According to Bart, the answer lies beyond the actual client, the brief or project-based frameworks. It concerns a different way of addressing the question. We must ask ourselves what current and future generations need from a building. What is this stuff for? becomes Who is this stuff for?

The contribution from Bram Aerts of ATAMA (Atelier for transformative architecture & masterplanning) centres, unsurprisingly, on transformative actions. Through five projects, Aerts shares his conviction that architects are duty-bound to find solutions particularly for existing spaces and users. This includes the impressive Aarlen53 in Brussels – an office building undergoing radical transformation. ATAMA chose a design strategy that preserves the load-bearing concrete façade whilst making extensive interventions by removing and repositioning elements such as staircases, lift shafts and columns. The intervention represents a Weiterbau of the brutalist original, stripping away what the practice terms ‘inaccuracies’.

A similar approach is evident at the Design Museum Ghent, where Aerts and his colleagues collaborate with Carmody Groarke and studio RE-ST. Here too, building elements are deliberately repurposed, ranging from banister rails to bricks made from waste material sourced from the building itself. At De Felix, a multifunctional cluster in Gentbrugge, there has been an unequivocal commitment to ‘building onwards’ from a concrete past. Aerts expresses genuine belief in these efforts to help people fall in love with concrete again – and thus with existing, transformed buildings.

This desire and affection for the existing are equally central to Kortrijk’s Deelfabriek, where a former fire station has been converted into a meeting place for local residents and community initiatives. For Aerts, both here and more broadly, the goal is twofold: reactivating a building whilst re-establishing a built place within the social and urban fabric.

The lecture by Mio Tsuneyama (Studio mnm) and Funinori Nousaku clearly shows that architectural thinking is shaped by the working conditions of architects. For Mio and Funinori, these are primarily the demographic developments in Japan and the declining demand for housing. Many buildings now stand vacant or partially empty as a consequence. There is also a growing awareness about our relationship with abstract systems like energy, alongside a renewed understanding of our connection to the ground we inhabit.

These factors form the guiding principles in their approach. They argue that when our perception of environment and nature changes, the aesthetic values in architecture change as well. Their projects are precise, direct and closely connected to specific places. They work with buildings of a modest, domestic scale. However, their reflections transcend these limitations. They offer a global perspective on the major questions they face – questions that we too will eventually have to confront.

The evening with Jo Taillieu is about the remarkable way in which he assembles ‘as-found’ elements in the design and building process. The ‘found’ refers to a place, an existing building. But it can equally concern a question or programme, or the coincidences and discoveries that arise during construction. A design does not start with a preconceived aesthetic image but emerges, layer by layer, by radically questioning these elements and offering them their own place in the whole of design and realisation. The finesse of this process is further explored and articulated by Jo in seventeen thoughts; each illustrated with a moment from a project; ranging from a door to a house. Jo prefers to retain, partially remove or add layers or components. A restrained approach that leads to expressive buildings with a surprising, always unique layering of existing, new, temporary and permanent parts. It is a design and realisation process that is sometimes very focused and explicit. At the same time, it possesses a playful looseness where even a simple guideline can suffice to guide the execution. In Jo's hands, designing and building are a game with reversals, fields of tension, reinterpretation, but above all with passion and joy.

The guiding principle for Mechthild Stuhlmacher is that her architecture transcends its time.

She certainly takes the occasional characterization of her work as dull in stride. Behind this attributed dullness lie essential elements – “the old ideas of the discipline” – that require time, patience, and perseverance. Mechthild aims to understand the essence of a brief and, from there, uncover possibilities that may sometimes result in unsolicited advice. In her view, the architect cannot help but look beyond the posed question or task – always seeking more profound insights. Only then can designs emerge that are distinctive, partly unpredictable, and capable of revealing hidden opportunities and unexpected qualities.

While also explaining why Mechthild loves unpredictable users who claim a space and leave traces behind, this approach shapes the projects and clients her bureau collaborates with. It also demands ongoing attention, adaptation, and flexibility, often over a long period until the construction phase. In her lecture, Mechthild explores the connections between the practice's older and more recent, highly successful projects. She links these to the themes of ‘Specificity,’ ‘Convention,’ and ‘Ornament,’ drawn from issues of the journal OASE, for which Mechthild was an editor and which partly forms the theoretical foundation for the work of Korteknie Stuhlmacher Architecten.

In his lecture, Andy examines the notion that “performance is a privilege” through three distinct projects by his firm, Carmody Groarke. These projects each offer a different lens –architectural-historical, sustainable-circular, and cultural – on how permanence can be interpreted and experienced in unique ways.

One example is the complex reinterpretation of an initial brief, where a temporary structure was designed to achieve the ‘unsustainable’ preservation of Charles Rennie Mackintosh's famous Hill House. Another is the layered architectural circularity demonstrated in the renovation and expansion of Design Museum Ghent, where both material reuse and historical fragments on-site play a key role. Lastly, there’s the technically remarkable challenge of designing an archive for 8 million books, where heritage conservation is seamlessly integrated with a balance of technical ingenuity, architectural expression, subtlety, and softness.

Groarke’s work highlights the relative nature of architectural tasks, showing the depth and value in architecture that can be both experienced and understood. As he succinctly writes in an essay by the same name: “We must remain open to diverse methods of production that balance the needs of the natural and man-made worlds, while mediating between the precise demands of the present and the uncertain expectations of the future.”

Felix Claus’s lecture looks back on 37 years of practice – in a profession meant to serve people and society, according to Felix. Inspired by the principle of equality as depicted by Rembrandt’s Staalmeesters, Felix considers every assignment equal and deserving of equal attention. Felix takes us through the conditions, preconditions and frameworks that steered the development of his work. He organised these conditions into three concepts: place, time and construction technology. Regarding place, Felix emphasises the layered meaning and historically developed breeding ground of the Netherlands and particularly Amsterdam. He has repeatedly been inspired and guided by local factors, typologies, historical layers and details. Through the condition of time, Felix seizes the opportunity to name the different phases in the urban, social, professional, and spatial-political contexts that have coloured his oeuvre. While providing insight into the rapid change of context, he pokes gentle fun out at some of those ideas from certain times that do not stand the test of time. Under the heading of construction technology, Felix illustrates his preference for materials, detail and craftsmanship, which, under all those changing circumstances, remains consistently imitable in his work. The lecture ends with a personal statement that once again emphasises the importance of coherence, helpful design, a critical approach to architecturally historical benchmarks, and – above all – maintaining a continuous search for the essence of architecture.

In his lecture, Hirokazu Suemitsu positioned the work of SUEP in light of the current climate crisis. He is always questioning what we, as the architect, can do now. In the thinking and actions of Hirokazu and his partner Yoko Suemitsu, the concept of animism plays a central role, and involves not only the (religious) animation of people, animals and plants, but also geographical conditions. Translating animism into his architecture is determined by the transitions in Japan brought on by climate change and demographic shifts. Drawing on five themes and his own work, which has been steadily developing since 2004, Hirokazu made clear that he seeks a future balance – a new sustainable aesthetic – between durability and architectural design and the classical and the modern. In his design practice, which oscillates between research and design, Hirokazu combines local, physical, geographical conditions with astronomical, technical and circular knowledge and innovations. This has resulted in a formal language that is both contemporary and site-specific and yet universal.

In her lecture, Oana Bogdan covered both her personal and professional development: growing up in Dracula’s hometown, her youth in communist Romania, studies in Leuven, collaboration with Leo Van Broeck in Bogdan&van Broek, MBA education, position as interim Secretary of State for Culture in the Romanian government, the founding of a political party, the continuation of the firm as &bogdan, dealing with bats during a commission, and finally her work in many juries and commissions. It’s an unusual journey but one that links the public dimension of architecture and our profession’s ability to make a difference for underprivileged people in our cities while still dealing with the unrelenting criticism wherein architects do their work. In this context, the German word ‘werdegang’ best covers the meaning and impact of this lecture. Obviously, Oana remains motivated by issues such as connecting people, the role and position of female architects, the actions of an architect in particular political-economic conditions or designing a building as a passage in an urban-historical space. This multifaceted approach ultimately finds its form in a series of meaningful and carefully designed buildings where engagement and craftsmanship – and if need be, bats – ably intertwine.

This evening was dedicated to the idea that bridges are the ultimate architectural-constructive task. And for Jürg Conzett (Conzett Bronzini), the starting point for such projects is how the bridge will not only fit, but also shape, its landscape. He talked about his designs for both new bridges as well renovations of existing bridges – often illustrated with his partner Lydia’s beautiful models. While the unyielding alpine landscape and its constant changes seem to lead to obvious solutions, it’s precisely that insidious simplicity that conceals a site-specific, deeply considered architectural-constructive design. One project for the village of Bondo (Bregaglia, CH) was a particularly lucid example of building on site-specific conditions (and the changeability of these conditions) while still being aware of how significant bridges are in the landscape. In addition to the dramatic consequences of an avalanche in 2017, the project clarified that the design of three new bridges worked to transform the village’s whole structure. Yes, a bridge may conceal structural feats, but it’s more important that it works to connect people. And therefore, it should be understood first and foremost as a cultural project, and only then as an engineering achievement.

For Stephen Bates, the European city and its associated culture is an infinite source of inspiration. The work of Sergison Bates Architects constantly responds to a plurality of moments and atmospheres associated with a place and a fascination with historic housing plots. Stephen took us through London (Hampstead mansion block, Lavender Hill courtyard housing), Antwerp (Cadix harbour building) and Hamburg (Mönckebergstrasse). This fascination with the city takes shape in the recent publication From the Room to the City. Munich, Urbanity and Complexity in which Stephen studies the city’s historical layers, fragmentation and the added architecture. Written with his fellow professor Bruno Krucker and students at Technische Universität München, the book reveals a deep understanding of how the layered, unfinished and unplanned helps define the city’s identity – and provides the foundation for architectural thinking.

The work of Peris+Toral Arquitectes, led by Marta Peris and José Toral, centres around the research and design of collective social housing and urban spaces – as well as the densification of these spaces. José’s talk focussed on the social aspect – namely, his deep concern for sustainable, affordable housing. His bureau focuses on low-tech sustainability based on proven, often historically validated, ventilation techniques. The results convincingly prove that a comfortable indoor climate in the Iberian region is quite possible even without energy-consuming air conditioning. He also makes clear: a social and sustainability agenda does not exclude sophisticated and aesthetic architecture. Residential floor plans take an unexpected turn through Marta’s fascination with the cinematographic work of Yasujiro Ozu. It results in inventive floor plans that allow for a multiplicity of living patterns even within the strict constraints of social housing.

This evening with Chie Konno was not only an introduction to the work of this young Japanese architect and her office t e c o, but was also the surprise announcement of her receiving the Architectural Design Division prize of the Architectural Institute of Japan for her Kasugadai Centre project. Chie’s work provides insight into a number of pressing social issues in Japan. Besides attention for sustainability and circularity, she’s also impressive in how she tackles the reality of an ageing and declining society and its impact on suburban communities. Design-wise, Chie and her practice respond to these challenges with an architecture that’s sophisticated, serving and yet modest. The lecture made clear this architecture involves much social research and direct dialogue with users and stakeholders. The results are meticulous, diligent and distinctly architectural. These are beautiful and articulate buildings that genuinely promote social cohesion and offer communities – including her own mother – a quality living environment.

Peter St. John’s lecture covered much more than the three words promised in its title. The work of Caruso St John Architects while now spanning many decades and many imitable developments, still comes with an element of elusiveness that has always fed fascination for the work. Certainly, Peter made no attempt to explicitly interpret his architecture – it was a lecture with an open ending. However, Peter’s ongoing quest was made clear through his recent work, as elaborated on in the recent publication Collected Works, Volume 2, 2000-2012, which covers projects such as the British pavilion for the Venice Biennale, the transformation of Royale Belge in Brussels, the Veemgebouw in Eindhoven and the Swiss Life Arena in Zurich. If there is one common thread in his work, it’s architecture as a highly sensitive response to highly diverse situations – and a response that always finds a different and highly unpredictable form.

An Fonteyne’s title alludes to the multifaceted interaction between society, its inherent culture and the architectural project. Here, the relationships and sometimes tensions between history, the public and a project’s reception play an important role. noArchitecten use this constant interplay to sharpen the architectural design and load a place with meaning. The key concepts in her presentation were about connecting, building on and crafting history. She illustrated her approach with wonderful projects such as Het Steen in Antwerp, where an ‘addition’ to a historic building caused much controversy and criticism. With KANAL in Brussels, she went even further with the rather stressful transformation of a former Citroën factory into a cultural centre – where building type, history, place, society and culture charge this architecture of intervention.

The title ‘Little Fields, Long Horizons’ refers to the work and thinking of writer-poet-artist-gardener Ian Hamilton Finlay. During a visit to his poetic landscape artwork ‘Little Sparta’ in Scotland, Floris Cornelisse was impressed by the contrast between the locality and the significance of place versus the vastness and all-consuming nature of the horizon. Floris’s guiding design principles are formed by concurrent and reinterpretable contrasts and intersections, such as old/new, small/big, and light/dark. In addition, Hamilton Finlay serves as a model for how the references of HappelCornelisseVerhoeven to literature, art, and history create a breeding ground for the idiosyncratic and wonderfully beautiful architecture. This approach also allows for the pleasure in the sincerity of falsification that is inextricably linked to architecture.

Can ‘words’ take on the role of referencing in a design? For this evening, Saar Meganck (Dhooge & Meganck) eloquently explored the relationship between words and their associative meanings within architectural design. Saar works from a rich fascination with, and focus on, how words “experience and engage” with the many layers of architecture. In the lecture, the beauty of architecture is flanked by meaningful references to everyday life, as well as the literary and philosophical worlds of Marcel Proust and Martin Heidegger. It's a linguistic approach that gives language a central role in the reception and creation of architecture. For Saar, creating with words is an intrinsic part of the design process – whether it’s a church renovation or her dissertation, ‘The Inspired Wall’, about the use of colour in the Bossche School.

The city is a central concept in the designs of Daniel Rossbottom (DRDH Architects) and is also the focus of his Chair in Interior Architecture at TU Delft. In this presentation, he focused on how public urban interiors are an essential part of the modern city. His research concentrated on ‘what we have achieved, what we have made and what we have forgotten’. The city as architecture and as a place where people live is both the beginning and the end of all his work. The lecture covered many urban projects, including the library and concert hall in Bodø, Norway, and the housing complex and social centre in Aarschot, Flanders, which sought to blend with the city’s existing morphology.And, even with a rural winemaking facility in the Azores, Daniel finds a way to explore the essence of urban interiors…

The title of the evening proves to have predictive value. In many ways, the ‘in-between space’ is a constant in Studio Donna van Milligen Bielke’s work and research. It’s an ongoing process of exploration, learning, and research that results in designs that build on each other. Donna’s graduation project, ‘Reversed Boogie Woogie’, and the recent award-winning project De Kunstwerf in Groningen demonstrate the promising continuity of work. Her way of looking and designing constantly oscillates between the notions of a ‘city within a city,’ a ‘building within a building,’ and a ‘city within a building.’ Donna continually explores how buildings can shape public space – and in this quest, we only expect a long and promising future.

Dirk Somers’ Antwerp-based practice, Bovenbouw, wants its designs to be completely free of any compulsive desire for the avant-garde. Bovenbouw’s designs, such as the Container Park in Luchtbal and the transformation of three historic buildings on Leysstraat in Antwerp, nicely illustrate this approach. During his lecture, Dirk shared his thoughts and insights with the necessary humour. His approach obviously combines detached observation with personal engagement and a love for the directness of architectural intervention. However, this relatively easy-going attitude has limits as Somers urges himself – and the audience – to focus on tending to architecture’s soil rather than admiring the flowers that bloom on it…

We had the honour of Job Floris being our first speaker for the ‘Design by Thinking of…’ series. Not surprisingly, the lecture began with the famous Monadnock Building in Chicago. His practice is named after this 19th-century building, renowned for its combination of strong and simple form and its load-bearing masonry façade. Job took us through the spatial, associative, practical and poetic layers that make up Monadnock’s design. The park pavilion in the De Hoge Veluwe National Park and the striking Landmark Nieuw Bergen are beautiful highlights in an evolving oeuvre – in which ‘Chicago’ continues to resonate.