“We must get rid of the culture of demolition and reconstruction – which is in most cases ecologically unsustainable and often leads to a social displacement.”
“We must get rid of the culture of demolition and reconstruction – which is in most cases ecologically unsustainable and often leads to a social displacement.”
“We must get rid of the culture of demolition and reconstruction – which is in most cases ecologically unsustainable and often leads to a social displacement.”
We are Michaela Türtscher and Claudio Schneider and started the office Schneider Türtscher 2013 in Zurich after studying at the ETH Zurich and working for a couple of years in other offices. Since then we had been lucky enough to realise a few small projects. However, many studies and almost all competitions remained on paper.
Besides this activity, we research and teach:
Michaela: I spent the last years writing a PhD thesis on Fernand Pouillon's large-scale projects of the fifties in Algiers, at the Institute gta of the ETH Zurich.
Claudio: And I am teaching assistant at the studio of Adam Caruso, also at the ETH.
Our backgrounds are different:
Michaela: Architecture is inevitably open to everyone, we are constantly confronted with it, whether we like it or not. A primary reason why I probably found my way into and definitely still want to work in this field is the urge to be able to participate in the discussion and sometimes also in the design of our built environment.
Claudio: I found my way into this field because I loved to draw, which I still do. This led me to start an education to become an architectural draughtsman in a small, insignificant architecture office when I was 16 years old. What I drew – still by hand at that time – was not so important to me. As long as I could work with a ruler, pencil and ink on paper, I was happy. The attitude towards content changed over time. That's why, in order to be able to put my thoughts into form, I started studying architecture.
What is fascinating about our profession, or how we try to practise it, is that we somehow can express our personal attitude to life in it. It is this complex construct of political, social, economical and technical conditions that we encounter mainly through the language of form.
It was easy to set it up, it is more difficult to keep the practice alive, i. e. to be able to live from it. Not wanting to make compromises on content doesn’t make this any easier either. On the other hand, it is this personal connection to our work – that we can stand behind it – that motivates us to continue trying.
Fundamental to our collaboration seems to be the shared mindset that architecture primarily raises social issues, to which we as architects, however, largely respond with form.
In addition to this agreement, there are also our very different focal points, which stimulate discussion, cause friction and thus raise important questions again and again. The balance between consensus and dissensus seems essential to us when we work together on something.
Zurich is probably a pretty good place to work as an architect compared to other cities. If you are employed in an office, you receive an acceptable salary and a lot of studios offer fair and interesting working conditions. As self-employed, there is at least a chance of getting commissions, whether from private or public hand. Switzerland, and Zurich in particular, has a quite good competition system.
If one is skilful and patient (but also lucky), one can make a living from it. Beyond that, the university environment offers great conditions for discourse and research. We like Zurich, also for some other reasons.
Architecture provides living environment.
Book/Magazine: Many and none.
Building: We don’t have a favourite one. There are rather individual aspects that fascinate us about specific buildings.
Architect: Here, too, we do not want to and cannot commit ourselves.
As architects, we can no longer just serve a profit-oriented market that treats ecological and social issues with secondary importance. We tend to suppress such aspects via isolated and beauty-minded ways of looking at things. To name one example; we must get rid of the culture of demolition and reconstruction – which is in most cases ecologically unsustainable and often leads to a social displacement. And this attitude is very present, also in Zurich. Architects should rather focus on solving a maximum of problems with the smallest necessary intervention. We should actually build less.
Being patient and focused! Not letting yourself be distracted and influenced by everyone and everything. If we react to all the different tendencies that come our way today, we are only scratching the surface. One has to establish an attitude towards society and life which should lead to an architectural language that corresponds to that idea. This is probably a never-ending process.
Hybrid, because we do not believe in the pure.
Given the number of interesting, young offices whose work can be accessed today, we have lost the overview slightly. We can't and don't want to highlight anyone explicitly.
Project
Auf Berg is an extension/transformation of a farmhouse with an attached stable barn and several smaller extensions, whose origins date back to the mid-19th century. The conglomerate has been repeatedly adapted very pragmatically to new living and working circumstances by several generations. Long used for agricultural purposes, the barn was used exclusively as a workshop and storage space before the latest construction began in 2019.
Auf Berg I
Auf Berg II