Transcript below edited for clarity and brevity:
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
So can you start with giving us a short autobiography in a few sentences of who you are and what you do, to help our listeners understand who I'm talking with today?
Oana Bogdan:
I'm originally from Romania, but I moved to Belgium with an Erasmus scholarship in 1999. And actually I graduated here and I started my career here as an architect. And, in 2007, I've co-founded an architectural practice in Brussels, and, since the end of 2022, I'm the only partner. I am alone, as a woman, to run this practice.
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
I see. Thanks for the brief introduction. So you and I connected over your advocacy around the crisis of the architectural profession, which is a topic that I've been interested in for a while. Can you tell us what you think... what your definition of crisis is? And, as a follow-up question, what do you think the causes of the crisis are?
Oana Bogdan:
Maybe I should start by saying that I put a lot of value in what we do as architects. For me, we have a huge responsibility, in the first place. We are in charge or responsible, let's say, for the way we humans understand to organize space and therefore life on earth. But also we are responsible, let's say, for what we don't build or where we don't build. Meaning that we are responsible for making place for nature if you want. Nature needs a lot of space to function and to provide the ecosystem services that we need, actually, we humans need.
So, in my mind, we have a very important role. Very long ago, many years ago actually, I decided for myself that I want to invest a lot of time in thinking and talking about the definition of our profession, as architects. Meaning that I don't believe it should be a pity to focus only on buildings. So our training and our experience with buildings could be then extremely useful in thinking that, in systems, in thinking about greater topics, if you want, than one building. Thinking about the future of cities and how we can survive in cities, knowing that they will become too hot, many of them. You see?
But also going even beyond that and helping with our way of thinking, helping architects for instance, government. And I've been involved in that. I've been Secretary of State for culture in a government in Romania. And after that I co-founded a political party that then ended up in the European Parliament and then we ended up talking about the future of Europe, about the European Green Deal, and so forth.
So I put a lot of emphasis on what architects do. At the same time, even if we only focus on buildings, things have become so complex. And at least where I am in Europe and in Belgium, the number of tasks that an architect has to do has grown so much. And that is not appreciated enough or not compensated enough, for instance, financially. It has become extremely difficult for us to do our job. And, how shall I say, the number of responsibilities, the small ones, this number has become really big.
And last but not least, actually, what I call, crisis of our profession, is very much linked to a series of crises. And I know this word is... I'm also not into doom scenarios and I'm someone very optimistic and looking to the future and I think we can do a lot of good things. But the biggest problem we are facing as mankind is the limit of our planet. So the natural resources are almost finished, we are done. And construction plays a very important role in that, in the use of natural resources. And, on the other hand, buildings, or where we build, is so important for the regeneration of natural resources.
We are extremely close to the natural resources of this planet and, therefore, we are somehow in the middle between the natural resources and between the end users, between the clients. There's a lot of pressure from all kinds of sides. And at the same time, our role as such is not acknowledged, so that's why.
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
And that's a great answer. It actually brought up a lot of points I want to cover. So we're going to try to cover at least some of those because there's a lot of very interesting things to talk about. I want to make a couple of short comments before I ask the next questions. I think you are onto a lot of very interesting points. One is that architects have, and I had a conversation with another guest on this podcast, have a really unique position due to their training to take on all kinds of roles outside of traditional architecture. And that's a point we can further discuss if you're interested in. But I think it's important to make because you see a lot of people, and I'm one of them, who study architecture, get a degree work or not in the industry, and then end up doing something completely different, or at least only tangentially related to the design of buildings.
In my work, I work with a lot of architects in marketing and business development capacity. And what I often tell clients is that designing buildings is a given for an architect. It's what every architect does. So if you're not able to differentiate yourself to your clients from other architects on some other front, or on another basis, you are going to be just another architect that are going to consider maybe for the project. But you're not going to be very differentiated and therefore you're unlikely to get the job.
And I've always told clients, and there's many examples, you just need to look around to find that value of the architect to the client and the society. Is what can you offer beyond the building you designed that's actually valuable to your clients? And I have this example of a friend, who is not an architect, he's a builder, but that could apply to architects as well, who once was building a home for one of his clients. And he advised them to spend more money on digging up a deeper basement to have a tall basement that was first usable, but also a ground floor that was at grade level instead of being raised from the street level. And so that allowed him to have a usable basement, an accessible ground floor for potentially disabled users and add an extra story on top because the height you've gained.
And so the extra hundred or so, $1,000 they spent on the basement ended up making the house worth $300,000 more. And that's what I mean when I say the value architect and value of design. These are the things that architects go after and too many don't. So, without getting too much into commentary, does that resonate with you? Is that something you want to maybe touch on?
Oana Bogdan:
For sure. With nuance again, that my experience is also very much socially engaged, meaning that for instance, our office, it's a deliberate choice. Our office, 50% of our activity is focused on public projects and 50% on private ones. And the private ones are all big. We do not do individual houses and villas because we also believe at least... Where we are most active, so we are active in several countries in Europe, but they're all densely populated. So we believe that there is not so much space left for individual villas, so we should live closer together.
So our projects, why am I saying that? Because the private project that we do, it's all about collective housing, meaning that there is always a component. There is a bigger impact on the public space. There is a bigger discussion to have. So, as an architect, you can propose, as you suggested, you can propose a lot of good things that then the client accepts to do because, thanks to or due to the size of the project. That's one thing.
The public projects in Belgium and elsewhere, they are always realized through a public competition. So of course because they have a certain size for $5,000 competition. For instance, we're busy with fire stations, with centers for drug users, schools production, a lot of very different programs. Well, and then, when you do such public projects, of course, there your impact could be even greater. The only problem is then that even the public clients, let's say, even if they admit sometimes that indeed we are overworked, that is not an official, let's say, appreciation of recognition of what we do.
But that doesn't stop us. I've never stopped the project because I didn't feel respected enough, of course. I mean there's a lot of joy in seeing good results, seeing that projects, that one building if you designed it well, meaning that if you really look at it as if it's part of an organism of a body, the city is a body and the building that it design is a very small part but important. Every part of our body is important, plays a role. If you look at it this way, then you'll be surprised about the impact that it has. So our idea about being an architect is that we would very much like to go back, if you want, to the beginning of the 20th century, but not to be the heterosexual white rather old male architect who is a hero, not at all about that, but to be the architect that has a social mission.
So we have a social mission, we have a responsibility, if you want, we are doctors of space. And the space, the spatial organization of things has a huge impact on people. And we also say in our office, I mean, when we design a building, our responsibility is huge not only for the end users of the building, but also for every single person that passes by. Because you see that building and it has an impact of you and it can be oppressive or it can be depressing or it can be, I don't know, it just make you hate your city. So it has a very big importance. And then as often it happens with public projects, we often operate in vulnerable neighborhoods. Our end users are vulnerable people because they're often social projects, there's not so much budget for them. So the question is always how can you design in a way that dignifies people and how can you do that with little money?
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
And I think you're touching on a very interesting problem because everywhere I've seen architecture being practiced, it's always the same issue. Especially with, maybe more so with, public projects, is that even though architecture often ends up being a small portion of the overall budget, if you relate that to the cost of construction, specifically, it's always being... Budgets are always being cut or very low. And there's a lack of understanding that if you invest in the design upfront, it could save you a ton of money down the road. And that's the example of the basement I gave earlier. It's like by doing things differently and really making use of the architect's expertise and creativity, you can change drastically the economics of the project. The question I have for you is whose responsibility is it to make sure that budgets are healthy so architects can do a good job because I have my opinion on it, but I want to hear yours and what you think is the issue here.
Oana Bogdan:
With this, you touch a bit of a bigger problem and the bigger problem is the quality of the brief. Whether it's private client or a public one, because of course the budget is always linked to a brief. Someone has to think about a need and has to describe it. And the problem is that often that already to make that brief be good designers, you see. We see that in competition. But even for a private client, okay, let's say for one villa if you want a bit easier because as an architect I can imagine that when you start, you really listen a lot to your client and you try to understand what are the real needs and aspirations and you can redefine that brief. But what about, for instance, a public building when many things have been decided, right? The place, the location, the volume, the budget and so forth. And based on what? So we see many, many things going wrong with bad briefs and bad budgets.
So the budget originally allocated is the responsibility of the client, not of the architect. Where the architect starts to have responsibility, but again, I'm talking from my own experience, we as architects in Belgium, we are I think some of the last craftsmen in the world and our responsibility doesn't stop. In Belgium, there's no split between design execution. We do follow up of constructions, we do cost estimates, we know the fire norms and we apply them. We do so many things. We calculate sewage systems. We know to do so many... we draw details. So we make the reports on the construction side. So, I mean, we have tiny liability after the delivery of the building, but we do a lot. So what we also do is we do cost estimates throughout the process and we have a methodology to start very rough and to go more in detail of course on the way.
And that is our responsibility, of course, if we operate in normal circumstances, I mean we always have a good understanding with clients. When the pandemic hits, when the war in Ukraine hit and prices went crazy, of course there is an understanding that we cannot do miracles. But other than that, it is our responsibility to advise the client in the best possible way. And, for a very big part, it's our responsibility to propose something. So that what I want to say is that whenever we design it should be also realistic and it should be within a budget that is agreed upon, otherwise, it just doesn't make sense.
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
Do you guys have city or state architect positions in Belgium, people who are in charge on the client side to develop those briefs and put together budgets? How does it work on where you are?
Oana Bogdan:
Yes, there are two important actors. We have what we call the Baumeisters. So there's the government architect on the regional level and the city architect on the local level. And they are the guardians of quality of urban space. And they actually guide public competitions most of the time and they are involved. And they have a team. Each of them in this team, they also have designers and they do research by design in order to place the capacity of sites. And then they do work with specialists to also allocate budgets to projects. B.
But, of course, sometimes it works better, sometimes less good. But then it's up to us, as architects, when participating in competitions, and we've done that, to tell them, look guys, you want us to put a underground parking on minus two, but we are next to a canal. There is also for architects to be very critical. And then we have what we call the development agencies. The development companies, let's say, of cities where, again, you have very competent people working and they again organize city development organizations. So they're autonomous, but of course they're paid by the city, but they are in charge of developing projects. But they often also work with the city architect. So yeah, there is a strong...
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
So do you think those positions or those people you have to work with help building better architecture? Because we have an example here in Canada, there's the city of Edmonton in Alberta that has created the position of city architect a number of years ago. And that city architect was a guest on this podcast a while back. And what we've seen in maybe 10 years or so of them doing that is that the quality of their public buildings has gone up dramatically because now there's someone who understands architecture, commissioning it and working on the briefs on. They hold a lot of competitions and a lot of the public buildings they're constructing are winning awards nationwide and even outside of the country. So I think there's something there where if the commissioning client, which in your case public buildings is a state, has an understanding and is committed to building better, can have a large impact.
But what do you think architects can do themselves in helping pushing for better architecture? And I think from my perspective, what I see a lot is that architects fail to see and identify what their value is to their clients from the perspective of what their clients see in them. And that's a common problem here. And I think it's a common problem worldwide where architects think that what they do is designing buildings and they do ultimately that's the result. But to their clients, they're solving other problems and they often fail to see that. What do you think of that?
Oana Bogdan:
First of all, you have to carefully choose your clients. And that's very difficult because saying no to a client I know as an architect is not evident. And you have to say yes to clients with whom you have at the impression because at the beginning you don't have the certainty, but at least you have the impression that you share similar values. And then things go a lot better because we should not underestimate the impact of the client on the project. I often say that if I look back to our projects, for instance, the best projects are the ones in which the client was a very good one. It was visionary, ambitious clients. And I always, we are very reasonable architects. We understand that the private client, for instance, has some responsibility in terms of business. I mean they have to make profit otherwise why are they in business?
So we understand, again, I'm talking about bigger clients, so clients that do bigger projects, but even as you say, for instance, your example is a very good one, right? I mean you're a private person, you have a villa being designed, but there is so much quality in that villa that can also last because your architect convinced you to go for that. So you profit in many ways you enjoy that villa and then if you want to sell it, you sell it with a good margin. So it's a good example. But we can do the same with bigger clients. But I think the only way we can push a little bit the agenda you or the quality is when we trigger a very sensitive spot in the client. When we make the client aware of the impact that the project has on the city. The responsibility and also the pride that the client can take afterwards saying, look, I've done this housing project 150 dwellings, but we also create an accessible public park and it's actually an urban forest.
So, the 150 apartments are in an urban forest. How lovely to live in an urban forest. But everyone around benefits from this forest because they can cross it. It's public. So it's private land, but it's publicly accessible and how great. And, those trees, they participate in the cooling of the city. So look how many good things we do. It's also a marketing tool. Then you go and say, look, we did something great, but it's also good. So it's good for the city, ultimately to be good for our business, we sell well. So I mean you can get into these win-win situations, but there should be trust between the client and the architect.
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
Yeah, it makes sense. And I've seen architects who are reasonably talented do their best work when they work with clients who are really involved in the project. This is an example of a house that I photographed years ago, where the client who was an engineer, was a fan of mid-century modern design, was very involved in the design of the project. And I thought he was able to bring out the best of the architect because he pushed him so much. So I think you have a very good point there.
So I want to talk a little more about the value of design because I think in the public's consciousness, you may disagree with me, but design is often thought as this nice to have instead of really necessity because everything is designed. But the things that are well designed are not noticed. And it's the things that are poorly designed that we notice and we get frustrated by. So why do you think it's so hard to convey the value of design to people in general and clients specifically?
Oana Bogdan:
That's a very good question. I think that, throughout the time, architects did not communicate enough about what we are doing. Our office went to a process of rebranding. When my associate decided to retire and to stop his activity, we changed the name. So it was before Bogdan & Van Broeck, and now it's &Bogdan. So we just moved the "&" in front to just say that we want to corporate. And that process was guided by a branding company. So branding company. People who are very much who get to know so many companies, they go to so many strategies and they get to know so many industries. And they thought they knew a lot about architecture. And then when they interviewed all of us, our clients, partners, to have a 360 view on who we are. And at the end they really shocked us, said, guys, what you do?
I mean we didn't know that you do all these things. As architects know, we understand better. We understand better what design is. Although they as a branding company, they also doing providing service design. So I mean they're not so far from the world of design, let's say, but still. So I think there's a problem of communication. There is an issue of also exponential growth of rise of complexity and clients can't keep the pace with it. And then there's also a very, how should I say it, unfortunate situation, in which moment in which we design, when we design, when the client makes the investment, the client takes a risk. Maybe the building permit doesn't come on time.
There's a lot of stress in that moment when we design. And nobody wants to pay an architect for, they're not so happy to pay the architect when they don't know what the outcome would be. Okay, will I get my building permit? Can I build it? Can I build it within the budget? Can I move in when I want? It's a lot. And when the prototype can imagine the risk is huge. So this is why for instance, at least in Belgium, the real estate agents, the ones that sell, if you see how much money they get for doing almost nothing, why? Because they get the percentage of the sales.
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
Yeah, it's the same here.
Oana Bogdan:
Everything is there, fantastic. Everyone is happy, the project is happening, the stress is gone, and they are paid from the sales. There is this situation. And then, there is also this, how should I say, because as you say, there is design in everything. Everywhere you look there is also architecture, right? And when we're small, we play with Lego. People also have the idea that maybe they know something about it. It's very different from a brain surgeon. I think nobody dares to...
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
So why do you think that is? Because the architecture education is almost as long as the medical education and it requires, it may not be as scientific or, what's the word I'm looking for, advanced knowledge, but it's still a lot of, I think it's more based on experience and the knowledge of how things are put together and how to know how do that well. And that's still a very difficult expertise to earn or to learn. Why do you think a brain surgeon or even a regular doctor would be considered so much more knowledgeable than an architect? That's kind of baffling to me because the knowledge an architect has is tremendous, let's be honest about it.
Oana Bogdan:
And it's definitely not less than the one of a surgeon, it's just that it's more general. So it's more left horizontal, whereas the surgeon goes... But that's the thing. It is because being a surgeon is a specialization. You're really highly specialized and the brain is inside the head. Nobody sees it. Citizens on the street, they don't see the brain in someone's head. So it's a very unknown thing, and, again, we all grow up in, we go to school, it's a building. We grow up in a house, it's a building. We see buildings, we have the feeling that we all make snow, we play with snow and ice and the sands on the beach.
So it seems easy because we see it and it doesn't seem so difficult. You have vernacular architecture. You go, you see, everywhere in this world see, analytic people have built things. So I mean it can't be so complicated. But then, when you start... I have to say that all our clients, I believe that when they start working with us, they respect us. But when the project is there, their respect is sky high. Really. I mean, they say, oh guys, what you do? It's incredible.
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
So where do you think that shift happens from the time they hire you to the time you deliver a project and that change in the level of respect they have for you? What are you guys specifically doing to change their minds?
Oana Bogdan:
But it's simply going with them through the whole process. When they see the number of actors that we have to interact with, the number of steps, the number of approvals, the iterations, the time it takes. It takes such a long time to deliver a building. All the problems that we face. I mean, we were even confronted, if you want, we were doing a big project in Leuven in Belgium, we discovered a bomb from the second world war on the construction side. So then you have to adapt. And so the capacity of the architect to adapt to any given circumstance is huge. There is so much unknown you never do, it's very seldom that you do twice the same thing as an architect. I mean, at the end of the day, a surgeon, I know that every human being is different, but the brain is a brain. I'm sorry. You see what I mean?
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
The site of a building is always different and there's different conditions.
Oana Bogdan:
Yes, yes. So it's really... how do you? What? And they ask this. Yes. And you have to do that. And, for instance, I intentionally, now lately we ask clients to join us to the first discussions we have with firefighters. Belgium has been traumatized. The fire norms are more severe than the average in Europe.
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
Traumatized by what, specifically?
Oana Bogdan:
There were a few... There was one very big fire in Brussels, when was it, the eighties, nineties, and more than one in a very big mall, a city mall. And since then it was really a drama. So it's each time when the drama happens and people, the norms tend to be...
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
It's interesting that one big fire nowadays is seen as trauma when entire cities used to burn down regularly.
Oana Bogdan:
Exactly. Because they're already wood. And then yes.
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
Even as not that long ago, like 150 years ago, the great fire of Chicago, San Francisco, there's many cities that have burned down not that long ago. And we tend to forget that this was a common occurrence. It's interesting.
Oana Bogdan:
But what you say here touches something else that is very important. And maybe it has to do with, how should I say it, with why our life is a bit difficult as architects is this constant need for comfort and safety. Do you know that in Belgium when you design a school, if you have in the playground a difference of level of 30 centimeters, you have to foresee a kind of railing or something?
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
It's similar here. Yeah.
Oana Bogdan:
The surface of the playground, the ground surface should be, is often covered with a kind of rubber. So when kids fall, it's not too hard. If you have some columns, sometimes we have covered spaces, covered playgrounds, and there are some columns because there's a building on top of the roof. Well, those columns can't have sharp corners because what if a kids hits the corner, so we have to wrap the column with a kind of mousse.
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
That speaks to a different problem. You're right. But I've had that same reaction to... We used to bomb down mountains on bikes without helmets. And sometimes you get hurt. And I understand that you want to keep things safe, but that's a very interesting conversation maybe for another time because it's not quite the topic of today. But yeah, I think there's a tendency to want to make things too safe and too comfortable. But that has actually, it's relevant to this conversation because it has a cost on the cost of construction and design.
Oana Bogdan:
Yes. Because it also goes to temperature. I mean, our buildings, they become this perfect, we call them perfect condoms. Nothing comes in, nothing goes out. I mean, why should we adapt the buildings infinitely to this needs, which are even not a need. Why do have to have...
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
21 degrees, 70% humidity? Yeah, exactly. And one of my favorite architects, I'm sure Glenn Murcutt said in the lecture one day he came to Toronto. He said, why do we need to make everything 21 degrees all the time? Why don't we have 16 degree houses in the winter and just put an extra sweater on?
Oana Bogdan:
Exactly. Exactly.
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
Which we do anyway, if you live in an old house, you're never going to get that perfect temperature because it leaks and there's...
Oana Bogdan:
Because now we are talking about natural resources. Now we are talking about CO2 emissions that are needed, that we produce in order to build these perfectly ventilated buildings that you can't open on the window because everything goes to pieces if you open the window. So this very unnatural environments, indoor environments... Do you know that at least, I don't know how it's over there, but here the percentage of the budget allocated to technical installations, I mean it's like 50, 60%. It's much more than architecture. So you build architecture, the idea that there's some technical stuff. No, now it's other way around, there's a technical stuff that has a building somehow in it. So it's all technical installations that also to maintain them. It's terrible. It's difficult.
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
It's the same here.
Oana Bogdan:
They break down all the time.
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
Codes are very difficult, very restrictive. And there's a big issue right now because, you might have heard of it, we have a housing problem in Canada, and to lesser extent in the US where housing has become so expensive because it's literally impossible to build.
Oana Bogdan:
Exactly.
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
Because regulations are too restrictive. Neighbors and neighborhood associations have way too much power. And I had another guest on this podcast talking about double egress buildings for residential up to whatever, 10, eight to 10 stories. In Canada, anything above two or three stories has to have two staircases sticks at the building. And they're saying, as you know in Europe, it's only one staircase, and there's many ways to deal with the safety issue. And they're starting to look at that. But the fact that we can't even... it takes decades literally for people to advocate for change, for things to become a bit simpler because it's gone a little too far on the safety and keeping everything as safe as possible front. That's a big issue because it has a direct cost on the industry and how you build. And I think regulators, like people that are in government and governance, need to understand that when they create regulations, it increases the complexity and it makes things more difficult. So I was saying it's not relevant to the conversation, but it is because it affects everything else.
Oana Bogdan:
You even have absurd situations in which, for instance, there are many homeless people in Europe, in certain cities, and then there would be this idea, since Covid, there are so many office buildings which are vacant, right? They're not occupied, they're not used. What if you use them as a shelter for these homeless people? No, we have to renovate them and then make them an energetic performance. And I don't know what, and it goes to, as you say, it takes time. It costs a lot of money. I mean, come on. Isn't it an office building with minimal intervention? Isn't it better than sleeping on the streets? That building is anyway empty? And if you talk about sustainability, there is so much CO2 that has been embedded to build that office building that using it for something else, that's already a fantastic score. It's your own plus, it's good, it's great.
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
But the problem for politicians that if they allow that, then their ass would be on the line. Because if something happened, people would say, why did you let that happen? So I think that's why squatting is such a big thing in many cities around the world, because that's kind of the unintended use that you tolerate, but you can't condone. Because if you condone it, then people are afraid that it's going to lead to other problems, which in some sense could. But, even as a temporary shelter in the winter, you're cold, don't sleep in a tent, occupy a building floor. And then the deal, it could be like when the weather gets nice again, you have to leave. I don't know. That's where architects could come up with really creative solutions actually. Because it's where the value of design resides. It's to give people solutions that they couldn't even have dreamt of.
So speaking of Belgium, I want to hear a bit more about what are those challenges specific to the architecture profession in Belgium and how architecture works, because I think that might be interesting to some of my audience to hear how things are done elsewhere in the world.
Oana Bogdan:
Well, when I arrived in Belgium in 1999, the first thing I've done was to go in a study trip to the Netherlands. It was the gold that the super Dutch were active. It was the golden years of the Dutch architecture, and it was incredible. And the most important cities of the Netherlands were full of architecture, tourists, people coming to see all those miracles, all those amazing buildings. Well, now in Belgium, we live the super Belgium if you want. I mean it's really Belgium architecture, the number of architecture tourists that contact our office. And I'm sure they contact also my colleagues. It's huge. I mean, there are constant requests to visit our buildings. The Mies Van der Rohe European Union Award... If you see the number of nominations of architecture compared to the population, right? I mean, we are so much smaller than Spain in Germany. It's huge. So it's extremely, I have my theory why the architecture is so great, but that's another discussion.
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
Can you touch on that briefly just to give us an idea of what that is?
Oana Bogdan:
Yes. It's two things. It's a long-term investment in quality of architecture that started more than two decades ago.
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
On the government's part?
Oana Bogdan:
Yes, yes, on the government's part. And then all these public competitions, which are also open. And we have one series, it's called Open Call, which is even announced in launch in English, and you can participate from all over. So there are many British architects, for instance, active in Belgium, just to give one example. So there is this openness towards architects from all over the place, but it's also the threshold was kept lower, the threshold to access to this competition. So you don't have to, for instance, we've never designed a fire station before, and yet we were selected to participate in this competition for a fire station because we were considered good designers. So this idea that you don't have to do a hospital before in order to be able to do a hospital today.
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
That's music to my ears because a big issue we have here in Canada is that to get a public building, you have to have designed a similar typology. You have to have say three to five similar buildings in your portfolio. So young designers that might have a lot to offer from a creativity perspective can not get those jobs. And one way to address the lack of experience in knowing what, because there's value in knowing how those buildings are put together, it's undeniable. But you could really easily solve that by pairing creative young architect with an experienced one and say, okay, you won the competition, but now you have to work with someone who's designed 10 hospitals and that collaboration will allow you to get that first hospital under your belt.
But here it's not... To the extent that what's been happening, is a lot of firms are buying specialist firms. Say a big firm will buy a smaller firm that's specialized in hospitals just to get that portfolio, basically. It's kind of insane. And so I'm glad to hear it's not the case where you are, because I think there's a different way, and the Canadian architecture industry and governance is completely blind to that. So it's very, very good to hear that it's actually possible.
Oana Bogdan:
But it's really a pity because, as you say, you can take so much these different experiences, just having designed a fire station and now you go to design a hospital. I mean, there's so much you can take and you can look at things with a fresh perspective. And this is nourishing the creativity. And even maybe it's an advantage. In Belgium, we have many, many small offices, really many. It's a very small scale stuff, which means that quite often we team up and, for instance, in this selection procedures that lead to competition, when one of the officers in a team is a very young one that is appreciated, you get extra points. Okay, look, that's not promoting young architects.
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
Yeah, that's the opposite here. That's the problem.
Oana Bogdan:
This is how the level went up. So again, it's a long-term investment in public competitions in the government architects, chief architects, how we call them as guardians of quality of architecture. The public debate, which is quite sparkling, let's say. That's one of the reasons why Belgian architecture is so good now. And the other reason is the following, it's a very, very long story. You absolutely don't have time now for that. But Belgian architecture, real estate in Belgium is very cheap compared to other countries. It has political reasons it's like that. It's a cultural thing for a long time like that. But it's artificially kept low. I give you the perfect example. There are people working, French, Parisians, people from Paris working in Paris. Their job is in Paris. They go to Paris every day by train. We have a high-speed train. It takes you one hour and a quarter to get to Paris. They live in Brussels because in Brussels they can afford a very big dwelling and they commute to Paris every day by train.
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
I didn't know Brussels was that close to Paris?
Oana Bogdan:
Yes. It's called TGV, Eurostar. It's a fast-speed train, one hour and 50 minutes. And you arrive in the North station. I mean it's in the city center, so you're not on the outskirts. So you're with the subway, you get very fast away where you have to be to work. So that just tells you something about the prices in real estate. Meaning that also our fee, which no matter how calculated, even if you calculate our fee per square meter or as a percentage of a building, a building cost, if you use the benchmarks, you end up with a fee that is of course proportional to the real estate, which is again proportional to the building cost, which is low. So architects for a very long time were forced in Belgium to be extremely creative with the budgets that were allocated. So doing great things with nothing, which was wonderful, starting with 2008. We were in a financial global crisis. It also hit Belgium. Belgium is on the globe, so we couldn't avoid it. And we were ready. Oh wow, there's no money. Fantastic. Come to us. We can do it.
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
It's like that analogy that you get more creative when you have constraints, right? It's like the jazz improvisation. Improvisation is not just the free for all. There's actually very strict rules you have to abide by, and that's what allows you to create amazing music. So I think there's a strong analogy there. We don't have a ton of time left, but there's a couple more things I want to touch on because I think that's going to wrap up the conversation nicely. We talked about the challenges of the architecture profession and specifically what it is in Belgium. How would you like to see the role of the architect redefined? If you could use your magic wand and say, I want architects to operate in that manner, what would that be for you specifically?
Oana Bogdan:
I have quite an experience in arriving in projects when after the work done by consultants. So we have the big four consultancy companies, the
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
KPMG's and...
Oana Bogdan:
Yes, Ernst and Young, and so forth. I would like us to be involved in all kinds of issues or challenges the same way as these consultancy companies are. Because I really believe that we, as architects, we can help a lot. We can architects together with all these organizations that need help, we can help them in surprising ways. And often, I dare say, much better than these consultancy companies. So I would like to be respected the same way. I would like to be involved the same way they are. And ultimately, I also like to be paid the same way they are.
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
Yeah. Who wouldn't? So how would you accomplish that? Because I think what you said has a tremendous value in that. I alluded to that earlier. Architects have a lot of value to offer, not just in buildings, but in anything that's design related or problem solving related, really. How do you accomplish that? How do you become that consultant that you aspire to be?
Oana Bogdan:
Well, I am going in the direction a little bit by accident, let's say, because I discovered myself how useful we can be in completely different contexts. So I was in a government, I was in politics, wonderful. I mean, for me, creating a political party is exactly the same as applying for a building permits for a building. It's the same kind of work, same kind of documents, very useful, but also a way of thinking that the most important value that we can provide this architecting, this is really a way of thinking. Architect is a verb for me. So, to architect. And how you can do it is, first of all, I think you have to be vocal. You have to start talking. And, in the sense we have now all these platforms, use them. We got to know each other on LinkedIn. And so you start talking and then people hear about you and you start to share your vision on what architecture is and what architect is.
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
That's a very good point because too many firms think the work speaks for itself, but it doesn't work that way. You have to put it out there. You have to put your thoughts out there to, if you ever want to be a respected, recognized professional, there's no going around it.
Oana Bogdan:
Yes. And also you have to, for instance, I take great pleasure in being published by daily newspapers. My dream is to get published in the subway in Brussels, we have this free newspaper that you can take it every day. No, there's another one, another edition there. If I ever get published there, that's my dream. Because so many people read that.
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
Is that a challenge?
Oana Bogdan:
It's not a challenge, but it's not quite often architecture... I mean, it depends what you have to say because it's quite often considered boring or not interesting, or why should we publish you? So you have to come up with something that is juicy, let's say, or it can draw the attention. But no, and so far we haven't published a lot in daily newspapers, and our opinion is asked about things that are not strictly related to buildings. So slowly and surely, we are also advising politicians for public policy. So we are getting... I was involved in discussions about city marketing. It's very interesting.
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
That's great. I think that's a perfect point to end on. There's probably a few more conversations we would need to have to cover all those things. But in the interest of time, we're going to wrap up today. The last thing I want to ask you is how can my listeners learn more about you and follow you, and where can they find you online or elsewhere, if they're interested in learning more?
Oana Bogdan:
Well, on our website we have a category called Reflections, on which we reflect upon important topics. Our website is Bogdan.design. Design comes from design thinking. Or on LinkedIn Oana Bogdan, it's there that I talk because on Instagram, yeah, you can't talk much. It's more pictures.
Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):
I'll make sure to link those two when I post it and give you the credit that you deserve.
