• English Site
• >World
• >Sports
• >

  Herzog on Building Beijing's Olympic Stadium: 'Only an Idiot Would Have Said No'

Herzog on Building Beijing's Olympic Stadium 'Only an Idiot Would Have Said No'

Part 2: 'It's not within our Power to Change Conditions for Migrant Workers'

SPIEGEL: Couldn't a solid political contribution have consisted in accepting the commission and saying: Okay, we'll build you the country's most important contemporary structure, but in return we demand that the migrant workers be paid four times as much as the going rate?

Herzog: This project was a huge struggle, with many imponderable elements. What we call dialogue is not common there. We were mainly interested in issues of copyright law, the most elementary questions of mutual respect and, of course, ensuring that everything would be built in the way we designed it.

SPIEGEL: A full roof was dispensed with, for reasons of cost.

Herzog: There are always changes during a planning process. The issue with the roof was very convenient for us. And the fact that the rest of the original concept was executed almost seems like a miracle to us.

SPIEGEL: And the migrant workers?

Herzog: No one can approve of the miserable conditions under which people work there. It isn't just the migrant workers, but the entire factory system in China, which produces jeans, shirts and toys for the world, that works under such conditions. It is not within our power to change the conditions for migrant workers, nor is it our responsibility. We have nothing to do with the organization of the construction site, neither in China nor any place else in the world. The architect is increasingly unwelcome on the construction site, because he is simply in the way there and tries to interfere and change things.

SPIEGEL: Excuse me, but your firm is the most sought-after architecture firm in the world. We find it hard to believe that you are unable to exert any influence whatsoever.

Herzog: We can always exchange a few friendly words with the mayor, but the realities have changed in construction management. We are dealing with a world that, paradoxically enough, is often at odds with the architecture. On the one hand, the architect is highly respected, and architecture also has the capacity to bring about radical social change. On the other hand, the architect's influence on the course of construction is declining rapidly.

SPIEGEL: But wouldn't you have protested if your design had been touched and spoiled aesthetically?

Herzog: Well, that is the area where people still listen to us, if they listen to us at all. Architects, especially the few who create projects of global stature like the stadium, are very prominent. But they are losing influence in day-to-day construction operations. One rarely succeeds at offsetting losses in other areas, except perhaps when it comes to urban development, where we are still given a freer hand.

SPIEGEL: Are there regimes for which you would not build under any circumstances?

Herzog: It would be far too easy to say: Well, of course we would never build in North Korea. Before we accept a commission, we ask ourselves whether we can achieve something that goes beyond the commercial. Our strength is to develop buildings that permit contradictions. We refuse to take part in projects that permit only one use, one form of interpretation, perhaps even an ideological interpretation. No one in Beijing asked us to deliver an ideological building.

SPIEGEL: You acquired a special status long ago, and you can do things that others would never be allowed to do. You are planning a giant pyramid for Paris, and Switzerland's tallest skyscraper for the quiet little city of Basel. You have triggered euphoric feelings among Hamburg's otherwise cool residents with a proposal for the cloud- and wave-shaped Elbphilharmonie concert hall, despite the fact the project is as fantastic as it is unreasonable.

Herzog: Why do you say that?

SPIEGEL: Many experts doubt that this concert hall will attract large enough audiences, because there isn't enough interest in classical music in Hamburg. How will you bring people in?

Herzog: The truth is that the project is unique in Europe, because its development was akin to an act of piracy. First there was a private initiative, followed by the enthusiasm of Hamburg residents, and only then came the politicians. This is astonishing in such a commercial environment strongly influenced by Protestantism. This makes it especially clear that our architecture can only seduce people with beauty if there are rational arguments, too.

SPIEGEL: What are they?

Herzog: The Elbphilharmonie is important for the new HafenCity district, because it will be one of the few places that are not purely commercial. We believe that the utilization concept will succeed. Without such a cultural anchor and the appropriate architecture, this new city within a city would be perceived as something less valuable, something inferior to the traditional downtown area along the Alster Lake.

SPIEGEL: But the pleasant sense of anticipation in Hamburg is gradually subsiding as the cost of the project grows. The estimated cost already exceeds €241 million ($374 million), and it continues to rise. In fact, it makes the Beijing Olympic Stadium, at an estimated cost of €316 million ($490 million), seem relatively inexpensive by comparison.

Herzog: That's purely the result of the vast differences in wages between Germany and China. In fact, we were just talking about the poorly paid migrant workers. Besides, a stadium is relatively primitive in terms of its interior, while a concert hall is a highly demanding project, especially because of the acoustic requirements.

SPIEGEL: You work around the world, and you have been able to create spectacular structures. Have you achieved everything?

Herzog: No, but for the past two years Pierre de Meuron and I have been paying more and more attention to one question, namely: How do we work today, and what will we want and be able to do in 10 or 20 years? How can we hold younger architects to account? And how do we adjust our organizational form to conform to the changes?

SPIEGEL: Are you suggesting a withdrawal? That would come as a shock to the world of architecture.

Herzog: Most of all, we want to shock ourselves and our people with such scenarios and questions.

SPIEGEL: Aha. What will Herzog & de Meuron look like in 2030?

Herzog: Pierre and I want to continue to be involved in our old age. But that can only happen if the firm is capable of functioning well without us. This means that young people from around the world work for us around the world. This cooperation among different generations could also be a model for society.

SPIEGEL: You are thinking in historical terms. That's very self-confident.

Herzog: Not when it comes to our work. We don't think in historical terms, but in contemporary terms. How are architecture, the city and the landscape changing today? This affects our lives directly and those of the people who use our buildings. Everyone knows how rarely contemporary architecture functions and is accepted. This is also a constant source of uncertainty for us, which makes the success of a building like the Bird's Nest in Beijing all the more incredible. People have accepted it with an unbelievable amount of joy. No one can force that on them. It's simply there. Even in a dictatorship like China.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Herzog, we thank you for this interview.

Interview conducted by Ulrike Knöfel and Susanne Beyer. Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan.

For reasons of data protection and privacy, your IP address will only be stored if you are a registered user of Facebook and you are currently logged in to the service. For more detailed information, please click on the "i" symbol.

Post to other social networks:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•