{"id":257499,"date":"2025-12-01T07:04:20","date_gmt":"2025-12-01T06:04:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aarch.dk\/?p=257499"},"modified":"2026-02-05T10:56:57","modified_gmt":"2026-02-05T09:56:57","slug":"conversation-with-jan-de-vylder","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aarch.dk\/en\/conversation-with-jan-de-vylder\/","title":{"rendered":"Jan de Vylder"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>
\n

OPEN Conversation<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/section>\n

<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n

JAN DE VYLDER<\/span><\/h2>\n<\/div><\/section>\n


This conversation was first published for OPEN Architecture Festival, Issue Five (2025): In the Eyes of the Ordinary.
<\/em>
In conversation with Ida Bjerga & Osmo Hadad-Lange\u2028
Written by Ida Bjerga

Estimated reading time: 15 minutes.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/section>\n

<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<\/div><\/div><\/main><\/div><\/div><\/div>
\n
<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>

Let\u2019s see: House Rot, Ellen Berg, PC Caritas, Tangram, House BM, House Bernheimbeuk, House Sanderswal. The work of Jan De Vylder, partner in the Ghent-based practice architecten jan de vylder inge vinck \/ inge vinck jan de vylder architecten, has been widely exhibited, published, and awarded. Together with Inge Vinck, he currently operates under that same name \u2013 or, as it\u2019s sometimes abbreviated, A JDVIV \/ IVJDV A. Jan also holds a chair at ETH Zurich, titled Share of Architecture an(d) Attitude. In addition, he co-leads the IN:DEPENDANCE SCHOOL at Furka H\u00f6he \u2013 a side project that sits somewhere between academia and practice.

Getting hold of Jan De Vylder wasn\u2019t easy. But we did, and when we did, he had a lot to say. Because, in his view, there\u2019s quite a bit going on in architectural discourse right now \u2013 and not all of it is convincing. We had planned to speak with Jan about transformation. About how one might balance respect for the old with the new.

About how to approach a building not only for what it was, or is, but for what it might become again, without making it obsolete in the process. We wanted to speak with him about his many remarkable projects, and how adaptation and decay might inform architecture.

But, as Jan himself put it, he \u201ctorpedoed\u201d our questions in a certain way \u2013 not out of disinterest, but out of concern. He made clear that he understands his work is being talked about, and that he\u2019s thankful for it. He also did comfort us somewhat, letting us know that our questions were relevant \u2013 \u201cvery relevant\u201d was the phrase he used. Still, he wanted to talk about other things: his worries. About the current discourse in architecture. About the rebranding of everything. About old horses pimped up.<\/p>\n

Above all, he wants the conversation to return to being a conversation about form. And on that, we couldn\u2019t agree with him more.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/section>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>

\n
<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>

Let\u2019s see: House Rot, Ellen Berg, PC Caritas, Tangram, House BM, House Bernheimbeuk, House Sanderswal. The work of Jan De Vylder, partner in the Ghent-based practice architecten jan de vylder inge vinck \/ inge vinck jan de vylder architecten, has been widely exhibited, published, and awarded. Together with Inge Vinck, he currently operates under that same name \u2013 or, as it\u2019s sometimes abbreviated, A JDVIV \/ IVJDV A. Jan also holds a chair at ETH Zurich, titled Share of Architecture an(d) Attitude. In addition, he co-leads the IN:DEPENDANCE SCHOOL at Furka H\u00f6he \u2013 a side project that sits somewhere between academia and practice.

Getting hold of Jan De Vylder wasn\u2019t easy. But we did, and when we did, he had a lot to say. Because, in his view, there\u2019s quite a bit going on in architectural discourse right now \u2013 and not all of it is convincing. We had planned to speak with Jan about transformation. About how one might balance respect for the old with the new.

About how to approach a building not only for what it was, or is, but for what it might become again, without making it obsolete in the process. We wanted to speak with him about his many remarkable projects, and how adaptation and decay might inform architecture.

But, as Jan himself put it, he \u201ctorpedoed\u201d our questions in a certain way \u2013 not out of disinterest, but out of concern. He made clear that he understands his work is being talked about, and that he\u2019s thankful for it. He also did comfort us somewhat, letting us know that our questions were relevant \u2013 \u201cvery relevant\u201d was the phrase he used. Still, he wanted to talk about other things: his worries. About the current discourse in architecture. About the rebranding of everything. About old horses pimped up.<\/p>\n

Above all, he wants the conversation to return to being a conversation about form. And on that, we couldn\u2019t agree with him more.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/section>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>

\n

ORDINARY<\/h2>\n

At this point, not quite knowing what we were getting ourselves into, we thought we\u2019d begin with something simple. A warm-up question, really. Something to set the tone and loosely connect to the festival\u2019s theme. So we asked Jan for his thoughts on two words: ordinary and extraordinary.<\/p>\n

Jan answers slowly. \u201cWell. You know. At any moment, there\u2019s always a word that calibrates your thoughts. But, when I\u2019m thinking, I\u2019m never really thinking, \u2018Ah, this is ordinary,\u2019 or, \u2018Ah, that\u2019s something extraordinary.\u2019\u201d He let us know that he\u2019s well aware that words like ordinary, dailiness, and as-found are often used in relation to his work. But these words, he says, are not part of his mindset when approaching a project or going about daily life. \u201cI appreciate being associated with those words,\u201d he says, \u201cbut I want to underline that these words never appear in my mind when I think of everyday situations or things that seem overlooked.\u201d<\/p>\n

After a moment, he returns to the question. \u201cI think\u2026 when it\u2019s about the word extra, I think the ordinary itself is the extra.\u201d He continues: \u201cAnd the ordinary\u2026 A friend of mine, decades ago, described it very well. He said: \u2018It\u2019s like having a deck of leaves in the forest in autumn. It seems all dead, but once you put your hand underneath and throw it over, it\u2019s full of life \u2014 insects, animals, mushrooms, mycelium. There\u2019s a whole world underneath.\u2019\u201d That\u2019s the point, Jan explains. \u201cThe ordinary is the deck we know. In autumn, we go into the forest, we look at it, and it\u2019s there. We know that. The extra is just leaving it, and enjoying it, and looking at it, et cetera.\u201d He pauses. \u201cVoil\u00e0,\u201d he says. \u201cThat\u2019s my first note.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div><\/section><\/div>

<\/div>
<\/div>

LIKE WE ARE IN A CIRCUS PLAYING WITH BALLS<\/h2>\n

\u201cBut we should try to avoid many of these words,\u201d Jan says. Lately, he\u2019s grown increasingly aware and uneasy about how these constant qualifiers are shaping architectural discourse. He describes a broader phenomenon unfolding in the field: a tendency to label and qualify architectural intentions as much as possible. \u201cWe\u2019re trying to rank architecture, to order architecture, to make one approach seem better than another. We\u2019re playing with words like we\u2019re in a circus playing with balls,\u201d he says, his tone thoughtful over our video call.<\/p>\n

He\u2019s quick to admit he\u2019s long been part of this conversation \u2013 since the 1990s. Back then, he and a friend built a very small house, House Ovo (1996), with next to no budget. One day, someone stopped by and asked what they were doing. Jan explained the project, their approach, the tight budget, and the choices they made. That encounter led to a lecture invitation at the Flemish Architecture Institute\u2019s Single Lecture Series with the title \u2018Reality Check,\u2019 organized by 51N4E. \u201cI was young at that time. It was the \u201990s. I was nervous. I had to take photos of my drawings and explain what we were doing,\u201d he recalls. \u201cBut from that moment, I became part of the conversation. Part of the discourse. And that was nice \u2014 I started to take part in discussions.\u201d But over time, something has shifted. The scale of this discussion about these qualifications and categories of architecture has grown enormously. \u201cI\u2019m still wondering whether I find it enjoyable to be part of the discussion today,\u201d he questions. \u201cBecause over time, I\u2019ve become a participant in developing this whole scale of words, this scale of qualifications. And now I find myself stepping back, asking: Wait. Wait. Wait. Where are we going? Where are we going with this?\u201d<\/p>\n

In the past, he says, he never felt nervous about the discourse. But these days, he does, especially with all these words being thrown about. They also stick to his own work, and he feels they do little to help the conversation. \u201cI want to talk about architecture,\u201d he says. \u201cBut I don\u2019t want to talk about architecture with any prefix in front of it.\u201d The conversation should be about what we mean with all these prefixes and all these qualifications. \u201cIt\u2019s about how we think. It\u2019s about how we evaluate things,\u201d he says. \u201cDo these words and labels help the discussion? Or do they avoid it?\u201d<\/p>\n

He gives an example. \u201cIf I tell you, \u2018I\u2019m a sustainable architect,\u2019 you\u2019ll say, \u2018Wow, good guy. Sustainable. Honest.\u2019 But is it really? Can we actually talk about what sustainable means? Can we talk about whether we are sustainable? Or do we just let the conversation stop there, with you saying, \u2018You are,\u2019 and me replying, \u2018Thank you\u2019? What\u2019s the value in that?\u201d Jan reflects. \u201cThese words are attempts to either upgrade or downgrade architecture. By adding all these qualifiers, the focus becomes far too narrow and way too specific.\u201d He adds, \u201cAre you sure sustainable architecture is anything other than architecture? Shouldn\u2019t architecture, in its nature, in its essence, already be sustainable? Why do we need to add another word in front? It\u2019s like saying twice, \u2018I\u2019m driving a car.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div><\/section><\/div>

THE REMARKETING OF EVERYTHING<\/h2>\n

\u201cI would say I\u2019m concerned about the remarketing of everything,\u201d Jan continues. This tendency, he adds, goes beyond language; it\u2019s embedded in the building economy itself. \u201cWhen we talk about sustainable architecture, that should be a tool discussion \u2013 not a goal discussion.\u201d What\u2019s needed, he says, is to rethink how we speak about things, how we value them, where we place our focus, and how we work. \u201cRight now, we\u2019re not changing the economic model. We\u2019re just renaming things within it.\u201d<\/p>\n

The economic model of designing and building centres on value: how you bring value, or add value, to a building. But the problem, he explains, is that the very notion of value has fundamentally shifted over the years. \u201cThat\u2019s what we need to discuss!\u201d he says with emphasis. \u201cWe need to take a look at the economic model of things, ask how it came to be as it is
\n\u2014 and why we\u2019ve started to value buildings the way we do.\u201d With a half-laugh but also a note of concern, he adds, \u201cBut every time I try to have that conversation, everyone seems to get really nervous.\u201d<\/p>\n

He illustrates his point with a story. Years ago, they would reuse old windows collected from demolition sites. \u201cWe\u2019d just go to a building, ask, \u2018Can we have these windows?\u2019 And they\u2019d say, \u2018Take them, please!\u2019\u201d Today, those same windows have become part of a commercialised recycling market, with branding agencies seemingly obsessed with inserting the word \u2018re\u2019 into any product or name they can get their hands on. \u201cNow it\u2019s a recycled window. A reused window. Or a vintage window, with a story attached. \u2018Maybe, just maybe, even the great Le Corbusier once looked through it.\u2019\u201d He smiles, though there\u2019s a trace of unease. \u201cSuddenly the window costs more, because now it\u2019s a \u2018branded recycled window.\u2019 And we go home with that same window in our arms, telling everyone we meet along the way: \u2018My house is now a sustainable house with a branded recycled window that maybe, just maybe, even Le Corbusier once looked through.\u2019”


The same, he says, goes for tiles, or anything else for that matter. \u201cWe once worked with these beautiful tiles that we had simply found in a dumpster. They\u2019d been thrown out during a refurbishment. But now, recycled tiles cost more than new ones. And still, we tell ourselves: it\u2019s okay \u2013 at least they\u2019re recycled.\u201d Jan\u2019s reservations about this value system are clear. He\u2019s concerned. Whenever he tries to bring up the issue, he says, people often respond defensively, questioning whether he\u2019s against recycling or sustainability. \u201cIt\u2019s not about being against recycling,\u201d he says. \u201cIt\u2019s about how we\u2019ve failed to change the economic model behind it. We\u2019ve just dressed it up in different words.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div><\/section><\/div>

<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
\n
<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>

IT\u2019S STILL THE OLD HORSE, PIMPED UP<\/h2>\n

Today, Jan argues, sustainable thinking often means doing exactly what we\u2019ve always done, only with so-called ecological means. \u201cWhat I believe we really have to think about, or question, is: can we do things differently?\u201d \u201cAnd if we open up that conversation \u2014 which, to me, is a conversation about form \u2014 it might actually have a different kind of repercussion on the ecological means themselves.\u201d

He compares this to our broader inability to imagine living differently. \u201cWe don\u2019t rethink how we live. We\u2019re basically just trying to preserve the same life, only with \u2018green\u2019 upgrades, or within so-called ecological dimensions.\u201d The houses stay the same size \u2013 often even larger \u2013 but now they\u2019re labelled sustainable. We preserve the same habits and ways of living, just with a green coating. He likens this to the car and the way it too has been wrapped in a so-called responsible discourse of ecology and sustainability. \u201cWhen you look at the car, in terms of sustainability, the cars have actually got bigger and fatter \u2014 but with less energy-soaking engines,\u201d he says. \u201cBut then there\u2019s so much more energy soaked up in the materialisation of the car itself. And by that, I also mean human energy, including child labour, battery production, all of that.\u201d He pauses. \u201cBut the car itself hasn\u2019t changed.\u201d \u201cThe car didn\u2019t change,\u201d he repeats. \u201cOur way of thinking about transport didn\u2019t change. Nothing changed. It\u2019s still the old horse, pimped up. And this time, pimped up with a so-called responsible discourse of ecology and sustainability. But we haven\u2019t changed the thinking behind the car \u2014 or how we think about movement and transportation.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div><\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

CAN WE GET BACK TO WHAT WE DO AS ARCHITECTS?<\/h2>\n

Jan\u2019s work is often associated with transformation, renovation, adaptive reuse, recycling, and the seamless interweaving of old and new. But as we speak, it becomes clear that the current discourse around these terms no longer feels like a meaningful conversation. It has started to feel like a kind of pious fiction \u2013 a constructed narrative.<\/p>\n

He tells us he\u2019s often approached by people inviting him to speak about transformations he\u2019s done, or the adaptive reuse projects he\u2019s been part of. Others want to include his work in books or exhibitions centred around the word transformation \u2013 or Umbo, as it\u2019s known in German. \u201cI think it\u2019s been published a hundred times in that discourse,\u201d he says. One work that\u2019s frequently mentioned is the pair of production studios his office completed 15 or 20 years ago for Les Ballets C de la B and LOD, the Ghent-based dance and music theatres. \u201cI still get asked to talk about the transformation of those buildings,\u201d he says \u2014 then stops. \u201cBut they\u2019re new-builds. They are new-builds.\u201d He tells us about questions he often gets: \u201cAh, that fa\u00e7ade you created at Les Ballets \u2014 the transformation of the existing building. How did you do that?\u201d His response is always the same: \u201cWell\u2026 it\u2019s not a transformation. It\u2019s new.\u201d<\/p>\n

He brings up another project, House Rot Ellen Berg \u2013 a house with building poles and a glazed interior. It\u2019s been published countless times under the banner of adaptive reuse. But, as Jan is keen to clarify: \u201cAt no point \u2014 alone or with the client \u2014 did we use or talk about the word reuse. Or recycling. Or adaptive. But now, suddenly, this project has become an example of that discourse. The words have been projected onto the work.\u201d Jan looks slightly weary. \u201cI want to say \u2014 wait, wait, wait! This house is about light and shadow. This house is about a family with children living there. This house is about having only 100,000 euros and wanting to imagine a place to live. These are the core values of the house. These are the core values of the project. These are what we should talk about!\u201d He pauses. \u201cIt\u2019s important, he says, that we bring the conversation back to the work itself. That\u2019s what matters\u201d. Then he adds: \u201cCan we talk about what you do as an architect \u2014 not how you value a project, or assign value to what you do? What we talk about now are the mechanisms \u2014 and that\u2019s all we talk about. But we\u2019ve forgotten to talk about form. We\u2019ve forgotten to talk about space.\u201d He hesitates. \u201cThat\u2019s what I try to\u2026\u201d, he searches for the right word, \u201c\u2026I wouldn\u2019t say offensively \u2014 but that\u2019s what I really want to try to state in every discussion. Can we get back to what we do as architects?\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div><\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>

<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>

GREEN COLUMNS<\/h2>\n

The discourse, the discussions, should be about: \u201cDo you know what you\u2019re doing? Do you know what you\u2019re saying? What is the origin of the aesthetics? To me, the beauty comes together with the narrative. What meanings do we give to things?\u201d He tells us he\u2019s grateful that people discuss his projects \u2013 but when he reads how they\u2019re talked about, he increasingly feels the need to return the conversation to what was in mind at the beginning and to the original intentions behind each project. Not just what it looks like in the end.<\/p>\n

\u201cYou know the story of the green column?\u201d Jan checks, half-questioning, as if confirming we\u2019re familiar. You\u2019ve likely seen the project with the green column. Many have. He tells us he\u2019s often approached with the assumption that all his projects include a green column. \u201cIt\u2019s not true!\u201d Jan laughs, lightly amused. \u201cGo to our website \u2014 I\u2019ve marked them. There are only seven. But by now, it\u2019s been repeated in 7,000 ways.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cBut what the green was about,\u201d he begins, \u201cis that I arrived on a building site where we needed a new steel structure. And the contractor was painting it quite happily in that green. \u2018Wait, wait, wait \u2014 what\u2019s this?\u2019 I said. I mean, I didn\u2019t know that green. I told him, \u2018Wait, wait. First, you need to have an oxidation protection paint.\u2019 And he said, \u2018No, no, no \u2014 it\u2019s fine. It is an oxidation protection paint.\u2019\u201d Jan explains that the paint came from a small brand that identifies itself by using that particular green pigment in its formula. When he understood that, Jan grins, recalling the moment: \u201cSo I said, \u2018Oh, wow. All right. Let\u2019s do it!\u2019 I used that green wherever it was needed. If there was no steel, we didn\u2019t use it. But then that little company went bankrupt. And now it\u2019s over.\u201d<\/p>\n

He continues: \u201cWhen I see everyone happily painting stuff green, that\u2019s what the discussion should be about: Do you know what you are doing? Do you know what you\u2019re saying?\u201d Using the green column as an example, he asks, \u201cOn a project, what can you read? What is available? Which colour will we give it?\u201d The addition of colour, he argues, should be due to the honesty of the material, but also the honesty of the material colour, and how you compose things.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere\u2019s a difference between being original and being authentic. They\u2019re not the same. Being original is a search for difference \u2013 a search for wanting to be original. Not origin. That\u2019s something else entirely. Origin refers to the word authentic \u2013 namely: what, where, and how can you reveal authenticity?\u201d That authenticity, he explains, is not only about materials but about the capacity to bring forward free, thoughtful ways of forming things. \u201cWhen we talk about form,\u201d he says, \u201cwe must also talk about the capacity to compose. The capacity to make ensembles, to find complexities between things. And that only happens when whatever materials you find \u2013 whether on a building site, in a material catalogue, or just as they come \u2013 are used in composition.\u201d \u201cIt\u2019s the same with colour. The same with interpreting a building pole as an eternal column in a building. Et cetera.\u201d<\/p>\n

Jan continues: \u201cAs an architect, I think this is what I would say to many young practices: Please surprise me. Not confirm me, but surprise me. And I think the surprise, link to words like fantasy\u2026 That architecture can be based on fantasy. That it can be based on the imagination. That it can be based on a dream. That\u2019s what I would say. Colour it green if you want to \u2013 but surprise me with it. Don\u2019t just confirm what\u2019s expected, or the tone of the day.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div><\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

IT\u2019S NOT A MATTER OF<\/h2>\n

We ask Jan about Chapex in Charleroi, and how he approaches the balance between respecting an existing building and transforming it into something new. He answers softly, \u201cI only want to talk about architecture from now and nothing else. Not about adaptive reuse or things like that. I want to talk about architecture.\u201d He explains, \u201cArchitecture is not a matter of architecture. Scale is not a matter of scale. Context is not a matter of context. Meaning is not a matter of meaning. Making is not a matter of making. Beauty is not a matter of beauty. If I go to the matter of things \u2013 for me, how can I put it \u2013 beauty is, in the end, the starting point of everything,\u201d he continues. \u201cAnd it should be the start after the end of doing things.\u201d

He continues: \u201cI found that our task at Chapex was to reveal the beauty of that building.\u201d Jan elaborates: \u201cI actually have quite a discourse on that building. It\u2019s about the idea that we, as architects, should act more like an interact. We\u2019re just an in-between. We don\u2019t finish a building entirely. We keep it open for something that\u2019s to come.\u201d Rather than reuse, he speaks of pre-use \u2013 preparing a building for its next use. That, he says, is what Chapex was really about. \u201cIt\u2019s a beautiful building,\u201d he adds, clearly fond of it. \u201cThe architect before us did a marvellous job. But it was hidden.\u201d He recalls that once they removed the fa\u00e7ades, a lovely perspective emerged, they felt air move through, and greenery appeared. \u201cWe had a park. A place we believed people would come to, would stay at, would want to return to.\u201d<\/p>\n

The essence of the project, he explains \u2013 or indeed any project \u2013 lies in how one reads things, and how one makes things available for reading again. \u201cSo if the word re- fits anywhere,\u201d he says, \u201cit\u2019s in the word reading.\u201d He repeats it with emphasis: \u201cIt\u2019s in the word reading.\u201d Chapex, then, becomes a way of talking more broadly about the very essence of architecture. \u201cIt\u2019s about understanding, for example, that the building had been wrapped in this bourgeois-style urban architecture, while the actual structure is a piece of engineering. That engineering belongs to the era of metal construction and concrete evolution, while the bourgeois white stone fa\u00e7ade was more like a kind of reenactment of the city.\u201d But again, he says, we are an interact. \u201cI hope, later in life, to pass by and see that the building has been transformed again. Maybe someone will hang new fa\u00e7ades on it, because they need it to be one space again.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div><\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>

<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>

FORM IS YOUR TOOL AS AN ARCHITECT<\/h2>\n

We end the conversation by asking: going forward, what can we \u2013 as architects \u2013 do? \u201cToday \u2013 and fortunately so \u2013 much more of society is aware of the urgencies we face,\u201d Jan says. \u201c(Well, we\u2019re also seeing a counter-reaction to that, of course.) Still, there\u2019s growing awareness that we have to consider these urgencies. Around the big round table, we now find a variety of contributors: sociologists, biologists, engineers, anthropologists, architects, designers, artists, perhaps politicians, legal minds. So we are a lot of people around the table. And that\u2019s interesting. That\u2019s great,\u201d Jan says. \u201cBut we, as architects, almost uniquely, have the tool of form. And this is where the discussion lies.\u201d He explains that when architects use the word form, it often sounds formalistic and is misread as formalism, or it might sound as if one is disconnected from the so-called \u201cshouting urgencies\u201d. But that\u2019s not the case. \u201cWith form, we can twist an ongoing discussion.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cEveryone brings their own logic to the table, and they try to bring it together to get somewhere \u2013 and that\u2019s good! But in the end, no one knows how to make it. That\u2019s what you can do as an architect.\u201d \u201cAll of a sudden, you can show a drawing and say, \u2018Listen \u2013 interesting. But what if we did it like this?\u2019 And then \u2013 oh, wow. That\u2019s your contribution. Not by shouting \u2018sustainability\u2019 or \u2018ecology\u2019 louder than the rest, but by quietly saying, \u2018Listen, I made a drawing. I built a little model, just now, while you were talking. But if we do it like this\u2026 you, and you \u2013 your ideas are in there.\u2019\u201d He pauses. \u201cForm is your tool as an architect in a discussion. And in my experience \u2013 at least nine times out of ten, let\u2019s keep it modest \u2013 it shifts the conversation. And it helps.\u201d<\/p>\n

We end by asking what we \u2013 the so-called \u201cnext emerging generation of architects\u201d \u2013 can do. Jan replies: \u201cLet me underline what I mean. It\u2019s not about the emerging generation. It\u2019s about the emerging changes. And these changes \u2013 as you ask \u2013 what you can contribute as an architect is this: How can you, as an architect, think about form differently from what we\u2019ve come to accept as the starting point? Because once you do that \u2013 all the other discussions will follow.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div><\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>

\n

<\/span><\/span><\/div>
\n

This conversation was first published for OPEN Architecture Festival, Issue Five (2025): In the Eyes of the Ordinary<\/em>.<\/span>
\n
The issue was produced by students from the Aarhus School of Architecture:
Ida Bjerga, Osmo Hadad-Lange, Alexander Skovgaard Bagger Hadi, and Birke Langkj\u00e6r Jakobsen.
<\/span>
The non-profit project was supported by The Dreyer Foundation.<\/span><\/p>\n

Image credits: 1) Juan Rodrigues, 2) Filip Duiardin, 3) Filip Duiardin, 4) Jan de Vylder, 5) Filip Duiardin, 6) Filip Duiardin, 7) Filip Duiardin, 8) Jan de Vylder<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/section><\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

\n
<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>

RELATED CONTENT<\/h2>\n<\/div><\/section><\/div>
<\/div>
<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
\n
\"OPEN26<\/a>
Podcast <\/span><\/span>

Lacol<\/a><\/h3><\/span><\/header><\/div>