:format(webp):quality(75))
CI: What does the name Burckhardt mean to you?
SCH: A whole professional lifetime. This identification with the company wasn’t particularly strong to begin with, because Burckhardt wasn’t my first choice.
CI: What would have been your first choice?
SCH: I’d been wanting to join Herzog & de Meuron, that was in 1985. I remember I rang Pierre de Meuron and asked if he had a job for me. But he said no, because they didn’t have enough work at the time and couldn’t take on anyone new. He told me to contact Pierre Schär at Burckhardt, because he’d heard they were looking for people. So I called Pierre Schär and met with him. We reached an agreement in no time. He just had to ask Hans Riedi, who was the head of the industrial buildings department at the time. So I was invited to Peter Merian-Strasse to meet Hans Riedi and he asked me if I also worked on industrial buildings. I replied that I hadn’t done any yet, but that I could imagine doing that, and he then hired me on the spot. My relationship with Burckhardt soon changed, as I was always a bit critical, but also a bit of a court jester. In other words, I quickly found myself in a position where people had confidence in me because they could see from what I accomplished that I was good at my job. I could also allow myself to say certain things because I wasn’t in charge, but I was still in a position of strength, so I could point things out, a bit like a court jester.
CI: «Jester’s license», as it’s known.
SCH: Yes, «jester’s license» describes it well. I declined the offer to become a partner when I was first approached. At the time, I had the impression that the company wasn’t quite properly positioned and that it needed to invest more in architecture and aspects of the arts. A year later, however, I did become a partner, because in the meantime they had started to take my criticism more seriously. In addition, back then there was no specific process about corporate succession. The predecessor simply appointed his successor. That is what Hans Riedi did with me, because he wanted to retire in 1993 at the age of 54 and then simply told me at some point to do his job. I was just 35 years old at the time.
CI: And then what happened?
SCH: My plan was to realize some larger projects at Burckhardt and then move on. I was indeed able to complete some large projects, such as large office or pharmaceutical production buildings. These were fields that were completely foreign to me at the beginning and that I first had to spend time getting to know this area, which was exciting. And I also had a lot of capable people around me from whom I could learn. So I ended up staying and didn’t move on as planned.
CI: Which buildings characterized your time at Burckhardt?
SCH: The most important building was the one on the Rosental site, Building R-1008. It was an extension of a master plan from the early 1960s, which was then completed between 1988 and 1990 – a more modern interpretation of these buildings with exposed concrete façades and four two-story halls. These were stacked on top of each other and were very sophisticated in terms of fire protection and, from my point of view, were the first where we began to have architectural aspirations again. Because that is what I found lacking in most of Burckhardt’s work in the 1980s.
Previously, from the 1950s to the 1970s, there were exciting projects that had their own signature, that followed a recognizable theme, with a certain logic and functionality, and strong architectural aspirations. This was lost at some point because Martin Burckhardt was no longer able to work on it himself. He was also a fairly dominant person who couldn’t tolerate any other good architects in his vicinity. Such people either stepped back or transferred to other companies.
This was pretty much the post-modernism phase, combined with relatively little ambition. It was followed in the 1990s and 00s by a renewed attempt to set higher architectural standards and increase the value of architecture.
CI: You worked at Burckhardt for about four decades. In a few words, how would you describe each of the seven decades of Burkhardt?
SCH: Yes, for me it a total of 38 years. I would summarize the individual decades as follows:
1950s: Successful startup phase
1960s: Stabilization in the chemical and pharmaceutical sector at a high architectural standard
1970s: Brutalism with lots of concrete
1980s: Searching for architecture
1990s: Initiating a turnaround
2000s: Under the positive influence of Heinz Moser in Zurich, with linear glass architecture with the addition of greenery on façades
2010s: Stabilization on a broader basis and aspiration to obtain architectural quality
Then there are the entrepreneurial milestones such as becoming incorporated, the introduction of partners, as well as the major upheaval caused by the departure of Edi Bürgin and Timmy Nissen. This was then felt in the 1980s, as the architectural input were not just from Martin Burckhardt, but also from the two of them, which is why their absence left gaps in Burckhardt’s architecture.
Another disruption was the oil crisis, also in terms of the number of employees that were let go, which really upset Martin and others. I doubt if anyone today can really imagine what it was like back then. I only experienced Burckhardt when things were mostly in a positive swing. As a baby boomer, it was a time when there was a consistent upwards trend. I didn’t experience the oil crisis, and I consider it to be a privilege to have worked in a time when it wasn’t always difficult or challenging.
Another important step was the shareholders’ agreement, as a result of when the previous four partners developed into several partners and two further categories of stakeholders.
This setup is a fundamental aspect of Burckhardt: that Burckhardt is employee-owned and does not belong to anyone outside of the company. In addition, all decisions were always taken to bring about a prosperous development, and were not based on short-term profit maximization. At the beginning of the 1990s, we weren’t doing so well economically, and the city of Basel was experiencing stagnation with a fairly cautious mood. Back then, the city was not at all ambitious in the way like we know it today. I experienced this time as a paralyzing heaviness that you had to almost battle your way through. After that, though, things began going steadily uphill. This coincided with my aspiration to be taken seriously again as an architect, because for a long time Burckhardt had the reputation of being «beautiful and expensive», but «beautiful» in architecture doesn’t automatically mean quality.
CI: What does architecture mean to you?
SCH: The realization of spatial requirements. In other words, the debate about how to live, work and, of course, spend leisure time in a more pleasant and better way. For me, it is crucial that as an architect you create spaces and buildings that not only conform to a certain aesthetic but can also trigger emotions. In addition, I feel it is an incredible privilege to create architecture, because the result of the work is not only visible, but it is inhabited, animated and utilized. That’s why the profession carries such a huge responsibility, because the users have to live with and put up with what architects design. And I’m thoroughly convinced that architecture is always connected to art and culture. I believe if you don’t recognize this connection, and reduce architecture to the construction process alone, then you’re missing out on something. Architecture is one of the visual arts, and there is no getting around the fact that you also have to deal with its cultural siblings and current trends. They feed and inspire each other in a constant interaction.
CI: How would you finish the following sentence? «Martin Heinrich Burckhardt was …»
SCH: My picture of him is not as clearly defined as that of the other people you’ve interviewed. But I think he was an incredibly strong personality and very hands-on, because he was driven to achieve something. In addition, his relationship to art and culture was an important aspect and defined his personality. As I said, I didn’t have that much direct contact with him. But I recall a time when I was still a young architect, I was invited to a seminar in Bigorio in Ticino. All of the important Burckhardt Partner people came together there and I remember feeling completely out of place. We watched one film after another about postmodern architecture. And when Paul Waldner was about to start another film on the subject, I remarked that as architects, we shouldn’t just watch and consume it all without comment, but rather, we should talk about what we had seen and exchange ideas. All of a sudden, there was dead silence in that Ticino monastery. And when nobody said anything, I had to continue my argument, explaining why this exchange was so important and what it would mean for our work and so on. Then Martin Burckhardt spoke up and simply said, «I think the young man is right». That was something like a medal of honor, coming from him. And from that moment on, I was on a higher level in Burckhardt.
CI: What is Burckhardt’s DNA?
SCH: What characterizes Burckhardt is that we plan and implement in line with what is needed. That you build for the end users and not to erect a monument to yourself. That you also see yourself as a service provider and not primarily as an artist. Architects who see themselves as artists do not describe themselves as service providers. But there are also different kinds of service providers. Architecture is about needs and how to respond to them competently in terms of both expertise and design.
Besides the DNA of a service provider, I also see the broad spectrum at Burckhardt, from real estate and site development to planning and implementation, all at a high level and with a sound mastery of complexity. Each of these demands good cooperation and teamwork, which in turn requires everyone involved to be fully informed and to work together in concert.
I’m quite sure that Burckhardt did all of that the same way back in the early days: implementing complex projects in a strong team, with a clear focus on functionality and a high standard of design and construction. And even though this was perhaps lost for a little while, the company managed to correct this and regain a little while, architectural aspiration.
CI: Sometimes more of a service-providing artist, a little while, more of an artistic service provider.
SCH: Yes, precisely, that sums it up wonderfully. I also think that the aim must be to maintain a balance. That you aspire to be more than just a service provider, but also have the humility to realize that you aren’t merely an artist, but also a service provider.
There are many different, creative ways to solve every task and every problem.
Samuel Schultze
CI: What else did you learn from your 38 years at Burckhardt?
SCH: That it’s important to have the right people. On the one hand, that means solution-driven and creative people. However, my concept of creativity goes far beyond the purely design-related aspect, because there are many different, creative ways to solve every task and every problem. You also need inquisitive people and those who are curious about changes and developments and are able to venture off the beaten path. Or that they take on challenges and assignments deliberately to avoid getting stuck in a rut – which can stop you from seeing what could be done better. And what I always find fantastic are people that are willing to take on responsibility, who can be supported but also challenged. Because it’s also my firm belief that people feel good when they’re faced with a challenge, and in the evening can be proud of what they’ve achieved; or perhaps they had a problem in the morning that they didn’t know how to solve, but by the evening they found a solution. Vigilance is needed to understand the importance of recognizing one’s own abilities and progress.
Creative, constructive, and critical employees are the key to success. Some have to pass on knowledge, others must be willing to receive it.
Samuel Schultze
CI: What do team spirit and partnership mean to you?
SCH: Team spirit is important, but it is no substitute for delivering the goods. Team spirit and a high level of motivation are fundamental requirements, as is productivity.
In my opinion, you can’t compensate for a lack of expertise with team spirit, nor with working methods. These may be essential tools, but they always require skills and abilities. With a smart approach to team composition, you can end up with more skills, of course. This calls for dialog and the ability to learn and develop. Creative, constructive, and critical employees are the key to success. Some have to pass on knowledge, others must be willing to receive it.
Burckhardt offers a 100% SIA range of services, and this has even been expanded subsidiary services.
Samuel Schultze
CI: Is one of the reasons for this that nowadays you couldn’t do everything from A to Z yourself, even if you wanted to?
SCH: Of course, because there is a much stricter division of labor today. Regrettably so, because in the past the building contractor was a generalist who was also the architect, and today the architect is often «only» the designer and no longer so vitally important, as the general planner has everything under control. It’s an unfortunate development, but the architect himself is partly to blame for it, because over time he has relinquished more and more responsibility. This often involved things that he didn’t really like doing, such as keeping an eye on costs, deadlines or quality control. That’s when others stepped in and took over these aspects, as well as the overall management, so that the architect – unless he’s a star architect – has been demoted as it were to designer.
In the course of my 40 or so years of work, there’s been a progression in these specializations, and now there are only a few offices that do everything themselves, and many can only offer sub-segments. There’s nothing wrong with that, but Burckhardt always took pride in the fact that we could do everything ourselves. Burckhardt offers a 100% SIA range of services, and this has even been expanded subsidiary services.
CI: Are there any other steps in Burckhardt’s development which you think is worth mentioning at this point?
SCH: The evolution of Martin Burckhardt’s architectural office to date has been positive. The company has a broad base, which in turn gives it greater stability and enables it to perform better in difficult economic times. We have always found ways to tap into new sources and thus find and implement earnings potential. If you’re standing on multiple legs, you’re stable. The company is very healthy.
There were certainly times in the 1990s when «leading with a firm hand», as Peter Epting did for example, was absolutely necessary, because at that time you couldn’t afford to experiment. I mention this here because for a while there was also a certain dispute over which direction the company should take. We had to decide whether we wanted to experiment and be at the forefront of innovation as an office, or whether we wanted to be in the slipstream and watch from a distance how things developed.
Another issue was how much freedom staff should be given in their choice of tools and their application. A lot of money was also invested in training; digitalization was a big issue and kept us busy for a long time.
CI: In this context, can you say anything about the other locations in Switzerland, such as Zurich or Bern?
SCH: We moved to Zurich because we saw opportunities there to gain a foothold in Switzerland’s biggest economic area and realize ambitious architectural projects. But mainly also because we already had a major commission from a bank. The office in Zurich quickly grew to 60 people under Guido Doppler. Zurich was very successful, but also always very independent, because the office focused more on design and planning, which in fact was positive and successful, although it wasn’t necessarily in line with the Burckhardt philosophy. At the beginning of the 2000s, this led to the dismissal of the then partner and site manager Roger Nussbaumer. For a long time, the office thrived on success in competitions, but this has stabilized at a relatively low level in recent years. The company now specializes in planning and has invested in construction management and implementation services. This limits their offering and restricts the development of Zurich as a location.
The office in Bern was more a «stroke of luck», as it came about as a result of the insolvency of Suter + Suter. Through various channels and relationships, Burckhardt was then able to take on the majority of the staff and various clients in Bern. The situation was similar in Western Switzerland with tk3, the successor company to Suter + Suter AG, which we were also able to buy out, although an acquisition fee was paid to ThyssenKrupp AG.
CI: What about abroad?
SCH: This was followed by the «gold-rush atmosphere» in Berlin. There we wanted to lean on Emch+Berger, an engineering company, who in turn thought that we would balance out their organizational management deficits. The Burckhardt, Emch+Berger office never really got off the ground properly. We had the contract for the refurbishment of the Bendler Block, the 2nd Ministry of Defense in Germany. However, we ran into problems there and, in the end, Burckhardt was simply happy that the shares could be returned without a profit, and we got out of the whole affair just in time.
The foreign projects were basically all difficult – with the exception of Martin Burckhardt’s individual projects that he realized for Geigy or Sandoz worldwide, which were very successful. At the end of the 1980s, there were plans to establish a location in New York with a conversion project for UBS with Samuel Meier, who was briefly head of the UBS head office there. But it didn’t really get out of the starting gates either.
Then in 2015, we had the opportunity to purchase an office in Berlin, Reiner Becker GmbH. They were successful in the field of buildings for research and universities, which complemented us well. In addition, Becker had a full pipeline of projects and was in a successful phase. After the departure of Reiner Becker, a new management team was appointed with Carsten Krafft and Daria Grouhi. Wolfgang Hardt was then very successful in reactivating the Berlin location – with a fantastic step up in the quality of the projects, also with regard to employee training and development. There was a significant increase in the number of successful acquisitions, as well as the quality of the staff and projects.
Little has remained of the rest of the international ambitions. Today, we take a more realistic and pragmatic view. Burckhardt is based in Switzerland and Germany, and we occasionally go abroad with clients when the opportunity arises.
The future will still be challenging, as the tasks facing architects themselves are also becoming increasingly demanding and complex.
Samuel Schultze
CI: What would you wish Burckhardt for the future?
SCH: I hope that the perception of the company as a high-quality architectural practice can be improved, both externally and internally. I hope that it will become more competitive again. I have no doubt that they have set the right course and that many good new people have been recruited. Nevertheless, the future will still be challenging, as the tasks facing architects themselves are also becoming increasingly demanding and complex, no matter whether this involves issues such as sustainability, re-use, conversion instead of demolition, or anything else, because an enormous amount has changed in an incredibly short amount of time, especially in terms of what is considered right or wrong. An office like Burckhardt must be able to react sensitively and quickly to such issues, which at the same time bring new challenges.
CI: What advice would you give to a young person who wants to enter your profession?
SCH: That they should approach the tasks with curiosity and creativity, which requires a certain willingness to learn and a thirst for knowledge. But they should also be prepared to take responsibility and know their own limits. It’s also important to remain flexible and open, because many people only think of building houses when they start out, but there might be an area that would suit them better. Back then as a young architect, if I had known what was in store for me, I probably would have felt intimidated by all this and wouldn’t have dared to do it. Fortunately, the «ignorance» is bliss’ principle was still working back then.
Nevertheless, I always say that we have the most beautiful profession, because there are few professions that cover as broad a spectrum of topics as ours: from design to construction and coordination, as well as communication. Although as an architect you are sometimes a service provider, sometimes a designer, teacher or student, and at times even a psychologist. We carry a huge responsibility, but this is precisely what makes the architect’s profession so attractive.
CI: What are you proud of?
SCH: That I have succeeded in bringing architecture back into the spotlight, partly because we were able to hire good architects and give them creative freedom – the transformation from an «implementation office» back into an architectural office. But I also think that I had a knack in personnel matters, as I was able to hire many valuable staff, whether architects, project managers, or assistants. They all supported me and complemented me well. I also credit myself with bringing about clarification at the partner and management levels by introducing some important innovations and problem solving. And, of course, I’m proud of the respectful interaction with one another, based on openness and transparency. And on prioritizing cultural participation and access to the arts for our staff.
CI: If you could now, after everything you’ve experienced, go back to the beginning of the phone call with Pierre de Meuron and he offered you a job, what would you decide today?
SCH: I think I would still stick with Burckhardt because I found an ideal environment for me as a person there. It simply felt right for me, because everything was precisely how I needed it. I see myself as a generalist. As someone who has a broad spectrum but not a great depth of knowledge in certain areas. For example, I am a good judge of architecture, but not necessarily a very good designer. I am someone who can bring everything together and mediate and translate well when people literally speak a «different language».
I am able to deal with architectural and business aspects at the same level, and keep them in balance, which I think I have managed to do well for Burckhardt. And all these things are what make me tick and that’s why I can’t say for sure whether I would have been happy at Herzog & de Meuron. But I do think that I was able to be more independent at Burckhardt and the tasks were better tailored to me.
In other words, I can say that I was in the right place at the right time, and everything took its natural course, nothing was manipulated or forced, it pretty much happened naturally. The company probably needed me then and vice versa. And now it doesn’t need me anymore. I believe that every era has its main focuses and its good and bad times and aspects. Those that make up the history of Burckhardt are also a reflection of the quality of the individual leaders and the priorities they set. And each of these was right and important for Burckhardt at the time.
back to Overview
:format(webp):quality(75))
:format(webp):quality(75))
:format(webp):quality(75))