Paradigma Ariadné team.

Having met during university, the founders of the Budapest-based practice Paradigma Ariadné set out on their own to push the boundaries on how an architectural practice could operate. With projects that take on a variety of forms, the young firm works with individuals, institutions, companies and local governments in order to build a platform for theoretical and built experimentation. In this week's Studio Snapshot, we talk with the founders about Greek mythology, architecture after the crisis, and the pressure on young firms to act as a sort of institution.

How many people are in your practice? 

Now we are five in the studio, three founders and two wonderful colleagues. Nevertheless, we have the flexibility to scale up if it’s necessary. And sometimes we have quite vivid and busy days with eight or more people from different fields. This kind of turnover has its own flavor, it could be considered as a speciality of a young office with big dreams, and in this way could also be an opportunity for new inputs and lot of different opinions.

Why were you originally motivated to start your own practice?

We were working together during university years as members of the so-called Advanced Architecture College (AAC) in Budapest. The name refers to the Anglo-Saxon colleges, but in Hungary, these colleges are formatted differently than in the British System. They are more like student studios where university students could organize supplementary courses and workshops for themselves where they can invite lecturers and tutors from outside of the university. Our years at AAC defined a bold basis for us, where we learned to collaborate and to sustain an organization. On the other hand, we also experienced the richness of our practice as the main objective of the AAC is to present different ways to practice architecture.

We were brought together not only by the eager wish for design, but also by the belief that an architecture studio can be more

After our time in AAC, we worked for 2-3 years in Hungary and in other European countries as well as in several studios. After these inputs, it was quite clear for us that we have our own ideas—not simply on architecture but on the ways an architectural practice should work and what it means to be an architect after the crisis. We were brought together not only by the eager wish for design, but also by the belief that an architecture studio can be more: more funny, more open, more reflective, more playful and more diversified.

What is the story behind the practice’s name? 

The story of our name is quite coherent with the answer we gave to the previous question. While at the Advanced Architecture College, we had a seminar on architecture, representation and media, and there, we met Beatriz Colomina's Architecture Production and Reproduction. What Colomina introduced in that essay was highly influential to us. Colomina starts with a sophisticated read about the story of the Cretan labyrinth, where she assumes that maybe Ariadne and the act of defining the connection between the ball of a thread and the labyrinth is way more architectural than the act of building the labyrinth, which is what Deadalus did. Colomina highlights: “although he [Daedalus] built the Cretan labyrinth, he never understood its structure. He could only escape, in fact, by flying out of its vortex.” Hence our commitment for Ariadne and for the transatlantic architectural academic culture was given, even if we forgot this text for years.

When we got together to establish the studio three years ago, obviously we had lot of paperwork to do (setting up an Ltd. is a big effort). But, on the other hand it took weeks of discussions to define our proper name. We think of Paradigma Ariadné as an ongoing architectural project as a whole instead of series of projects in a row. This implies that our name must represent more than a simple fact that three guys get together to do good and quality things, it should mean something. So now it does so. 

Our name is a story, which even has business consequences. When we meet a client for the first time they do not understand our name at all, and this is good, because every one of them asks what our name means. And then, we can start a discussion on architecture without extra effort and give a deep impression of what we do, and how we do it.

Beyond built work, the studio does a lot of strategic guidance and cultural management. Can you talk a bit about this?

We think the mindset of an architect could serve different tasks. We can design a building for sure—we’ve been trained for this. But, as Ariadne saw the architectural potential in a ball of a thread, in a similar way, we can see architectural potential in all means of the built environment and in its representation too. The very first project which extended the boundaries of our practice was the development of the European Capital of Culture (ECoC) project for the city of Veszprém. The ECoC is the most important cultural initiative of the European Union. Every year, another city becomes a Cultural Capital where values of European Culture are presented for a whole year through massive amounts of events. We were involved in this project, alongside many other great professionals, and our responsibility was to squeeze out as many cultural project proposals from their built heritage as possible. This is one thing we really like to do—it keeps us fresh and forces us to always be up to date. 

These kinds of limited circumstances place pressure on a young firm to become a sort of institution itself

On the other hand, our approach to architecture is also a symptom of the condition of the Hungarian architectural scene which suffers from a lack of institutions and academic innovation. We are not surrounded by any strong network, which has an effect on our strategy of building our firm. These kinds of limited circumstances place pressure on a young firm to become a sort of institution itself, if the members wish to build networks internationally and would like to present themselves in a wider scene. All the organizing activity and cultural management we do—like the Translations of Modernism conferences or the 12 walls exhibition—serve this purpose.

How do you think the nature of professional practice for architects has shifted and what sort of opportunities do you think this offers young architects and practices?

The crisis forced the profession to reflect on the effects of the crisis immediately. It was impossible to avoid restarting discussion about many things from scratch—like criticism, or the social approach of architecture, or the thinking behind public spaces. Architects concentrated on these things because our profession was on fire, and we wanted to put out the fire. Now the fire is gone and we are facing the serious damage the fire caused, which needs to be repaired. This work has just started. Obviously every generation in their 30’s sees themselves as the protagonists of the profession. But, if we step backward and try to understand what is happening when we are Making New History or when Beauty Matters, it might define a path. Our everyday experience is that everyone is super enthusiastic about searching for and sharing archival images and are inspired by these images. Maybe we can consider this as a sort of redefinition of the inventory that architects can use again in representation and in realization of architecture. After defensive and self-torturing years, this could be an inventory of a self-confident return. The return of the architect.

After defensive and self-torturing years, this could be an inventory of a self-confident return. The return of the architect.

Do you have a favorite project? Completed or in progress.

It may not be our favorite project but in a way it has been the most instructive for us in recent years. It is a residential building with almost 300 units. It is full of hurdles, not easy to mention one. It is a huge project and a huge step for us, considering that previously, we only had small scale installations, interiors or concepts; Nothing big in realization. We think that the first few years of a studio must be about learning the hidden pitfalls of the realization of architecture, and this was an excellent opportunity to explore and learn this side of the profession.

With this project, we've gained tremendous experience but we are not alone. Right from the start, we've collaborated with Sandor Finta, who used to be a lead architect before his chief-architect years, and therefore has the experience we lack. Learning to collaborate with real estate investors, engineers and builders in this scale is something an architecture studio cannot avoid if they have serious plans for the future. It is not clear yet whether will we proudly present this project in the future when it is completed or not, but we are sure that without this project, it would be impossible to achieve any kind of project in the future with a positive outcome on the professional side.   

Is scaling up a goal or would you like to maintain the size of your practice?

At the very start we had some kind of agreement with ourselves that we'd have the desire to become big. It is not a well defined goal, especially not the scale of it, but one element is quite constant and it is that we would like to be present in Central and Eastern Europe. We have tremendous references and inspiration from this area more or less because of the common history after the WWII. We also have an activity in building a network in this area—we are active members of the Translation of Modernism Collective, which deals with the topic of the post-war architecture and cultural heritage. 

Of course these goals do not necessarily have to correlate with the physical size of the office, but ideally they do so. The bigger you are, the more resources you can have to act within the border of an architectural practice.