Emanuel Christ i Christoph Ganbentein: "We're not interested in Instagrammable architecture"

BarcelonaSwiss architects Emanuel Christ (Basel, 1970) and Christoph Gantenbein (St. Gallen, 1971) trained at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETH Zurich) and began collaborating shortly after graduating. They are known for their innovative spirit, and in Catalonia for being the architects, along with the firm Harquitectes, of the extensions to the MACBA and the MNAC. Christ & Gantenbein is a large firm with around one hundred architects and numerous projects in Switzerland, France, Germany, China, Norway, and Mexico. They haven't ruled out maintaining an office in Barcelona once the MACBA and MNAC projects are completed. "Barcelona is a great European city. We are very excited and grateful to have the opportunity to work here," they say.

How did the collaboration with Harquitectes come about?

— Emanuel Christ: We're roughly from the same generation. They were familiar with our work, and we with theirs. But it was a professional relationship through work and publications. We also have mutual friends and colleagues, and when the MACBA competition opened, Harquitectes contacted us to ask if we'd be interested in submitting a joint proposal. We'd perhaps been in contact once or twice, but we didn't know each other very well. I remember it was January 2021, during the pandemic. We came to Barcelona, ​​and the restaurants were closed or only open for a few hours. We met to visit the MACBA and start working together. Afterward, we went to Sabadell. They had Christmas treats, like ham, and we had a picnic. It was very cold, and we were sitting together. It was very pleasant. So we talked about architecture and, at the same time, started getting to know each other a little better. That's how we established this collaboration and also a friendship.

What do you think the two offices have in common?

— Christoph Gantenbein: It's an important question, because neither they nor we knew if the collaboration would work. But it worked very well because, of course, we share many things. We share a common understanding of architecture, which is a very controlled, I would say rational, understanding. Likewise, the context of the city is very important. We also share the same references, and this was the basis on which both studios felt absolutely aligned with what we did for the MACBA. We wouldn't say that there's a part that's theirs and another that's ours; we can't distinguish between them.

— EC: We share an interest in fundamental, elemental solutions. There's an interest in history, but not in nostalgia. It's not about nostalgia. It's about approaching the future while also looking back at traditional solutions. And this means basic materials and fundamental construction techniques. Another thing we share is construction itself, an example of which is brick as an eternal material in architecture. Both our firms have built brick buildings, but I think it's a more general concept. We try to be progressive, innovative architects, using the typical basic material of architecture. So, we try to create contemporary architecture based on this understanding, on this knowledge. And that's why we dare to say that, in a way, we speak a similar language.

Do they, then, share a view on how to intervene in heritage?

— EC: The fact that we can use elements from the past, and establish connections with the past to imagine a new future, is a very enriching, extremely interesting, and inspiring way of working. We always try to use elements that were already there, even in the case of a completely new building.

What, specifically, does a rational understanding of architecture mean?

— CG: With rational I was referring to an architecture based on the search for a logical system: how you integrate the building into the city, how its position within the city relates to the interior layout, how you approach the construction, how you treat the materials. All of this is grounded in a refined process of argumentation. It's not the kind of intuitive, artistic architecture that other architects practice. We constantly work on a rationale for each project. This has also been the basis for our exchange with Harquitectes. I think a much more intuitive and personal architecture would have been difficult for us to develop together.

For you, what are the main values ​​of the expansions of the Macba and the MNAC?

— CG: In both cases, everything stems from a given situation. We transform a situation that is presented to us in a modest yet radical way. The Victoria Eugenia Palace is fantastic, the halls are beautiful, but our proposal is a fundamental change in how one enters the building, how it is used, and how it relates to the National Palace. It really all begins with trying to understand the existing structures. Where should you enter? What is the ideal location for an entrance? And how do you transform a fairground into a museum?

— EC: Both projects involve opening up to the city. It's about creating an extension to the MACBA that is open, easy, and accessible. It's about continuity from the plaza to the new part of the MACBA—that is, opening up and connecting with the urban space. And to a certain extent, this is exactly the same at the MNAC. Now, with a very strong gesture, this will allow the lower exhibition hall—the one on the right when you arrive—to have a grand entrance. And this will establish a completely new relationship with the urban space. This is a broader conversation when we start talking about the role of the museum in the city. But for us architects, it's always ultimately a spatial question. How do we translate this recurring need to connect and reconnect the museum, its content, its program, with the city and the community? And the idea behind both projects is a gesture of welcome. As Christoph said, the way we try to do this is always very closely related to what already exists.

Give me more details about these relationships with what pre-existed.

— EC:At the MACBA, the gallery we are building is like a large screen that derives directly from the existing foothills of the historic convent and chapel. In the case of the MNAC, this relationship is reflected in the organization of the entire project: the grand entrance I mentioned, but also the way the lobbies and corridors are arranged, and the connection between the lower and upper levels. Everything, in some way, stems from the existing building. Therefore, we return to the question of rationality. We believe that the analysis and diagnosis of an existing structure, of a piece of the city, are always the starting point for a good project.

— In Switzerland, they carried out the extensions to the Museum of Fine Arts Basel and the Swiss National Museum. Is the relationship of the building with the city and the public what interests them most when designing museums?

— CG: This relationship is crucial and, moreover, constantly evolving. For example, the Swiss National Museum we designed in Zurich, which was one of our first major projects, was largely about redefining this relationship between the building and the city, firstly because the surrounding city had changed. This building dated back to 1895, so it was already over 100 years old, but also because society is changing. A hundred years ago, the way to visit a museum was: you went to the museum, visited the exhibition, and left. Today, you spend time in a café; there's also a shop, lectures, activities, and research, not only for scientists but also for the general public. Therefore, you have a much more diverse program, and this also helps to redefine the relationship between a museum and the city around it. A café and a restaurant can also act as a threshold, a middle ground between the museum and the city. They help open up the building and attract people who might not otherwise visit an exhibition, but who do come to a café because it's appealing; they already have a foot in the museum. And in this way, the museum opens itself up to the city.

— EC: We like civic architecture, that is, the sense of community that a museum shares with a library, a university, or a school. A museum is a place for the community, where you can actually have a coffee, spend some time, so it also relates to leisure, but it's not a commercial space, and I think this is also very important. Museums are interesting and relevant because they offer that intermediate quality: they're not an airport, a train station, or a shopping mall, nor are they a purely private, controlled, or closed space; they're something in between. We believe that this quality of public engagement is very important, especially today. Perhaps these are somewhat strong words, but I mean it very seriously when I even talk about a democratic space, because many of our cities are completely commercialized. Museums, of course, are very heavily involved in this whole tourism system, but I think a good museum also has an additional quality: a certain resilience, because it takes people to a different state of mind. In a museum, you start to reflect on your role in society, because you also ask yourself why the museum interests you.

Museums have been considered the cathedrals of the 20th and 21st centuries, representing a vast field of opportunity for iconic architecture. How do they relate to the emblematic character that a museum can possess?

— EC: In the last twenty years, museums have become these iconic, Instagrammable objects, and we're no longer interested in that kind of architecture. We believe that a museum isn't necessarily a cathedral. A museum can also be a very modest place, or perhaps even more like a chapel. That's why, in the MNAC project, we're very happy with this idea of ​​integrating the old, the historic. Up there is a fantastic palace, but we transformed a much more modest structure next to it, and I think this is magnificent for the museum. And it's even more so for the MACBA, because we're really just adding one piece: the whole context is already there. The MACBA won't be a cathedral—it already has a chapel—and we're simply adding a layer, putting in the box and the terrace, and that's it. In this sense, it's very modest, but I like it because, at the same time, this can be very powerful. But it has more to do with the neighborhood, with the ensemble of the different buildings.

— CG: The term cathedral It's somewhat intimidating, it's so monumental... We understand architecture in general, and the museum in particular, as a kind of infrastructure: pillars, slabs, and facades placed to create space, a foundation for human activity, whether for living, working, or as a place for exchange. And I think that, in the case of the museum, architecture should be understood as an infrastructure not only for exhibiting, but also for learning, for research, for critical exchange. In the term cathedral It lacks that plurality of activities.

Before the expansions of the MACBA and the MNAC, had they used Barcelona as a point of reference?

— EC: When we started studying at the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich, Barcelona was the siteAnd at that time we had José Luis Mateo as a visiting professor; we both studied with him. We went to Barcelona when we were students, and it's not like we knew it as if we came every year, but it was very important.

— CG: There was a strong exchange between Switzerland and Spain. Cruz and Ortiz, who are from Seville, were also there. We read books from the Actar publishing house and the magazine Notebooks on Architecture and Urban Planningwhere Swiss architects such as Herzog & de Meuron and Meili & Peter soon appeared. And Josep Antoni Acebillo was the director of the Academy of Architecture at the University of Switzerland in Mendrisio, in Ticino.