You have been the director of the Fundació Mies van der Rohe for almost nine years. How far has European architecture come in that time?

I can speak from the perspective of the Mies van der Rohe Award starting in 2017. In that year, the winning project was a reconstruction in Amsterdam by NL Architects, which transformed a massive concrete block into a residential complex in a highly innovative and revolutionary way. I remember it as a turning point, because at that time the construction crisis had not yet begun, yet many studios were facing an identity crisis, asking themselves what architecture was really for. Are we really here just to make decorative art for lots of money? What are we really for? I would say that 2017 was a turning point in this respect, because for the first time in a long while the award went to a cheap project linked to the real needs of society. Some may say it was an ugly building. Yet in terms of its social aspects, it was very effective. From today’s perspective, such values seem normal, but eight years ago the results surprised more than a few of my colleagues.

Did they expect a more iconic project to win?

Yes. For the first time in many years, the award didn’t go to a grand opera house—it went to a cheap, aesthetically controversial project instead. This confused a lot of people. It suddenly became clear that society no longer needed more of that beautiful, glittering architecture, because it perhaps leads us too much toward superficiality and frivolity. In 2019, an affordable housing project in Bordeaux, designed by Lacaton & Vassal Architects, won again. The difference was that this building was beautiful and everyone was happy with it. Even so, the jury, different from the one in 2017, asked: “Is it acceptable for a housing and renovation project to win again?” And we said: “Of course. It's entirely up to you.” We thought it was funny, because during all those years when cultural buildings were winning, nobody asked if it was okay.

From 2017 on, it feels like the trend has been shifting every four years. The 2022 edition, which had to be postponed due to the COVID‑19 pandemic, was won by the University Library project by Grafton Architects. And study space for the library won last year as well. What does that suggest?

I think we are coming out of the economic crisis and moving on to less pressing issues. We’re shifting toward something beautiful—maybe less community‑oriented, but definitely sustainable. Ten years ago, sustainability was something special in a project. But now it is a necessity that comes from the very nature of the building.

The year 2024 has shown that the best European buildings are not only sustainable but also flexible in terms of their use of space. Is this a trend that you personally would like to see continue in the coming years?

I would say that values such as a focus on people, openness to nature, sustainability, flexibility and rationality are very often seen in architecture today, and I personally find that very pleasing. But don’t forget another value: beauty. The winning building, after all, has magnificent spaces. I also see a very positive aspect being the fact that both the overall winner and the one in the Emerging Architects category are functionally focused on study and reading. These are things you could do at home. Yet if there are better places for it, you go there. That’s a good thing—it means you connect with others instead of being stuck alone with your computer in your room. And that's something that's always been there. Architecture, when it serves the community, creates places that are better than our private spaces.

I understood that the award itself has no set criteria that the jury has to follow. So does that mean that the jurors in each year are the only ones deciding what counts as quality?

Yes. There are no specific rules that the jury must follow when deciding on the award. What we, as the organisers of the competition, demand from them is excellence in architecture, which is very general, yet also very difficult to define. The first thing the jury has to do is to work out—together—what qualities it wants to look for in the buildings. In this sense, the award also says a lot about the jury. A different jury would probably have chosen different winners, and we don't mind that at all. It is important that when someone says “I like this,” they can also explain why. This creates a discussion, which is actually the most important thing about the award.

To what extent is the award influenced by European Union policy?

The award is financially supported by the European Union and the Fundació Mies van der Rohe, an entity of the Barcelona City Council. So, basically, we’re a contributory organisation with two funding sources. The European Union supports us because it believes that a shared discussion about architecture is one way to build a stronger sense of citizenship among Europeans, similar to the Erasmus programme. From a financing perspective, the EU therefore has a relatively large influence on the award. But when it comes to how the award is run and organised, we’re completely independent of the Commission. We rely on an advisory board composed of 15 European architectural institutions, which helps us make the right decisions regarding the selection of nominees, the organisation of the award, and so on.

So strategies such as the Green Deal and the new European Bauhaus do not affect the award?

No, although I personally think those are the right directions. Nobody is telling the jury to stick to these European policies or to relate to them in any way. The same is true with regard to the policies of the Barcelona City Council. The only criterion is the support of quality architecture.

The Mies van der Rohe Award became linked with the EU in 2001. Would you say it has become more prestigious as a result?

Yes, that's one aspect, but I think another is the transparency of the whole project. We should keep in mind that, ultimately, it’s a public award. It’s funded by EU citizens. Transparency is therefore essential. The result of the competition might not please everyone, but the jury’s explanations should never be in doubt. Some really famous awards are totally lacking in transparency. With some awards, the jury actually has to sign an agreement promising never to reveal their deliberations. We take the opposite approach: we’re totally open and try to explain and share everything. We’re not saying that this is the best architecture. We're saying that this jury thinks it’s very good architecture for such and such reasons.

How are projects nominated for the competition?

That’s a complex process that is ultimately very democratic and also free from any pressure. It’s almost impossible to lobby for the award. I’ll tell you why. First of all, there are the national architects’ associations from the participating countries, which can nominate a number of projects—let’s say five. It depends on the country’s population. This is standard. We also have a list of nearly 100 independent experts from across Europe, who nominate their own favourites—five projects each, three from their home country and the remaining from abroad. They really need to go and see the buildings, since they have to write up a few paragraphs for the jury. As the experts can nominate buildings across borders, sometimes projects get chosen that wouldn’t have made it at home—maybe simply because they weren’t well understood there. And that’s how you can shake up the local establishment. Once everyone’s finished their work, the board of fifteen European architecture institutions can add twenty more projects to the list. The idea is to avoid missing great projects that nobody nominated—maybe thinking they were already a sure thing. This final list of nominations then goes to the jury.

And the jury selection is based on what?

We strive for a balanced representation of the different cultural regions of Europe. We rotate nationalities every year. We don’t want the jury to be just architects and critics. We also bring in people from other walks of life, like former politicians, writers, and journalists, who use their platforms to champion good architecture. These people help us get our message across in a clear and understandable way. However, we also strive for a certain generational diversity in the selection of jurors. In the last edition, the age range was from 40 to 80. I’m fifty now, and I’m definitely not the same person I was at thirty‑five. I also know how great it feels to have conversations with people from another generation. Because talking only to your peers is very boring. We are all quite similar, even though we come from different countries.

The travelling exhibition of the nominated projects has moved to Prague from Vienna. However, the CAMP team tried to adapt it to the Czech context. Do you like the result?

Yes, very much. It’s not just that everything is in Czech—it’s also this great timeline where you can see all the Czech projects nominated through the years. I’m thrilled about the projection screen too—it lets you playfully explore profiles, videos, photos and even plans. I’m kind of jealous of you for having it. I'd like to have a screen like that at home. I think CAMP is a great institution. Really, you have an amazing space here.

At the exhibition opening, you came along with Guillermo Sevillano from the SUMA studio, the team behind Barcelona’s Gabriel García Márquez Library. How did that project win over the jury?

The space itself is incredible. It's a beautiful place full of natural light. In short, you're just glad to be there. And this was one of the biggest ambitions of the project—to get people off the couch and into the library to read. That's why they tried to create such a beautiful, welcoming space that attracts people. And they succeeded. When you enter, you feel like you're in a palace of light. They also did a great job in the sense that they elevated a completely unimportant piece of land in the middle of an uninteresting neighbourhood. Adding an entrance with a veranda that opens the space to the outside turned a boring street into a lively new hub the locals are proud of. It’s an amazing change, and I’m saying that in the context of Barcelona, a city that’s seen plenty of transformations. But this time it took place in a neighbourhood that’s really out of the way. To achieve such success, you simply have to take risks, which is, after all, another aspect of perfection in architecture. If you only stick to what others have already tried, you’ll never get anywhere—you’ll just stay in the same spot. So if we’ve got big ambitions and want to tackle tough challenges, we should dare to take risks.

Watch the recording of the entire lecture: