[Photo by Andrew van Leeuwen]
Tham & Videgård have built an international reputation for their thoughtful, disciplined approach to architecture. We recently sat down with founders Bolle Tham and Martin Videgård at their Stockholm office to discuss the evolution of Scandinavian design, navigating competitions, and the role of architects in an increasingly technical industry. Read part 2 of the interview here.
BUILD: One of the reasons I was drawn to the firm was the aesthetic of the Tham & Videgård website. In an age of digital sensationalism, your site is everything it needs to be and nothing more—it’s almost monastic in its simplicity.
Martin Videgård (MV): The idea behind the website was to create something very clear, simple, and direct. But since we created it nearly a decade ago, we’ve added much more work to our portfolio. Simply adding the new projects to the current design would make it difficult to navigate, so we’re now working with a graphic designer on the next version.
Bolle Tham (BT): The design reflects our architectural philosophy—that we should solve many things at once by doing as little as possible. It’s about being economical with design—not money-wise, but idea-wise.
Scandinavian design has become revered throughout the world; however, the idea that many people have about Scandinavian design may be frozen in time. How do you think design here in Sweden continues to change and be distinctive?
BT: I think it evolves as we’re more exposed to the world—through travel, the internet, and so on—but the cultural core remains. Here in Sweden, there’s always a search for sound solutions in context with available resources. Today, Scandinavian design is more flamboyant and even surprising. You might not immediately guess that some projects are by a Scandinavian architect.
MV: I think one clue to understanding contemporary Scandinavian design is to look back at the history of the welfare state and this idea of taking care of everyone. Around 100 years ago, there was a shift from being a poor country to a wealthier society due to industrialization. Sweden became quite rich quite quickly, all while continuing the welfare state and keeping democracy at the core. There was a futuristic idea of how to build a society where everyone is taken care of, and I think everything springs from that rather than an idea of free capitalism. The state has been a very strong and important client over the years—they have built the schools, the public buildings, and civic environments. The design and architecture are simply a product of this idea.
You both graduated from KTH here in Stockholm, which has produced generations of outstanding architects. How did you prevail over the other graduates to win the competition for the new architecture building?
BT: We had just won our first big international competition for the Art Museum in Kalmar. The KTH building was a big competition with five firms from different countries, and we were invited as the up-and-coming young firm.
MV: The proposals were wide-ranging, and we opted for a free-standing building with a clear identity. The KTH campus is quite monochrome with dark brick buildings, and we felt that we couldn’t really compare anything new to the traditional masonry and craftsmanship of the older buildings. Instead, we proposed a building clad with Cor-Ten rusting steel that blended with the existing color palette while adding something geometrically new. The elliptical shape we designed also makes excellent use of the small triangular courtyard. The competition came down to us and SANAA, who were quite bold with their proposal as it involved razing a couple of existing buildings just to make room for the new one. Our proposal was more humble and likely much more cost-effective—I think that was appreciated by the selection committee.
[Photo by Andrew van Leeuwen]
Like many of your projects, the building feels like a complete, self-contained object. Do you think about how it might be remodeled or expanded in the future?
BT: It happens all the time and, as an architect, I think you have to expect it.
MV: The KTH building is interlocked with the adjacent buildings underground, and it would be quite easy to expand or change the program without affecting the object above ground.
How has the design and construction industry changed during your careers?
MV: Over the last 30 years, the industry has focused more on the performance of buildings and technical issues such as energy consumption, insulation, and ventilation. It’s a pity in one way. At its core, architecture is about space, light, and proportion—very basic fundamentals that provide a humanistic approach to design. The focus has shifted from this expression of architecture. When we sit in meetings with clients and builders, there is always much discussion about economy, energy consumption, and all of the certifications the team is looking to fulfill. The built environment is all starting to look the same because building efficiency is driving the discussion. Ten or twenty years ago, the discussion was more about the idea of the building—about how the vision can add to society and what core qualities it can offer to the people using it.
So, would you say the poetics of design are being sacrificed for building performance?
MV: Yes, and therefore, the architects are finding themselves at the outskirts of the industry. More and more, the architect is hired similar to a project consultant.
Andrew: What’s the most important ingredient to get from the beautiful rendering to the built project?
BT: We have enough experience now that we know how to propose projects that are realistic to begin with. Our renderings are efficient and practical from the start. A good example of this is the Tree Hotel that we designed to reflect the forest around it. The built project is very similar in quality to the original renderings. Architects that are not interested in all of the aspects of practical construction are more likely to produce unrealistic renderings that won’t get built, and clients are easily seduced by beautiful renderings.
[Photo courtesy of Tham & Videgård]
Many of your projects are competition-based, and firms often aren’t paid unless they make the shortlist. How do you stay financially sustainable?
MV: Yes, the competition work can be risky as each proposal requires around 1,000 hours of our firm’s time. Obviously, the intent is to win enough projects to pay ourselves for the uncompensated proposals.
Is there a magic ratio of competitions that you need to win in order to keep payroll in balance?
BT: We’ve had years where we won three out of four competitions, years where we’ve won one out of four, and then there have been years where we didn’t win any at all.
MV: On average, winning one out of every ten competitions is a successful balance for us.
[Photo by Henrik Nielsen]
Bolle Tham and Martin Videgård are co-founders of Tham & Videgård Arkitekter, established in Stockholm in 1999. Graduates of the KTH Royal Institute of Technology, they have developed an internationally recognized body of work defined by clarity, innovation, and a strong connection to context. Their projects reinterpret Scandinavian design traditions for the contemporary era, spanning competitions, exhibitions, and built work across a wide range of scales.