Bevk in Perović Arhitekti’s success story is thoroughly impressive: Founded in 1997 in Ljubljana, the office realised a considerable number of projects in the relatively short period of its existence, of which a substantial number resulted from competitions won. The duo’s works received numerous awards and attracted a great media response. Yet, the two architects remain modest. They perceive architecture mainly as a responsibility, both socially and politically. Matija Bevk and Vasa J. Perović in conversation.

GAT: Bevk in Perović is one of the most remarkable offices in the young Slovenian architectural scene. Yet, your office cannot easily be traced in the Internet. Other than your colleagues, it seems not important for you to have a homepage. Does this demureness have a purpose?
Perović: I know we should have a homepage – it seems almost unavoidable today. We just have the problem that we do not find the time to make a homepage as the office is booming right now.
Bevk: One should also do something first before showing it off.
Perović: In other words: we are fortunate to be able to produce instead of placing ideas in the Internet.

GAT: So communication is not really important to you?
Perović: Of course one must communicate one’s ideas. Not so much in the sense of advertising but in order to discuss what we think and do. Of course some offices present whole archives of their work on the Internet – then sometimes the presentation itself becomes the project. But in the end, however, it is buildings we look at, isn’t it?
Bevk: Communication with our clients is much more important to us, a constructive co-operation in the course of the project development.
Perović: Despite this I would still not say that our work aims at making our clients happy. Our projects take up quite a lot of time – not so much in the implementation as in the conception. In that sense we do not work very fast. We naturally include our clients in the process of conceiving. If they are then happy in addition, well that’s great – but happiness is not the motto.
Bevk: Our motto is rather to elaborate architectural typologies. To build something interesting, not in a formal but in an architectural sense. Not aiming at the quick image but at the interplay of spaces, harmonising a building with a place.
Perović: One question: do you think that image plays an important role in our buildings?

GAT: I think so. In your housing development in Polje, for instance, the façade has an exceptional presence.
Perović: It is true; Polje could really be misunderstood because of its façade. Of course, today we live in an age in which we communicate via images. It is easily possible that other contents get lost. In the case of Polje, for instance, it was important for us to break with the given conditions in terms of urban development and to give the buildings a new profile with the roof design. In general, we believe that buildings should be readable in different ways. Regarding the façade in Polje, many thought straight away of Plečnik, others thought of Semper, and still others saw a quotation of the near-by railway station. At a certain point the façade even began to worry us, because for us it is not so important for the project.

GAT: Yet, details appear to play an important role in your work.
Perović: When starting up our office nine years ago, Slovenia had just undergone a deep structural change toward the capitalist system. And whilst the independence of building activities was extensive during the first years, the quality of implementation suffered. Handicraft skills, partially dating back to the 1950’s were totally lost. Back then, Matija and I focused our interest on classical building. How things are made and how they will change through time. It was important for us to reintroduce the idea of the architectural detail, the idea of quality building. As I said before, what we see in the end is the building. When it is about construction, things become traditional rather quickly. Even the blue bubble of Graz Kunsthaus, this horrible thing, is a building in the end. It wants to be something else, but basically it is made of steel and concrete.

GAT: The housing development in Polje, however, is also interesting from a social point of view – not least because it is social housing.
Perović: It was certainly our intent to demonstrate that quality building is feasible in social housing and that quality architecture can be implemented with the smallest budget.
Bevk: In Polje the design of the public space between the buildings was particularly important. The buildings themselves are quite simple, not least due to the strict requirements for social housing. Thus a big portion of the budget and a lot of the architectural interest were saved up for designing the public space. In addition, the building costs are always calculated rather tightly, whilst the costs for the design of the outdoor spaces are more flexible. This is another reason for focusing increasingly on the design of outdoor spaces.

GAT: Would you describe your work as the attempt of a reintroduction of social responsibility in architecture?
Perović: I would say that social responsibility is not only the essence of our work, but also the essence of the work of every architect.
Bevk: In Slovenia there is an enormous demand for apartments, but the state has largely withdrawn from housing construction in the wake of the political turning point. Today, it’s commercially minded private investors that mainly build apartments. In our collaboration with a public investor as it was the case in Polje, we had the idea in mind that by highlighting social aspects, we would also be able to have a positive effect on commercial housing projects. At least we can say that public building contractors were woken up by the project in Polje. In the meantime public authorities are building more housing projects again - in Ljubljana, in Maribor, in Koper.

GAT: Apart from housing, which topics interest you?
Bevk: Private houses for instance. Other than in housing construction, it is here possible to develop housing concepts more freely and clearly.
Perović: Single-family houses offer a field for experimenting with ideas, which could be implemented in larger projects later. Of course we cannot live from single-family houses alone. This is why we also work on large-scale projects – to make sure we can pay our bills.
Bevk: On the other hand, we are also involved in public buildings, such as the Faculty of Mathematics in Ljubljana, which has just been completed.

GAT: What about the commitment of the state in reference to public buildings?
Perović: Not very strong. Our government does not see a lot of use in representing Slovenia via architecture. On the other hand, it seems that there is no real demand for new public buildings.
Bevk: The bigger problem is rather that in Ljubljana no public spaces such as parks or squares are planned.
Perović: Instead of more public buildings, we would prefer to see more parks being renovated in the centre of Ljubljana. The city is not a collection of architectural jewels. It needs a perspective for how it would like to develop in the years to come. This requires visions – something the municipal government in Ljubljana has not recognised yet.
Bevk: The municipal government fails to use its power to make sure that the capital invested will be used to the benefit of the public.

GAT: We know this problem in Graz too. Graz overextended its budget in its year as European Cultural Capital. Now, plots owned by the city that are situated near the centre are sold at minimal conditions. Is Ljubljana broke too?
Bevk: The city does not invest, so it cannot really be broke.
Perović: At least Graz had a vision during the Cultural Capital year– even if the city is broke today. Many of the so-called mid-size-cities suffer from the fact that their municipal governments do not have a vision and are not capable of planning and thinking offensively. Graz was very lucky in this respect, as in 2003 there was also a public interest in the year of the Cultural Capital. This also was to the benefit of architecture, even if this is only conveyed via buildings such as the blue bubble and Acconci’s island in the River Mur.
Bevk: If you compare Ljubljana today with what it was 70 years ago, it was probably Plečnik’s buildings that had exactly this kind of a vision we are talking about. Plečnik managed to connect the various parts of the city, by means of his numerous bridges and public squares. Back then, Ljubljana was just a Yugoslavian provincial town. Today Ljubljana is a capital, but is still not capable of developing a vision. We have been independent for fifteen years now – this is not a short time.

GAT: Do you have a vision?
Bevk: A vision for Ljubljana? Our vision would probably be the one of developing a vision.
Perović: Not necessarily a vision for Ljubljana, but for Slovenia perhaps. Since, like many other new member states of the European Union, Slovenia suffers from an identity problem. The country has failed to develop a recognisable identity in the European Union, such as the one Austria possesses from tourism and the arts.
Bevk: What would this be for Slovenia? The mountains, the sea? Culture? Science?
Perović: Or architecture?
Bevk: Architecture? Surely not!
Perović: Anyway: when reflecting on a vision for Ljubljana, one must first develop a vision for Slovenia. It is said, that Slovenia was too small to be a country but too big to be a city. On the basis of the dense infrastructural networks, however, Slovenia could indeed be seen as a city.
Bevk: Ravnikar had already developed this idea.
Perović: Today with the construction of the motorways and the coming railway network expansion, one could go back to this vision.


Translation: [Y'plus] Graz - http://www.yplus.at

Lesen Sie auch ...

	to german version > Architektur heißt Verantwortung
	details on the project SLO}

Weiterführende Links ...

	to the collection of Slovenian buildings > nextroom - architektur im netz
	back to start