[The following content is provided by Package & Design]

 

As the design firm behind the iconic CCTV Headquarters, OMA is regarded as one of the most influential architectural practices globally. Established in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, in 1975 by renowned architect Rem Koolhaas and three partners, OMA has brought pioneering and innovative works to various parts of the world with its continuously challenging and boldly avant-garde design principles.

 

Currently, OMA has offices in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, China, and New York, the USA, managed by eight partners. With over 300 employees from more than 50 different countries, including architects, designers, CAD architects, model builders, industrial designers, and graphic designers, OMA’s scope of work ranges from landmark buildings to commercial complexes, from urban planning to furniture design, among other fields.

 

Looking at OMA’s architectural works, many people are impressed by its bold structural innovations: right-angled “cantilever”, irregular triangles, digitized “valley”, modular block structures, large-scale oblique-cut prism... OMA’s designs clearly refuse to conform to conventional architectural forms. Through in-depth research, critical thinking, avant-garde design concepts, and close collaboration with engineering professionals, they have created awe-inspiring architectural works one after another. OMA Partner, Chris van Duijn states, “Bold and challenging structures are indeed a defining quality in many of our projects and there is always a relationship with its function or context...Every project is obviously different, but a common thread that often comes across in our work is the overlapping of architecture and urbanism.”

 

Chris van Duijn graduated with a Master of Architecture from Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands in 1996, and has been working at OMA since then, becoming a partner in 2014. Over the years, Chris van Duijn has been involved in the design and implementation of various famous projects at OMA, including Prada flagship stores in New York and Los Angeles (2001), Prada Transformer in Seoul (2009), and the CCTV Headquarters in Beijing (2012). Since 2015, Chris van Duijn has been leading Hong Kong office, overseaing OMA’s operations in Asia. He has led teams to create projects such as the Genesis Gangnam Car Shops in Seoul (2018), Tencent Beijing Headquarters (2019), the extension of the UCCA Center for Contemporary Art in Beijing (2019), Galleria Department Store in Gwanggyo, Suwon, South Korea (2020), and Chengdu Future Science and Technology City Launch Area Masterplan, as well as ongoing projects such as the Xinhu Hangzhou Prism in Hangzhou’s Future Tech City, the Shenzhen CMG Times Center and Hongik University Seoul Campus, successfully propelling OMA’s development in the Asia-Pacific region.

 

Tencent Beijing Headquarters-Architectural Design（2019）Photo by Ossip van Duivenbode；Photo courtesy of OMA  

 

At the end of 2023, Chris van Duijn delivered a keynote speech titled “A Matter of Scale” at Business of Design Week (BODW) in Hong Kong. Seizing this opportunity, Package & Design conducted an exclusive interview with Chris van Duijn, head of OMA’s Hong Kong office. This issue shares the exclusive interview and selects some representative projects of OMA for our readers.

 

►Q: Package & Design      ►A: Chris van Duijn, partner of OMA

 

About OMA, OMA Asia, and Chris van Duijn

 

“A third significant phase in the development of OMA was when we had won the CCTV competition in 2002.”

 

Q: OMA was founded in 1975 in Rotterdam by Rem Koolhaas and three other designers. You joined OMA in 1996 when it had only 40 architects. — Could you share the story of how you joined OMA during that time?

 

A: I joined OMA in 1995 as an intern while studying at the Delft University of Technology, which is located close to Rotterdam. Like many other architects and students those days, what drew me to OMA was the radicality and freshness, which was reflected in all projects and the open design culture that Rem had created. The office had a flat structure and open communication across the entire team. He gathered a very international mix of creative architects and urban planners with big ambitions. Every project involved rigorous design processes, which is how the team delivered one provocative scheme after another. For an architecture student, it was the most exciting environment to participate in.

 

Q: Currently, OMA has three main design offices globally (Rotterdam, Hong Kong, and New York), eight partners, and over 300 employees. — In the past 50 years, what key milestones or projects represent the development and changes within OMA?

 

A: When I first started working here in 1996, OMA was a very different practice from what it is today. Back then, it was a single studio, an office without much organization, nor any support staff. The teams had to be self-reliant: team leaders were responsible for everything from the design, managing the project’s finances, to running a part of the studio. It was extremely chaotic and competitive, but it provided a highly creative and inspiring environment for passionate minds. It was also a crucial period in the OMA timeline, where we had just completed some of our first major projects - like the Kunsthal, the Educatorium, Euralille and Maison à Bordeaux, to name a few. It was a phase during which the office transformed from an academic office to an architectural firm, proving that its concepts could be realized.

 

In the period after, at the turn of the century, the office became more prominent, and was more successful in securing competitions and key projects. As we were growing rapidly, it was necessary for us to reorganize and restructure the business in order to handle more complex projects. The biggest milestones then happened between 2000 and 2005, when projects like the Seattle Public Library, the Dutch Embassy in Berlin, Casa da Musica in Porto, and the Prada Epicenter were built, and when we established the New York office.

 

Fondazione Prada - Architectura Renovation and Design （2008-2018） Photo by Bas Princen; Photo courtesy of Prada Foundation ；Photo Source:OMA  

 

A third significant phase in the development of OMA was when we had won the CCTV competition in 2002. It was a moment for the office to redefine our focus, and quickly led to the launch of our Beijing office. That was a time during which the scale of the office had doubled, and with that, also the scale of many of our projects.

 

“The practice operates on a collective ownership structure. Each of the eight partners has an equal stake in the company.”

 

Q: OMA currently has eight partners. — What are the roles and responsibilities of the current eight partners? It is said that “OMA offices are all on the same level. There’s not a head office and satellites.” Is this true?

 

A: The practice operates on a collective ownership structure, which sets us apart from our peers. Each of the eight partners has an equal stake in the company. Unlike most design offices that are centrally organized and headed by only one or two leaders, we are not a centralized office and we do not operate under a single “headquarters”. The ownership and operations are distributed across the three design offices in Rotterdam, New York and Hong Kong, overseen by the eight partners. Each office carries out their own business development, concept design, down to project and site administration.

 

But at the same time, we are not three independent offices. We have close relations not only in terms of management, but also in the way projects are carried out through the partnership. We take advantage of the skills and benefit from the exchange of knowledge across the offices. For example, although I’m not actively involved in the New York office, we have close relations and still stay informed about their projects.

 

This is an approach that allows each regional office to grow and work flexibly within their local contexts, but still have the advantage of a global network to exchange insight and market intelligence.

 

Q: In 2006, OMA worked on its first project in China — the CCTV Headquarters — and the Hong Kong office was established in 2009. You became a partner in OMA in 2014, responsible for OMA Hong Kong Office. — How many employees does OMA Hong Kong Office currently have? What disciplines and regions do team members mainly come from? What types of projects are currently undertaken?

 

A: We currently have around 40 staff in our Hong Kong office, forming a diverse talent mix that comprises skilled architects, designers, model makers and interns. Our colleagues are from over 10 different nationalities and cultural backgrounds to cultivate an environment where we can combine cross-cultural viewpoints to create multi-layered concepts.

 

Over the years, we have made a conscious move to expand across Asia. Our ongoing projects in China include the Hangzhou Prism, a mixed-use complex in the city’s new tech-driven CBD; CMG Times Center, a transit-oriented development in Shenzhen; and K11 ECOAST, a retail development in Shenzhen’s Prince Bay, and a new art museum project in Hangzhou. Since the completion of the Galleria department store in 2020, we have continued our presence in South Korea, working on various retail and cultural projects, including the expansion of the Hongik University Campus in Seoul. Our goal is to secure a broader reach across Asia in a range of typologies.

 

Xinhu Hangzhou Prism in Hangzhou’s Future Tech City-Architectural Design （2016-present, under construction）

 

Q: Could you share your personal impressions of Rem Koolhaas? How has Koolhaas influenced the culture of OMA?

 

A: Rem has had a big influence on me from the moment I joined the firm. Back then, it was a small team of around 40 people, but these were some of the best creative minds from around the world. He built an innovative culture around its people and gave us enormous freedom to develop concepts, rather than a single person dictating from the top down. The office was more like a laboratory, we were constantly producing ideas, models and mock-ups.

 

When talking about projects, Rem has always emphasized the word “we”. This left a significant impression in my mind from very early on, because it shows a belief in group dynamics, and acknowledges that every part of the team — from interns to partners — contributes to a project in a unique way. At the end of the day, we as partners are the ones who make the final decisions, but every design is a collective effort. This notion of collaboration filters through all parts of the company, inside and outside, and has always been the core of our DNA.

 

OMA’s Design Philosophy and Methods

 

“Every project is obviously different, but a common thread that often comes across in our work is the overlapping of architecture and urbanism.”

 

Q: “OMA’s architecture is not purely architecture, meaning we think in urban, in products design, and also in scenography and programming.” — What is OMA’s typical design process or approach for a new project?

 

A: We don’t define ourselves by a single approach or methodology, but our processes are fundamentally research-driven. Every new project is treated as a blank slate, in order to explore the greatest possibilities beyond just addressing the client’s requests. It is a very bottom-up approach, where the beginning often involves the laborious task of questioning and scrutinizing every aspect of the brief, the context, and the conditions. To define the project parameters, we would go through extensive research and design investigations to inform the basis of our scheme and formulate design options. Throughout these stages, we involve all members of the team, so it becomes a back-and-forth process where ideas are bounced around, given feedback, then further refined - that’s how the best concepts are usually developed.

 

Q: OMA’s projects are very diverse and wide-ranging. — Are there any defining characteristics or factors that distinguish OMA’s architecture from others?

 

A: Every project is obviously different, but a common thread that often comes across in our work is the overlapping of architecture and urbanism. Many of our architectural projects, whether they are commercial, retail or public buildings, incorporate urban components, while our urban planning projects are also highly architectural in their conception. This is manifested through physical spaces, such as creating an open area and injecting social activity, or engaging with the surrounding environment. For instance, in our Galleria project —a department store located in the suburbs outside of Seoul - we connected the retail mall with the city through a public loop that can be accessed from the pedestrian sidewalk. The loop offers views of the city’s landscape and echoes the experience of climbing up a mountain. It is a space where public visitors can roam freely; over time, it also becomes an asset that will drive traffic back to the mall.

 

Galleria Department Store in Gwanggyo, Suwon, South Korea （2016—2020）©： Hong Sung Jun, Photo courtesy of OMA

 

Another example is the Hangzhou Prism. The original brief asked for three standard towers for a burgeoning high-tech hub, but after a deeper understanding of the client’s vision, we proposed a more profound scheme that more aptly reflects the ideals and needs of their target demographic — young, creative entrepreneurs. By incorporating a series of indoor-outdoor social spaces, gardens and a public atrium, the design creates a new community for its users, while also inviting the public in. These kinds of strategies demonstrate a hybrid typology that fits well in the context of contemporary China, and it is also what OMA is recognized for.

 

Q: As an international architectural firm, OMA is often “asked to design innovative forms or reference visual styles seen by clients in Europe, the Middle East, etc. However, OMA has a strong interest in the local context of projects.” — How does OMA typically understand the local context of a project?

 

A: It all comes down to having a genuine interest in the place you are working in. In most cases, the profiles of our staff already allow us to have a good grasp of local conditions, but we also make an effort to spend a lot of time in the cities where our projects are based, to truly immerse in their local culture and understand the sensibilities of communities, so we are not relying on superficial references for our design. Close proximity to a project also means everyone can travel to the site, meet the client and local consultants. Having deeper connections on multiple levels enhances the project and the dynamics across all the working units.

 

A design should be embedded in its community, add value in a tangible, but also symbolic way. For the Hongik University Seoul Campus project, we were the only team in the competition that had invested a full week on site, studying its local culture, student life on campus, and public life in the surrounding district of Hongdae.

 

Hongik University Seoul Campus-Architectural Design（2023-present, under construction） ©：Negativ，Photo courtesy of OMA  

 

OMA’s Innovations

 

“Bold and challenging structures are indeed a defining quality in many of our projects and there is always a relationship with its function or context.”

 

Q: OMA has showcased bold structural innovations in various projects worldwide. For example, the triangles in Nhow Amsterdam RAI Hotel, the terraced floors of Axel Springer, the interlocking blocks of Interlace in Singapore. In China, the CCTV headquarters features a 75-meter cantilever, the podium of the Shenzhen Stock Exchange is floating 36m above the ground, and the Hangzhou Prism exhibits an inclined cut facet. — Are these innovations primarily driven by functional considerations or aesthetic innovation? What engineering challenges do these innovations pose?

 

A: Bold and challenging structures are indeed a defining quality in many of our projects and there is always a relationship with its function or context. The innovations are possible due to the relationships we have built with our engineering partners and collaborators over the years.

 

In the Axel Springer project, for instance, the geometric facade was developed to reduce the amount of steel necessary to span the 34-meter length of the atrium facade, and to maximize exposure of the atrium space behind it. The sculptural atrium facade also provides a perfect contrast to the black glass exterior and represents the duality between the experimental office space and the traditional German workspace. This required every party working on the project — the facade consultants, structural engineers, sustainability partners and more — to join forces and collaborate as a collective unit to tackle technical and design issues. The project came together seamlessly in the end: instead of traditional columns, the facade became a part of the structure that can stand on its own; its performance in terms of acoustics and sunlight control also exceeded all expectations.

 

Axel Springer Compus-Architectural Design （2013-2020） Photo by Laurian Ghinitoiu；Photo courtesy of OMA 

 

Q: Traditionally, the field of architecture has seen limited innovation. However, OMA has always sought to bring in some of the technologies and findings in other industries into the architectural projects. — Could you please give us some examples of how OMA realizes innovation?

 

A: In our project we like to challenge conventions about the way buildings are being constructed, the way they operate, the materiality, or the way they are perceived. We see little value in building solutions which already exist, yet the innovations we propose should also have purpose, and bring additional value or functionality to the projects. This can be done through transformations, like in the Prada Transformer, where we designed a building that can transform four times by rotation, or in the way a building is used, such as the Taipei Performing Arts Center, where three theater spaces can function individually, or be combined to make one mega-sized theater.

 

Another domain in which we have been developing innovative solutions is the development of materials. In the 1990s, our office began to expand on our material palette, where we experimented with the use of less conventional materials in the construction of architectural spaces. Some key successes in material research include the Maison à Bordeaux, which houses a library constructed entire out of glass and resin without a single metal joint. These glass panels gave a unique translucent quality and seem to float in the space. In the early 2000s, our team developed the “Prada Sponge”, a bespoke 3D substance that had a bubble-like textural appearance, developed exclusively for the fashion brand. More recently, we worked on the extension of the UCCA in Beijing, where we created a unique curvilinear glass facade, by embracing the inconsistencies and imperfections in a series of glass sheets.

 

UCCA Center for Contemporary Art -Architectural Design （2017） Photo by Bian Jie； Photo courtesy of OMA  

 

About AMO

 

“Apart from allowing us to enter into markets beyond the traditional architectural realm,

AMO gives us a platform to initiate our own projects based on general interests or observations.”

 

Q: Apart from architectural project practice, OMA has the AMO research and design studio, which applies architectural thinking to domains beyond. — Could you provide examples of how AMO applies architectural thinking to domains beyond?

 

A: The way we work as architects at OMA — creating a good understanding of the matter by observation and research; defining the potential of a project through critical thinking, and using it to form the basis for new ideas — applies to many industries beyond architecture. This has helped us in developing new designs, but we also apply this thinking to other stand-alone projects.

 

The difference between an AMO project and an OMA project is that the former does not necessarily encompass a physical component. It can be applied to content generation - for instance for an exhibition or a publication - for the development of a vision for sustainable energy in Europe, or for a curatorial project. OMA and AMO function as two labels within one office. Apart from allowing us to enter into markets beyond the traditional architectural realm, it gives us a platform to initiate our own projects based on general interests or observations. And sometimes, this turns out to be interesting enough to develop into an architecture project.

 

“The Hospital of the Future” is a research project we initiated internally. The project explored the implications on healthcare for an aging society, and how we can envision the future of medical services through design. Another topic we have explored relates to international energy issues, where we focused on energy transition policies between countries in Europe and North Africa. The research proposes a masterplan for the North Sea, mapping out an infrastructure for renewable energy that engages surrounding countries. One of OMA’s largest exhibitions in recent times is “Countryside”, which is based on ongoing research that looks at the impact and potential rural regions have on development. For these kinds of studies, our aim is that the findings could become the foundation for future planning or government policy making.

 

OMA in China

 

“We were more interested in diversifying and looking beyond the usual typologies.

We went into areas like Xiamen, Hangzhou and Nanjing — second-tier cities

where innovation industries were just starting to emerge.”

 

Xiamen JOMOO Innovation Center China-Architectural Design Photo by Xia Zhi；Photos courtesy of OMA   

 

Q: OMA has projects in various cities in China, including Beijing, Shenzhen, Hong Kong, Taipei, Chengdu, Hangzhou, etc. — How do projects in multiple Chinese cities differ from OMA’s projects in Europe?

 

A: When I became more involved in Asia in 2015, I understood that there is a very different mindset here. Ambitions are high with every new development in China. No matter the scale of the project, there is a persistent push to drive innovation and change through design. It is a highly competitive landscape between architects, but also for developers and commercial operators, who are in constant competition to introduce innovative concepts. This reflects a vastly different attitude and explains why Chinese developments can happen at such incredible pace. The stakes are also much higher.

 

In Europe, and the US, where urbanization and population growth have mostly plateaued, there is less of that urgency. Projects are more process-driven and developments are oriented towards risk mitigation. It is typical for building projects to take up to 10 or 12 years to complete. I was much more interested in working at faster speeds, which is why projects in China appealed to me. Although in some cases, there may still be room for improvement in terms of sustainability and construction standards in China, the energy and a collective drive to create something interesting far overweighs the industry shortcomings.

 

Q: The CCTV headquarters completed in 2012 can be considered an early representation of OMA’s work in China. The two inclined towers combined with a 75-meter perpendicular cantilever pose significant challenges. — Were you involved in this project at the time? Over a decade later, how do you perceive the changes in the architectural environment in China?

 

A: Working on the CCTV project was as a once in a lifetime experience. The project could only have been built in that space and time because of what was happening in China. China was transforming rapidly and the horizon was the 2008 Olympic Games. It was a very intensive project where we worked in a team of 60 people from our Rotterdam office, and in the space of just nine months, we had to develop a schematic design and design development. The project also challenged the building industry as the structural proposal defied all conventions at that time and special expert panels had to be initiated to make this project possible.

 

After the CCTV was completed in 2012, the architecture scene in China began to change. Attention was slowly shifting away from the first-tier cities, and it led us to reconsider our strategy here. At a time when international practices were still focused on building iconic architecture, landmark buildings and commercial towers, we were more interested in diversifying and looking beyond the usual typologies. We went into areas like Xiamen, Hangzhou and Nanjing — second-tier cities where innovation industries were just starting to emerge.

 

CCTV Headquarters-Architectural Design（2002—2012）©： OMA/Philippe Ruault

 

As we began to navigate China through a new lens, we — as an Asian office — also started to present ourselves differently. Our aim was to play at the same level as other Chinese architectural offices. This meant being more conscious of the work we pursue and being more respectful to the way of working here. All of those changes happened around 2015 - 2016 and it’s interesting to now see that the projects initiated during that period are finally coming to fruition.

 

Q: You made a speech on the topic of “A Matter of Scale” at BODW 2023. We know OMA is involved not only in architectural design but also in urban planning. — In your opinion, what opportunities are there in China for large-scale urban planning?

 

A: As we know, the Chinese urbanization model is extremely efficient. It is based on coordinated efforts on various levels of the government and parameters are defined on a very high level. The masterplans are designed to anticipate future conditions which may still be 20-30 years ahead. However, the Chinese model is focused on the quantitative aspect of urban planning. In terms of the qualities of the cities, most of these projects are very similar. Many parts of these masterplans are monofunctional and repetitive, and they rarely consider the cultural dimension of a place.

 

What we find interesting in these projects is that the planning tools on a large scale can potentially create significant impact on the development of future cities. China has the potential to become a global benchmark for sustainable urbanization if the urban planning isn’t solely based on car mobility and quantities in real estate. These models also need to be more sensitive towards local contexts, consider issues of mobility, and the expectations of future generations.