This text is a continuation of discussions and thoughts shared with others, in other groups and forums. Thoughts on how changing the way we work together might change the kind of material and cultural architecture we produce. Knowing increasingly more about climate change, social architecture, human scale, democratic design, non-human actors, and so on and so forth, one would imagine a more radical architectural shift than what reality currently presents. And while existing in a space between education and professional life, it becomes more apparent how challenging it is to connect the two, unless one is willing to accept precarious working conditions.

We wonder if a collective form might provide an empowering framework for this space between and use this opportunity to invite other architecture-related individuals interested in collective organisation to consider this path seriously. Through researching for this contribution, we have found different examples of collective organisation within the architecture profession, as well as thorough handbooks on how to start any kind of collective organisation in Denmark, specifically. Using this research, we will make a case for why one should at all form an architecture collective; the possible pitfalls and disadvantages; and an example of how we might start an architecture collective here in Denmark.

SITUATING THE COOPERATIVE

Before expanding on case studies that have inspired us from within our own field of work, we will introduce a brief account of the history of andelstanken in Denmark – the cultural context we speculate if we can tap into with an architecture collective.

In 1844 a group of workers in the British city Rochdale met and formulated a few principles for how their newly established cooperative could be beneficial for both the members, the co-operative and for the surrounding community. One of the cornerstones of what later would be referred to as the seven co-operative principles, was that the co-operative should be owned by its members and any surplus should be distributed amongst them. The co-operative should be led democratically, and the members were to be offered training and education along the way. This formed the basis for how co-operatives around the world continue to operate. Common for the co-operative movement that evolved since then, is that all members have the same democratic influence, no matter how big a share. The principle goes, one head, one vote.

Workers in Copenhagen who heard of Rochdale made several attempts to do the same and in 1866 the first co-operative (indkøbsforening) started in Thisted. This event was an important milestone in the development of the Danish co-operative movement (andelsbevægelsen), which has a strong history and originally emerged in rural communities. The co-operative idea was widely used in farming and the industrial development of the agricultural industry; especially dairy farms and slaughterhouses were organised as co-ops. In the 50s, in urban settings such as Copenhagen, bakeries, dairies, breweries and housing were owned as co-ops. This grew out of a strong workers movement, where co-ops were an integrated part of a Copenhagen worker’s everyday life. Many bigger Danish companies stem from the co-operative movement – such as Arla and Coop, and the Danish housing market still has several models of co-housing (almene boliger and andelsboliger). Also, as we read in the book Kooperativ Håndbog (Cooperative handbook) by Helena Reumert Gjerding and Jacob Rønnoe Rask, there seems to be momentum for a new wave of andelsbevægelsen. The book showcases several examples of co-ops – as producer-owned, user-owned and member-owned – both in rural and urban settings and serves as a handbook and source of inspiration.

We are curious about the possibility of this new wave, and how an architecture collective could tap into it; if a collective form of working has to be organised as a co-operative; and where the difference lies. Is forming a collective a starting point, where individuals find each other and define a group, evolving into a co-op from there? Or are the two words – collective and co-operative – actually the same thing when we talk about it?

WHY AN ARCHITECTURE COLLECTIVE?

Defining a collective seems to defy the very nature of it, as part of its appeal lies in the specificity of its application. It’s an organisational form that grows out of its members and changes with them. As a member of Assemble Studio said in a conversation we had, “there’s no wrong way of doing it. It’s experimenting and seeing what works as people have different interests, that develops the way that projects go, and people move, and how the collective sees itself.”

In that sense, a collective is a form of self-organisation. A flat structure where, as in a co-op, there is a strategy of one head, one vote. In a collective, this flat structure also extends to suggestions for how to work and what to work with; that is to say, influencing the general direction of the group. Although this isn’t much different from a traditional architecture firm with a large number of partners, our research into collective structures shows examples of a lower threshold to becoming a partner: In two cases, a two-year involvement in the firm is enough to become a partner, whose only difference to an employee involves voting on the bigger picture-decisions for the group.

A clear advantage of this is the sense of shared ownership and responsibility between the people working together in the collective. Another is the open channel for knowledge and idea exchange between newer as well as older members, allowing for the possibility of any suggestions to be brought forward and evaluated for the potential benefit of everyone. And yet another is the freedom that can come with a more flexible structure, which is especially valuable in our current time where new knowledge is generated every day, our climate is noticeably changing by the season, and so are our political systems and economies.

Once again using Assemble Studio as a case study, there is evidence of an incredibly diverse range of architecture that could come out of such a living structure. Assemble’s projects range from building designs, pop-up event spaces, ceramics manufacturing, workshops, teaching, exhibitions, adventure playgrounds, strategic planning and research, restoration, gardens…and the list goes on. Their aesthetic cohesion is not exactly obvious, if one scrolls through the Projects page on their website. Yet despite not sticking to an aesthetic or typological identity, they are known and followed by many, partly because of their holistic approach to projects, which we believe is influenced by the multiplicity of their members’ interests.

In addition to the creative and motivational elements of collective organisation, there’s the relevance of collectives for precarious workers, which a significant percentage of young architects unfortunately are. Collective organisation is a way of pooling resources: economic, as well as intellectual, skill sets, experiences, contacts, portfolios of work. It’s a way to gather a louder voice with which to challenge the status-quo. Collective organisation recognises that the most valuable investment we can make is in each other.

In addition to a high degree of freedom, you can lift larger and more complex tasks when lifting in a group...Alone, it can be tough on the market, and you are constantly in competition with others. It pushes prices down and you have a hard time building up your income. By organising together as a collective, you can speak with a united voice. That way you get both the good sides of freelance life and the good sides of being organised - you get your paycheck, a community and a Christmas lunch…When companies are established on rationales and logics other than those that create precarization, it becomes a serious response and alternative.

Frederik Pedersen, Magasinet Flexwerker

HOW COULD IT BE DONE?

While researching for this publication, we have been in contact with architecture and building-related studios Assemble Studio and Egen Vinding og Datter, as well as architect Flemming Andersen who is and has been on the board of several architecture studios and organisations in Denmark and Sweden. In addition to these interviews, we have drawn inspiration and information from Kooperativ Håndbog and Magasinet Flexwerker, both of which serve as knowledge sharing platforms for alternative organisational structures and ways of working. Drawing from our readings and conversations, we propose one way an architecture collective could be done here in Denmark. But once again, it should be said that we are convinced that one of the strengths of collective organisation is the specificity of its application, meaning there is no one-size-fits-all recipe. This is probably also why we see so few of them.

Our proposals are outlined under the following subheadings: Membership, Legal-framework, Economy, Decision-making, and Projects.

Membership: Whoever commits to starting the collective is a partner, if they wish to be. If the collective starts to employ people, they have the opportunity to become a partner after 2 years of working in the collective. The transition to become a partner doesn’t involve any kind of buying into a membership or a share, it is more like becoming a member of an association. The only thing it fundamentally changes is the right to vote at Quarterly Management Meetings, which cover the general direction and strategy of the collective, as well as the responsibility of being a buddy for projects (will be further explained under Projects). If a partner decides to leave the collective, they no longer have voting rights but may still attend Quarterly Management Meetings and may still use the work of the collective, produced during their time in the collective, in their portfolio. Partners may also decide to become less actively involved in the collective without leaving, a kind of sleeping member, or take more ownership of a potential spinoff of the collective, which would retain their rights as partners, unless decided otherwise at a Quarterly Management Meeting. Remaining a part of the collective, sleeping or active, involves contributing your portfolio of work and CV to the collective resource, in the case of an application for example.

Legal framework: Ideally the collective would be established as an a.m.b.a. (cooperative with limited liability), or an association. According to Magasinet Flexwerker, Denmark doesn’t have any official legislation for cooperatives, but does have several “favourable legislations” for associations. An a.m.b.a. doesn’t require any startup capital and must not make any money for anyone other than the owners, who in this case are also the employees.

By establishing an a.m.b.a. – which is just one of several ways of establishing oneself as a cooperative – one can, as a member and co-owner, maintain status as an employee and thus retain the right to unemployment benefits. Instead of trying to make ends meet as freelancers individually, you gather under one CVR number. Together, you can then bid on tasks for companies without investing much other than time.

Kollektivet Flexwerker, Magasinet Flexwerker

When speaking with Flemming Andersen however, he raised the issue of insurance, specifically for architecture firms. He claims never to have come across an architecture firm registered as an a.m.b.a., and speculates that the reason is that insurance companies are unwilling to cover a consultancy firm under this model. His advice was rather to register as an ApS (a limited liability company), which can still have as many owners as one wants and could still organise as a collective in practice. The disadvantage of an ApS is that it requires 40.000 Danish kroner in start-up capital, making it less suitable for a group of young graduates. The legal framework of the collective is in other words unsettled and requires more consultation depending on the type of work the group decides to focus on. Another possibility is to start as one model and branch off into another model, should a different insurance or direction be required at some future stage.

Economy: All partners are paid the same hourly wage with a maximum of 40 hours a week. This is to reduce over-time as well as to restrict the potential imbalance in feelings of ownership, should one partner be willing to invest more hours than another. Everyone has the same hourly wage; however, this can be taken up again at Quarterly Management Meetings if necessary. All salaries are transparent.

We need an economist in our collective. Someone who has a confident overview of the economy and can create a resource plan to calculate the amount of time and resources needed to complete a specific project. This person will be in charge of making sure that the economy is sound. Individual partners will however still be responsible for having an overview of the economy in whatever project they are leading.

We would charge different rates for different types of projects, to make it possible for us to work on projects we are interested in, but with clients who might not be able to afford architects. For example, a lower rate if working with a community project, schools, education, and a higher rate for a more commercial architecture project.

Overlapping with Projects, we have discussed the opportunity of collectively investing in something that could provide use-value, as well as a more stable source of income – to be more creative about how to set up a resilient and sustainable firm. This could for example be a publicly available printing facility, a cafe/canteen, or a building where we could host renovation and building workshops, rent out workshop spaces and house our own studio space. This will probably be easier to achieve in a smaller, more rural municipality than Copenhagen, but with easy access to the city.

Decision-making: The collective would have a Quarterly Management Meeting, four times a year, to vote on new decisions for the group. Partners have voting rights for bigger-picture topics, such as new ways of working or changes in salaries, and so on, whereas employees don’t. There are also weekly meetings, for the more day-to-day practicalities and project-based decisions, where things can be taken up to vote on in the Quarterly Management Meeting. In the weeks leading up to each Management Meeting, proposals and topics should be sent out to everyone for conversations to be had prior to the meeting. The meeting itself is mostly just for voting.

When it comes to decision-making about individual projects, it is up to the partner in charge of that specific project. This will be elaborated on under Projects. If disagreements or challenges arise, they should be brought to the weekly meetings and ultimately to the Quarterly Management Meeting.

Projects: We adopt the buddy system of Assemble Studio, which is based on the rule that if the collective has enough resources to take on a project, at least two people should be interested in carrying it through in order for it to be picked up. At least one of the two should be a partner who is responsible for the project and its finances. More members of the collective can be requested to help out with the project throughout its development, but it’s that partner’s responsibility to retain the project and make it happen. However, individual people are not publicly assigned credit to a specific project – every project exists under the name of the collective. As a member of the collective you can divide your 40 hours a week freely between projects.

We also adopt charrettes from Assemble Studio, very reminiscent of informal tutorials at an architecture school. One morning a week, that could be Wednesday, is kept free in everyone’s calendars. These four hours are dedicated to collaborative working. If one needs help, advice or feedback on a project, this is the time to receive it. If one is interested in finding out about what the others are doing, this is the time to share information. Charrettes can happen in smaller groups with specific people and doesn’t necessarily involve everyone at once.

THE PITFALLS

It should be acknowledged that there is a risk of over romanticising the idea of a collective as being the answer to all our professional and personal problems. The reasons why we don’t see many examples of architecture collectives, might not only be because of their non-standardised set up, but also because there are some challenges and disadvantages to this form of organisation to be aware of.

Lack of collective direction or spark: Especially when starting a new group, a collective direction or motivation is essential. The desire to form a collective together, to work together in a new form, is realistically not enough to sustain a group. Without a defined project or goal, the collective motivation is likely to fizzle out before it is properly tested.

Invisible hierarchies:Invisible hierarchies are a difficult challenge to meet, especially as the idea of intellectual property and the bond between a project and one’s professional identity, is deeply ingrained in architecture education and practice. As human beings we also have a tendency to look towards a leader, which might just be someone who has spent more time doing a specific task, knows more people personally, or has more experience within a specific area. This is something that must be addressed in the very beginning of the collective organisation. Ideally with practices set in place to ensure that everyone is heard when it comes to meetings and decision making.

I am involved as a mentor in quite an interesting case at the moment, with a newly started architecture firm. There are four people who want to set up a model where they are all owners. They do it as an ApS. They are in the process of finding out whether the future employees also should become owners, and in that case then how. Without going into details, they have different opinions on how to do it and have discussed it for months. For example – should there be a ”buffer time”, where you work for two years before you get offered a part of the company? And how does one deal with invisible hierarchies – should the four persons that started it be ”co-founders” and have a special status in the ”flat-hierarchy” structure? The fact that the four know each other and started the firm also raises questions of informal decision making and how friendship and relations can affect different power dynamics at a workplace. It is super interesting to follow their process, but I must admit that it doesn't seem to be an easy one!

Flemming Andersen in interview with Beata Hemer

Size limitations: Flat hierarchies and democratic decision making can have its size limitations, unless there is a clearly defined framework for how to discuss and strategise. Without such a framework decision making will be rather inefficient, and the risk of miscommunication and misunderstanding increases.

Social pressures: The risk of working too much, of never leaving the mental drawing-table, is imminent without someone - a boss - to tell you the workday is over. If we share the responsibility of an architectural collective, there is a risk of social pressure and invisible demands; a kind of bad conscience, something that can best be described as a growing competitiveness. This culture is very recognisable at most architecture schools – one could even say it’s ingrained in an architect’s education. It therefore has to be dissected and looked at critically when we gather and form architectural collectives. Ideally, a sound working environment and work-life-balance are two things a collective organisation could foster.

AN INVITATION TO CONTINUE

This article is the start of putting more precise words on what we consider, when we use the term collective. It should be reiterated that these suggestions are only one of many ways of starting or thinking about a collective. As we already speculated on, this might be one of the reasons why there are fewer collectively owned firms: because there is no clear overview of what to do and how to do it. After our research, we still stand unsure about what model to pursue; such a decision can and will only be made once we assemble as a group, get a feel of our very specific internal dynamics, interests and needs. Who knows – mismatches might even lead to multiple collective outcomes with structural differences.

That said, the undefined nature of a collective isn’t the only reason why there aren’t more of them. We wonder if it also has something to do with Denmark’s, and more specifically Copenhagen’s, professional environment. The lack of collectives in Copenhagen might reflect a kind of stagnation, in terms of thinking creatively about the way we work and the kind of architecture we engage in. Where are the smaller, alternative projects that can be pursued by younger, smaller firms? Why is it so difficult to get a foot in the door in the professional market, unless you know someone personally? Is moving out of the capital city and creating alternatives elsewhere the most effective way to stimulate flux? Is it the only affordable way of getting access to the tools we need to go against the grain?

Yes, we wrote that it is easy to over-romanticise the idea of a collective. However, this doesn’t change the fact that there’s a gap in the architecture profession in Denmark and that a collective holds the potential of being a serious alternative. It not only offers a different ownership model (in terms of both legal/economic ownership, as well as intellectual), but also addresses the precarious system facing many newly graduated architects. It presents the qualities of banding together in order to pursue our various interests, making use of our diverse experiences and skills, and to be generous with sharing. It encourages us to look beyond the architecture clique and think more transdisciplinary. It invites us to imagine and build communities we want to work in and have that be a legitimate driver for our work.

Admittedly, it might sound ideological and naive, but at the same time, not unrealistic to pursue, for those who are interested - and now, young architects, is the time to pursue it, while those dreams are still ripe and we have very little to lose. A good start is to just gather and talk. That’s what we’ll be doing this fall, to try to put these ideas into practice. We hope more of you will do the same – and that we might read about your further developments on the collective idea in a future local publication.

OUR SOURCES FOR KNOWLEDGE AND INSPIRATION

Assemble Studio: Define themselves as a multi-disciplinary collective working across architecture, design and art. Active since 2010, they have since then grown into an internationally recognised studio capable of financially supporting its 22 studio members. We’re inspired by their transdisciplinary and holistic approach to architecture that often includes economic strategies and ownership models, in addition to spatial design.

Egen Vinding & Datter: A Danish carpentry firm focusing on ecological and sustainable materials and techniques. It was started in 1980 and is owned by a fund. It is not as such a cooperative but has a strong ‘collective spirit’ and works with democratic tools amongst the employees.

Flemming Andersen: An architect with a long career in consultancy. He is on the board of several architecture firms, in Denmark and in Sweden, and has worked as a mentor for architects starting up new firms. We contacted him, as we thought his insider experience, where he sees both pros and cons of different organisational models, could offer a valuable and balanced perspective to our search for architecture collectives.

Kooperativ Håndbog: As the title suggests, a practical handbook for starting a co-operative. It includes case studies as examples of tools one can use and the lessons these specific co-operatives have learned. The self-proclaimed aim of the authors is to support community entrepreneurship and strengthen the emergence of a new co-operative movement in Denmark.

Kooperativet Flexwerker: An a.m.b.a., co-operative bureau, which through workshops and consultancy deals with questions of how to organise and work within an increasingly precarious and flexible labour market. It ismade up of five women with backgrounds in creative fields and the humanities, based in Copenhagen. We have chosen to include them since they have a broad understanding and experience of cooperative models from other professions.

–

Ariana Zilliacus is a recent graduate from one of the Institute of Architecture and Culture’s master programme, Political Architecture: Critical Sustainability.