The OBEL Award theme of the ‘Ready Made’ is amply met by the winners HouseEurope!, which pushes for change EU policy in favour of adaptive reuse. Architect Xu Tiantian and curator Aric Chen share their insights from the Award’s selection and jury process, in conversation with Alina Kolar from HouseEurope! and collaborators from Pavillon de l’Arsenal.

HouseEurope! calls for a Right to Reuse for existing buildings is currently open. If the initiative collects 1 million votes by January 31, 2026, the European Commission is committed to initiate the discussion at the highest political level and bring legislation that makes sustainable construction and renovation the new norm across Europe. You can vote online at this link.

FEDERICA ZAMBELETTI / KOOZFirstly, thank you for sharing your time — it's truly impressive that we’ve managed to come together to discuss this year’s OBEL Award. My first question is directed towards Tiantian Xu and Aric Chen as members of the OBEL jury. This year, the theme of the award was ‘ready-made’. Could you share a bit about the proposals that you evaluated, and the multitude of perspectives through which designers are grappling with what already exists?

ARIC CHENThank you. What was really fantastic about the idea of the ready-made was that — as in previous years with the OBEL Award — we try to encourage different ways of thinking about and looking at architecture, but also architectural practice. With ‘ready-made’, the idea was fundamentally to explore that which is already existing, and looking beyond the impulse to which we are so habituated: to constantly search for the new. But the ways in which we seek that newness can often move us away from seeing what's already there, in front of us, just under our noses. This theme was great because it allowed for a lot of openness, a broad range of interpretations of what the ready made is, and what counts as existing. So we had a whole range of proposals gathered by our scouts around the world; projects that really stretched the theme — ranging from ready-made or existing knowledge to rethinking materials and materiality, to actually repurposing buildings, which is maybe the most sort of direct and literal interpretation of ready made. The interpretation that HouseEurope! proposed actually resonated most strongly throughout the jury process.

KOOZYou mentioned the availability of different sorts of knowledge, relating to both the material and immaterial. On the one hand, there is this idea of adaptive reuse of extant buildings. But how do we build upon existing knowledge — can you expand on some of the interpretations and even the geographies that you considered?

ACWith the OBEL Award, we try to cast a really wide net and we are very fortunate to have nominations from all over the world. We did have quite a few great examples of adaptive reuse, which is something that I think we're quite familiar with in many parts of the world — but also from areas in which you're dealing with different conditions, circumstances and histories. What has been called vernacular or traditional knowledge is in fact, contemporary knowledge, right? We think of things like earthen structures — rammed earth and so on — as being almost a novel rediscovery or an appraisal of knowledge that has been lost. But of course, that's not the case. This knowledge has been there and is still practiced. They are in some ways the most sensible and feasible sources of knowledge for the built environment. To be able to celebrate that, and also see how that's applicable to parts of the world that maybe have lost contact with certain ways of doing this, is a really valuable thing.

There are also other kinds of knowledge — for instance, more-than-human perspectives. These would decentre humans and give more acknowledgement to the needs and agencies of the non-human beings with which we share the planet. These are existing knowledges as well — how to incorporate that into architecture? There were examples of what might be called multi-species regenerative design, that we had in the mix. There’s also a growing awareness of complexity — for instance, the complexities around the term sustainability. Sustainability is not a linear exercise; rather, there are all sorts of questions around embedded, embodied carbon and so on that really require us to think beyond this mode of linear problems and solutions, towards navigating these complexities and the interconnectedness of causes and effects.

KOOZYou both talked about available resources. Somehow HouseEurope! ties all of this together — for instance, the fact that it is an initiative which, as a European endeavour, builds on local knowledge. If that should pass as a proposal for a legislation, the way that it might then be applied globally is really interesting. What made HouseEurope stand out from all of the other worthy proposals, and how might it reflect the idea that the OBEL award seems to go beyond the building itself?

XTI will add something to what Aric was saying about local resources. I think the ready-made theme asked architects to rediscover local resources — not just existing structures, but also local knowledge, which is intangible cultural heritage. In every place, you have a local solution or vernacular building technique. For example, you use rammed earth or timber in mountain areas, while fishermen use oyster shells for construction along the shore. Every piece of local knowledge reveals how people utilise their available resources while staying in balance with nature and the ecosystem — and it's also more economical. The ready-made nature of local resources and local knowledge offers strategies that are both economical and ecological, while also engaging local communities and neighbourhoods. So I think the approach we’re talking about is not about advocating one material or one method around the world.

Going back to HouseEurope! and their initiative — this is real action to me. Maybe some people wouldn’t see it as creating a building or a project, but this is social architecture. It’s an initiative coming from architects, attempting to bring their thinking into legislation — it turns architectural thinking around. We are not a profession bound only to receive commissions to design buildings; rather, we have the capacity to work the other way around — we can create initiatives. Hidden within the prompt of the ready-made is what architects are discovering: by investigating local resources, they are already acting on the implications. HouseEurope!’s proposal takes this a step further — or many steps further — by engaging the profession in policymaking on a larger social and political scale.

When the jury team began its discussions on the ready-made this year, we didn’t have anything like that in mind. There was much discussion around what makes a seminal architectural project. But in the end, HouseEurope!’s proposal also reshaped the jury’s thinking. It really opens up the vision — that we are not limited to one project or another, celebrating one building after another. It shows that architectural thinking can be much broader and, in a way, more active in engaging with the current sociopolitical framework.

XTWe all know the typical way of describing an architectural work, right? It’s often ascribed to this or that architect — it’s more about individuality. Through a project like HouseEurope!, you realise that there is a collective conscience within the profession. The HouseEurope! initiative is a collective action, formed through a community of architects. By selecting HouseEurope! and giving it recognition, promotion, and also the prize money to support it, the OBEL Award becomes part of the action — it participates as a practitioner or collaborator. This makes it a collective effort in the architectural field — not just by architects, but also by curators, cultural institutions, and awards, all acting together. It’s a different way of seeing, reading, and recognising architectural practice.

This goes back to my first statement: it’s about both tangible buildings and intangible social resources. I think the action of HouseEurope! reconnects all these intangible social resources, with the hope of working and acting together.

KOOZ You've both raised questions of impact, pushing that beyond the building to the design of infrastructures and systems that transcend single authorships — really, to this idea of designing law. Yet as architects, we're rarely trained in thinking of the power of design beyond the single artefact. What is the role that awards can play in kind of shifting these attitudes, from designing buildings to the design of social infrastructures? What power does the awarding of an initiative or legislative proposal hold within the architectural discourse?

AC In some ways, the answer lies in Tiantian’s response. We all know that awards can raise visibility. They can focus attention and maybe contribute towards driving certain agendas or discourses. But when Tiantian said that in awarding the OBEL Award to HouseEurope!, the award became a collaborator, or even co-creator, in some sense — that was really important to us. We saw that HouseEurope! was already doing quite a bit; they are at the cusp of moving into the next gear. There is a chance that the award — in particular and to be very blunt, the cash prize — could provide a meaningful boost in moving the initiative forward. In that sense, I think awards can be incredibly useful as funders.

XT Of course, not all awards have prize money. But awards definitely generate a spotlight towards the recipient, the award winner. They do raise recognition, promotion, publicity towards the project or recipient. This is already a very positive thing. The OBEL Award has a social responsibility to raise awareness through the jury’s discussion and decision. With HouseEurope!, there's a sense of social urgency running through the practitioners already, through the architecture profession as a collective entity — which in the end, I found reassuring. So there's a value delivered through this process of recognising HouseEurope! as the winner this year — and yes, on top of that, the prize money will also help. All the members of the OBEL Award were very happy about this idea, that the award money could support the action as well.

KOOZ In a broader conversation hosted by OBEL on the nature of awards, there was a point raised about how awards could support projects in the long term. For HouseEurope!, collecting one million signatures by February would mark the start of a much bigger endeavour — which Alina can tell us about momentarily. But how might awards be conceived to endure through time and not just be about that singular endowment?

AC Yeah, there's no one answer to this; every situation is different, but what is important is a sense of commitment. With the OBEL Award, it's not just about handing out accolades, but really developing relationships and networks of support — whether the winners like it or not! Once someone gets an OBEL, they are part of the family and I think the award is really quite good at keeping people connected, keeping discussions going, and being supportive where support is needed or desired. Other awards do this in different ways; some awards want to create online knowledge platforms; others are more informal, where it’s more about networks keeping in touch, showing up and supporting each other.

XT Speaking from the jury's perspective, I think the selection process is very rigorous for the OBEL Award; there’s really an extensive amount of work for jury members and we definitely feel the pressure every year. Then too, the selection is never easy — as Aric knows, there are always struggles! The OBEL team also has a lot of work to do, gathering shortlisted projects, travelling to see them. Even as an architect, it’s a lot — sometimes it feels like more work than making a building, with a lot more uncertainty too. But architectural thinking and practice is not just about making buildings anymore. As per the OBEL Awards over the past years, and as we can also see in the actions of HouseEurope!, it's about building up social architectures. Especially for practicing architects, it is quite an experience to have to challenge conventional definitions of architecture: are we only focused on making one building after another, or is there room for more intellectual thinking from the architectural perspective? In this sense, HouseEurope! is definitely a demonstration of what more architects can do.

AC The OBEL Award was set up initially to award one completed, finished, built project. Over the years, we've awarded a new form of concrete; we've awarded an activist, policy-oriented initiative; last year, even though there were buildings involved, we were actually awarding a whole constellation of projects, rather than a specific building. This has been a recurring question within the jury: can we go back to simply recognising a building? We keep trying to do just that, but then we find ourselves naturally moving away from it. Maybe it goes back to what both Tiantian and I were saying earlier, which is that there are so many great buildings out there now, and we have greater access to knowing about them than ever before, through the internet or social media or whatever. So it becomes not only difficult, but perhaps even impossible, to choose one project. To choose one project is to really ask a lot of one building, at a time when there are so many great examples of interesting, meaningful projects underway. That leads back to the question of what is holding us back? Again, it's not the lack of good projects, great ideas and wonderful talent. It's the broader, systemic, structural, even cultural or cognitive questions around our world views, and how we assign value. And that really leads us back to HouseEurope!, once again.

KOOZI’d love to hear from Alina, as one of the members behind the HouseEurope! initiative. Could you explain the value of applying design intelligence to a legislative proposal. What does that entail? What are the difficulties and opportunities?

ALINA KOLARYou’ve all said so much that resonates with and echoes the points I would make. What I really appreciate is your understanding of this systemic restructuring, I guess, that runs through the entire project. Speaking of the ready-made — or the already-existing — you brought in knowledge, while I was thinking more about systems.

For HouseEurope! it's a way of working with what’s already there, understanding it and reconfiguring it with intent. That’s also how we approach systems — legal, social, architectural — through collaboration that scales understanding across disciplines.As an ECI we speak a lot about democracy, which, as we say, is not a ‘delivery service’, but something that we really need to engage with constantly, day by day. Laws will always be made; the question is by whom, and with what imagination.

KOOZ It's interesting that you talk about architecture as a tool for agency; in this case, it's a matter of understanding the tool through which you make your proposal — which is the European Citizens' Initiative or an ECI. What drew you to the ECI as a means through which to hack into the system?

AK In my personal opinion, and perhaps for a lot of us, the ideal would be a radical transformation — which takes time. We wanted to do something tangible, to take an actionable step towards a transformation. For us, that came through this understanding of legislating architecture: is there a way that we can actually design the law? It's not a meta level of design; this is how we move through the world all the time — it's just quite invisible. The tool for this — the participatory democracy format of the ECI — which has been made available by the European Union, allowed us to do this. We speak of local knowledge — but in trying to reach outside of a bubble, it’s also nice to think about this at a European scale. In Berlin or in Germany, for example, there are petitions that we can support locally; we can engage with ideas of how you can change the building code in a specific place. But that's not part of the European remit. There is a different way of engaging with what lies within the powers of the European Union, what that allows people to do and to what extent different countries in the European Union can have similar possibilities.

Our lawyer made a useful point when we were talking about renovation. He pointed out that looking at the law, renovation is actually discriminated against, in favour of new construction. There's actual discrimination built into the legal system. Okay, well, that's a fantastic realisation, because now we can focus on trying to make that more fair. So we're looking at rules, like VAT reductions or exemptions, very tangible things that can make a real change for people. These are things that the legal proposal currently holds: that doesn't necessarily mean that it will be implemented in exactly this way, but we included a lot of ideas that we want to discuss with the Commission and see how far we can get. On a European scale, we know about the ‘renovation wave’, and we want to tap into that.

MARION WALLER A quick interjection here; I'm the director of Pavillon de l’Arsenal, and as a cultural institution, I wanted to add how important HouseEurope! is for us. It brings us a new mode of programming as a centre for architecture; usually we were seen as neutral institutions. Thanks to HouseEurope! at the Pavilion de l’Arsenal, the statement is that we are not neutral. We are also a political institution. We are here to say clearly what has to be changed in architecture, in the urban planning sector, and we are very proud to do that collectively. For us, renovation is a big priority and that's why it's very important for us.

That's why HouseEurope! is such an important moment: we are not saying it on our own, but collectively across Europe, with other centers for architecture and research bodies. I really believe that it’s an important moment for all architecture institutions — so thank you for the award, for that reason. Definitely, we are in a sector that has to change so when we make exhibitions, publish books, host events, we don't just want to show beautiful things — but rather beautiful things that have meaning, that move in the right direction.

KOOZ With regards to HouseEurope!’s core team and its expanded network — which now counts the OBEL as an actor — could you describe the structure of HouseEurope!, as a design project in itself? The many strands of activity happen through a multiplicity of different actors, from practitioners to cultural institutions. So who is HouseEurope! now?

AK The core operational team is coordinated by b+ and the station.plus chair at ETH Zurich, but really, HouseEurope! is driven by a broad, international network we’ve built over the past two years. We have partners in all 27 EU member states - not only because the ECI requires us to reach thresholds in at least seven countries, but because there are passionate, committed individuals and organizations who really believe in the cause. The real campaigning core includes national organizers and key groups like Architects for Future, Architects Climate Action Network, Pavillon de l’Arsenal, and many more.

What’s incredible is how diverse the support is. We have over 100 partner organisations — from architectural associations and offices, to museums, student networks and smaller grassroots initiatives. Ambassadors like Lacaton & Vassal, Herzog & de Meuron to people like Charlotte Malterre-Barthes and Leilani Farha, have also lent their voices. It’s a very wide and committed community. Winning an award like this definitely adds recognition and legitimacy, which helps us grow that support even more.

KOOZIt's interesting that you mentioned the importance of academic institutions like ETHZ as well as the platforms held by cultural institutions; Marion gave us some insight into that earlier. At this point, the cultural institution is perhaps not only a space for exhibiting, but also a place with a political position and agenda, requiring engagement. Estelle, could you expand on the importance of using spaces like the Pavillon de l’Arsenal to actually mobilise actions — like collecting signatures?

ESTELLE SABATIERI'll try my best. I see Pavillon de l’Arsenal as a first door or entry point into this question of housing and reuse. We are a specialised centre of architecture, so we tend to reach a large public of architects. This is the first step, as this is a very architectural concern, at first glance. But then we have the challenge to present these concerns to a much larger public — which is quite difficult. This is where we are shifting as a cultural institution, and it’s quite a challenge for us. For example, it changes the way we communicate, how we produce videos or newsletters. We find ourselves adopting a more direct tone in our texts, in our media. Those things seem like small details, but they could make the difference — because the difference between a video that causes a buzz on Instagram and one that is viewed only by a few architects is massive. We have to catch those turning points of engagement, and we are trying our best to do that. So we are shifting the ways in which we produce this content and then we have to mobilise in a different way.

KOOZObviously the HouseEurope! initiative is continentally based — but Alina, you were in New York last month, speaking at The World Around conference. We're all hoping for the 1 million signatures in Europe, but the real promise is that this allows for other countries to look to HouseEurope! as a prototype for themselves. So what does it mean to talk about an initiative like HouseEurope! elsewhere — how does one need to shift the language to share the momentum and the importance of the legislation that you're proposing?

AKPresenting the HouseEurope! initiative, in and of itself, I think, already allows for a lot of people to understand the idea. But speaking at The World Around was still speaking to a very informed audience. It's definitely different to speak to people on the street — that's the invisible labour of this collective effort, which is so interesting. Of course, it's fantastic and really important to have these moments of connecting among peers, in a realm that is also important for support. I love this multi-layered possibility for collaboration, disrupting hierarchies through the intelligence of the group. HouseEurope! is foremost a citizen’s initiative, which takes these platforms and prizes beyond individual success; it is the recognition of a movement and the many people who carry it forward in their own ways. It’s not polished or perfect; speaking about communication, it's a constant struggle to understand what is it that resonates with people? Who do you speak to, in which way?

KOOZThe project also entails the designing of the funding infrastructure and how it would work economically. What does the OBEL Award mean for HouseEurope!, in terms of the substantial sum that comes with it? How will this impact the initiative after the signatures have been collected — whether they reach a million or not?

AKThe very first thing that we are understanding at this point in time is the level of engagement. Right now, we have 20,000 signatures. So what we want to do with the fund as a first step is, of course, to make a big push of effort to gain more signatories. We're looking into social media strategies, to find out how we can reach a bigger network of people to spread the word and really get people to sign the initiative. That's the very first thing; we're currently in a moment of real campaigning, just getting the message out.

KOOZA critical question then: is it really about getting to one million signatures, or rather about all the work in creating awareness — would that be enough? How will the initiative develop if it reaches the target of one million signatures? And if that doesn't happen, how will the initiative continue in its ambition of raising awareness and starting a dialogue with the European Commission?

AKYes, we hear that a lot of ECIs — or teams who have tried to submit ECIs — have had to make a couple of attempts, which is good to know. If we reach the million signatures, then it's very clear that the Commission is obliged to respond. Following our proposal, they could move towards setting up new legislation based exactly on our initiative. And they would look into it further, setting up a working group to see what the proposal would entail across Europe. It’s not quite a tool for direct democracy; it’s not that it would automatically become the law. There is a lot more advocacy work to be done, and that's something that we want to do in any case, actually. So whether they set up a working group and we reach a million or not, it doesn't mean that we’re not going to do this advocacy work anyway. We're definitely very keen and we’re in it for the long haul; it will take several years to really accompany the work at the level of advocacy and possible implementation.

ESAnne Lacaton said something powerful that had me questioning myself. She was surprised that we don't have one million signatures already.  She couldn't understand why we didn't yet have a very strong legal case in France, or why we didn’t yet have the signatures at European level — for her, it's so evident because she has been working around these subjects for thirty years.

So it's important to keep going and keep the pressure up. If we don't have the 1 million signatures, we might be obliged to maintain a very low rate of cooperation in each member country; we would have to solicit individual and disparate politicians, to gain their support. The mobilisation of architects is so difficult, but it's very necessary. So I see it as the beginning of the struggle; I can't project how it will go, but it requires a lot of energy to cross national barriers. We will keep going for mass mobilisation and informing our public of the necessity of this topic.

KOOZIt's a matter of bursting the bubble, right? If this initiative was up to architects alone, probably most of us would agree. But perhaps this shows us how detached our concerns are from the main body of the community; as Alina mentioned, it’s really about branching out to the citizens, to the mayors, and translating this proposal into a problem of housing rights and access to the city. This has been a splendid conversation…

AKAs this is an interview about the OBEL prize, on behalf of everyone of HouseEurope!, I would like to say thank you very much to the jury and the OBEL team.

KOOZWe've been following the initiative for a few years now, and we love hosting projects that matter regardless of format — from buildings to research and political initiatives. It's our duty to be able to share those voices and ideas, so thank you for your work.

ESThank you. It was a pleasure.

Bios

HouseEurope! is a registered non-profit organization conceived as a policy lab dedicated to shaping legislation and hosting the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI). Our team and approach originates from the architecture practice bplus.xyz, focusing on how to use legislation to adapt and reuse existing buildings, and the chair for architecture and storytelling station.plus, focusing on how to use time-based media to design the advent of an idea into culture.

The OBEL Foundation recognises and rewards architecture's potential to act as tangible agents of change that contribute positively to social and ecological development globally. Founded in 2019, OBEL values the plurality of architecture as a practice through expanding who and what defines our built environment. Through various activities, OBEL supports influential ideas and approaches that can spearhead and seed future developments, while driving architectural discourse and education

Aric Chen is an architecture and design curator and writer, and the forthcoming Director of the Zaha Hadid Foundation, from July 2025. Since 2021, Chen has been the General and Artistic Director of the Nieuwe Instituut in Rotterdam. He has previously served as Professor and founding Director of the Curatorial Lab at the College of Design & Innovation at Tongji University in Shanghai; Curatorial Director of the Design Miami fairs in Miami Beach and Basel; Creative Director of Beijing Design Week; and Lead Curator for Design and Architecture at M+, Hong Kong.

Alina Kolar is a communication scientist, creative strategist, and curator whose work operates at the intersection of visual culture, political semiotics, and social transformation. Her work focuses on developing critical frameworks for architecture, art, and publishing, with an emphasis on value production in the creative economy. Central to her approach is a commitment to critical engagement and sustainable strategy. From 2017 to 2022, she co-founded and directed Arts of the Working Class, an international street newspaper and platform for cultural production. Since 2023, she has been researching and teaching with station.plus at ETH Zurich.

Estelle Sabatier is the Director of Audiences, Communications, Events and Digital Media for the Pavillon de l’Arsenal, the Centre for Urban Planning and Architecture in Paris. She is an urbanist and active campaigner for House Europe! She has previously worked for several urban and architectural offices in Paris.

Xu Tiantian is a founding principal of the DnA_Design and Architecture Beijing office, an interdisciplinary practice working with city planning, urban design, and architectural design with a special focus on addressing new relationships between architecture and urbanism in contemporary Chinese culture. She has received numerous awards throughout her career and in 2020, she was appointed an Honorary Fellow of American Institute of Architects.

Marion Waller is the director of the Pavillon de l’Arsenal, the Centre for Urban Planning and Architecture in Paris. An urban planner and philosopher, she worked at the City Hall between 2014 and 2023 as an Advisor to the Mayor on those topics. She was responsible for the ‘Reinventing Paris’ competition launched in 2014 and aimed at transforming 23 sites in Paris. She has taught at Sciences Po Paris, Ecole Polytechnique, and Université Paris Est.

Federica Zambeletti is the founder and creative director of KoozArch. She is an architect, researcher and storyteller whose interests lie at the intersection of art, architecture and regenerative practices. Prior to dedicating her full attention to KoozArch in 2024, Federica collaborated with the architecture studio and non-profit agency for change UNA/UNLESS working on numerous cultural projects and the research of "Antarctic Resolution".