Florian Busch Architects フロリアンブッシュ建築設計事務所

Photograph © Nacasa & Partners

Photograph © Nacasa & Partners

Photograph © Nacasa & Partners

Photograph © Nacasa & Partners

Photograph © Nacasa & Partners

Photograph © Nacasa & Partners

Photograph © Nacasa & Partners

Photograph © Nacasa & Partners

Photograph © Nacasa & Partners

Photograph © Nacasa & Partners

Photograph © Nacasa & Partners

Photograph © Nacasa & Partners

Photograph © Nacasa & Partners

R4 Building



If judged solely by proliferation, the office is, among all of today’s predominant building types, perhaps the one with the greatest success story:


When the idea of the office as (rooms in) a building appears for the first time in the 16th century as more and more administrative functions are placed into their own specially built spaces, it only takes a few centuries for the “office building” to become the most ubiquitous and defining type of inner-urban architecture.


By the 20th century, cities, which haste to embrace progress through new construction, are largely defined by skylines made almost entirely from their office high-rises.


The homogeneity of plan and elevation of the office (offices are hardly ever as spectacular or deliberately ostentatious as other building types), embodies the prevailing understanding of white-collar efficiency: Repetition of only marginally different tasks. Desks are the new conveyor belts.

The office, perhaps more than any other singular building type, carries the true notions of the political or socio-economical ideologies it is born in.



When commissioned to design a small office building in a prime yet hidden location a short walk from Midtown and Roppongi Hills, two of Tokyo’s fattest office manifestations of recent years, we began to have a closer look at the still prevailing homogeneity of the large office building versus the deliberate and often naïve attempts at differentiation in dot-com’s campus-like “office-is-my-home” ensembles.


Concepts for the R4 building always came back to the question how scale and location would inform an inner-city office type, and, interestingly, how exactly this contextual necessity might in fact perfectly reflect an environment of unforced, informal, perhaps even natural “work efficiency”.


The site, a left-over perched between manifestations of not only for the location improbable amassment of earnest junk, proved more and more critical in this process: inconspicuous despite its prime location, dominated by a myriad of constraints that make it highly difficult to build on, between narrow road and a derelict cemetery, flanked by a 40m-tall apartment building and other nondescriptness, sights of a nearby park.


Here, the architectural response could hardly be one mass of undifferentiated transparent homogeneity. Instead, a logical response was a field of multiple, varying focal points that would deal with the surroundings at discrete levels as well as in the overall unity of the office building.



A total of just four floors makes repetition not a top priority in terms of building economics. But beyond a repetition of self-similar cut-outs, we wrapped the entire building in an envelope with a field of openings generated by iterations of structural and lighting analyses. As the clear-cut definition of floors seems to disappear, the building attains a new dimension: a gradually changing diversity within an overall unity. Every point in the building is uniquely different.



The envelope is the structure. What has been considered a recipe for functional restriction predating the modernist ideal of flexibility turns out to work in favour with the given scale: The envelope has become all, no interior walls are necessary, nor are columns. Each of the four units is one free space defined by the envelope wrapping around it. The decision then is to forgo the usual structure + curtain wall and make the exterior envelope perform on many levels: free the interior, filter the outside, carry the loads.


This move away from an ubiquitous homogeneity means there is no longer a “nothing else is possible” but a “many possible nuances to choose from”.


Tokyo, Japan



Project Team:

FBA: Florian Busch, Sachiko Miyazaki, Momoyo Yamawaki, Akira Miyamoto
Structural Engineering: ASA (Akira Suzuki, Hiroki Akita)
Environmental & mechanical engineering: ymo (Hiroyuki Yamada, Natsumi Tsuchiya)
Contractor: Shin Corporation

FBA: フロリアン ブッシュ、宮崎佐知子、山脇ももよ、宮本哲
構造: ASA (鈴木啓、秋田宏喜)
設備: ymo 山田浩幸、土屋なつみ
施工: 株式会社辰

Gross floor area: 412.3 m² + 102.7 m² roof terrace
Reinforced Concrete
延べ床面積 412.3 m² + 102.7 m²ルーフガーデン部分

K House in Niseko

Science Island Kaunas

Museo de Arte de Lima

S House in Chiba


Tagacho Community Centre

Guggenheim Helsinki

WHO Extension

Viaduct Gallery

Ota Culture Centre

House of Hungarian Music

Kinmen Ferry Terminal

Our Private Sky

Zentral- und Landesbibliothek Berlin

Izu Centre of Traditional Performing Arts

Doshisha University Chapel

BL Project

Daegu Gosan Public Library

Haus der Zukunft Berlin
未来館 ベルリン

Zucca Restaurant

F&F Project

House that opens up to its inside

Tohoku to the Future
未来遺産 – Creating Heritage

Tokyo Designers Week 2011

Music & Space: Workshop in Yonesaki
音楽と空間: 米崎小学校

Echigo Tsumari Australia House

Toké 7
土気 7

Two Roofs in the Snow


Nakadai Project

House on the Slopes

House in Takadanobaba

‘A’ House in Kisami

L House in Hirafu

Tile Turbulence

A Symmetry

The Rings of Dubai


House in Karuizawa

RG Project

Strategies in the Wild





Searching for Urbanism:
Anti-Masterplanning the City