|
|
Visionary Architects
BY Ninart Lui
BY Ninart Lui
Exclusive Highlight on TAXI Design Network
Interview with Gwynne Pugh
The problem we have in many ways is that our cities are somewhat dysfunctional, and even more so the way that cities have spread out so we’ve created an urban sprawl, which is really an inherently unsustainable way of living. This is nothing new but what is, to some degree, is that governments are beginning to realise that they are facing some significant problems. Particularly as they lose agricultural ground, the distinction between exurban or rural and the urban environment, and particularly as transportations are not functioning as well as they ought to.
The idea of vehicular traffic in particular here in California is a big concern as natives coming to terms that this is not effective. Along with this, governments are coming to the conclusion that they are realizing that it’s not very sustainable, and we have to deal with these issues. While architects have thought about these issues, they haven’t been very effective in inserting themselves into the public discussion.
What I like to say is not “What a city can do for a building”, in other words, how high you are allowed to build it, are there any subsidies you need to get, all of those kinds of things, but “What does a building do for the city” - for example, dealing with public health – how does that particular structure enhance the city as an organism.
TAXI >>You helped research and draft Land Use and Circulation Element Update (LUCE), which calls for smart growth over limited growth and more nuanced solutions for combating crippling traffic congestion problems. Can you please tell us a little more about your involvement with this, how it came about and what it hopes to achieve?
Gwynne Pugh>>Every city in California is required to review its plans to how it operates, and basically all the” elements” of the LUCE – for example, public safety is an “element”, which involves police, fire and emergency services; open space is an “element” (parks); we have a housing “element” which needs to be looked at on a periodic basis, to make sure the cities plans encourage the right kind of housing for what people need in the city. Obviously, one of the very important ones is land use, from which we get our zoning codes, and then the circulation issues (how we get around moving within the city), and that is more than just cars, but also the transportation systems, the bicycle systems, pedestrian systems, etc., and the other ways of moving around the city.
What’s happened in Santa Monica is that it gets choked up with traffic - probably about 10 years ago, most of the traffic was leaving the city in the morning to go to downtown LA or other parts of LA, and returning in the evening. Under the previous LUCE they had encouraged businesses to come into the city, because you could get tax rebates on that, provide increased services.
There’s also a good reason for wanting that -Part of that was because we have a whole industrial area that was being evacuated or the businesses were leaving it, because it wasn’t mutually compatible or economical for that kind of industrial business to occur. So they encouraged primarily creative, film and music businesses to come in to the city so they’d develop more for that kind of use. Along with that, they increased the amount of jobs in the city so that was about 75,000 jobs, for 50,000 people who work in the city. Of that, most of them leave the city, so we have only about 10,000 people who live and work in the city, and about 60,000 people coming in every day for meetings, a strong tourism industry, and a community college that brings in about 25,000 people every day in addition to all of that.
On a daily basis for a city with a population of about 85,000, we have something like 150,000 people in the city, and almost everybody is coming in in a car, single occupancy. That’s part of the problem of what we have with circulation.
What’s hopeful is there are some public transport systems that are being developed at the moment in the downtown area of the city, which is just outside of Santa Monica and would be extending into the downtown of Santa Monica. Part of what we are trying to do, is combine these aspects and try and deal with the situation. For instance, we have a station that we really developed for local commercially serving uses, retail uses, but we also have housing occur out of it. All of this was to examine what was right and difficult about the city, and to come up with a plan that made for a much more complete and integrated way of dealing with things.
The idea is first to have businesses occur where public transport is. For example, we have some major boulevards already where there are buses services, but they aren’t very big establishments, mostly just one or two stories – sometimes a little more than that. It is to allow for redevelopment to occur, so that you retain that commercial aspect and maybe even increase to it slightly, but not by a lot.
The whole idea is to add housing to it, also the kind of housing is very important because this is a very successful community, and therefore it is also a very expensive community. Part of the problem that we have is that the people who teach, work in hospitals, work for architect firms, etc., can’t afford to live here, so we need to generate housing that is more affordable.
One of the other things we are also working on, is the idea of the open space. We are trying to make a series of complete neighborhoods; in other words, you can walk to most of the activities that you might want to be involved in on a daily basis. Not necessarily work, but if you want to go to the market, or a coffee shop, or take your laundry someplace, or even if you want to go to a park – it is all within a ten to twenty minute walking distance, about a quarter of a mile to a half mile radius. This is so that everything you need, you don’t need to get to your car to get there.
Cities like Vancouver have been very successful at doing that kind of thing, so that people find that driving is the least desired alternative. That only works where you’ve created a livable city, where you have all the facilities at a short walking distance.
Apart from the LUCE, I have also been acting as a consultant in other places, like San Diego and Long Beach, where I helped them with the urban design aspect of things.
TAXI >>You established Pugh Scarpa Kodama to cater to the niche industry of affordable and special-needs housing. Can you please elaborate a little more on the unique benefits of such types of partnerships, and how such experiences and strategic alliances relate back to the work you do at your firm?
Gwynne Pugh>>We actually have many strategic alliances with other architecture firms, and we feel that architecture is really a collaborative process. Even within our own firm it’s always a collaboration between various different people within our company. I think the advantage of working with other companies is that you can leverage your skills or expand your horizons.
Inevitably, people are risking a great deal of money when they choose to build a structure, and so they want to have a high level of comfort that you’re capable of delivering what they need. They always look at the experience of the company they’re working with, so every time we try to do a different project such as say, a school, or a museum, they always want to know how many museums or schools you’ve done before. If you haven’t done any, or if you’ve only done one or two, then frequently people go with the more experienced company.
We consider ourselves to be design-oriented. There are other firms that are more production-oriented – in other words, they may do some very good quality work, but they’re not extraordinary, more of the fabric of the city, which is really important in certain circumstances, but our clients are looking for something more than that. What we provide is that original thinking about project, but we don’t always have all the experience that we need.
In the case of Pugh Scarpa Kodama, we collaborated with a firm in Northern California which had done a lot of affordable housing – which is really defined as 80% or less of median income. For instance, a family of four can earn up to $60,000 but are still considered eligible for affordable housing. We have not done a lot of affordable housing, it’s very specific in terms of agencies providing the funding having a lot of requirements for that, and there are a lot of significant deadlines, and also the issue of who does the construction (frequently it’s companies that don’t do the best quality construction). You have to work within certain limitations to make this work, and historically affordable housing has had a very poor reputation in terms of the design aspect.
We saw this as a perfect opportunity for us to collaborate with someone who had a considerable amount of experience, did solid work, but perhaps wasn’t considered as one of the top line in terms of design. Also, they were looking to spread more in Southern California, which we had a presence in, so that’s essentially how it came about.
The reason why more firms don’t do this is because sometimes people get very concerned about working where they don’t have absolute control of what’s going on. There tends to be a lot of specialization going on, which I find unfortunate, because it is repeating the issues that we have in architecture – there are sometimes set solutions which aren’t very creative, or effective, yet get repeated over and over again, because people do what they know, and they know what they do.
However, we found it to be tremendously productive and invigorating to work with other companies, because it allows us, not only to expand in other areas, but also to cross-fertilize ideas and thoughts with other companies, that we get inspired too by the process of collaboration.
TAXI >>Pugh + Scarpa is known for its constantly inquisitive approach to each project, with a commitment to producing new incarnations of formerly common materials. Can you tell us a little more about this process, and what in your opinion are the greatest and most overlooked materials?
Gwynne Pugh>>One of the things important to us is to be evolving ourselves all the time, and learning about new things – that is part of what makes architecture exciting and a creative field. However all too often one finds that people are just re-doing what they already know, and it just becomes a process of reconstituting of all of the stuff that has been done in the past. That is one of the reasons why we like the collaborative process, Getting into different areas and working with different clients challenges us, and this applies to different materials as well.
It’s a question of not so much using new materials, but about finding properties of materials that can be used in ways that they haven’t been used before. Over the course of the last fifteen to twenty years, we’ve really examined materials for the opportunities that they provide, and have often been able to use them so that they’re both fresh architecturally, but also effective from a practical standpoint. It’s often allowed us to generate great value due to the uniqueness of a common material, to use those materials, usually inexpensive, yet have a high design value to it.
For materials that are overlooked, when you expect to see something used in a certain kind of way, you tend to not really see it, or just expect it to be used in that way. You then become surprised if you see it used in a different kind of way, for e.g., using brushes as exterior skin material, or using ping pong balls as a screen wall, is something that’s a real surprise. Examining the idea of using the transportation of goods – we used the container as a conference room, but really it was just a discussion too, at some level, and a commentary on the import/export of goods and ideas and how we tend to discard things, and how those things can be really re-used.
Because we’re such a small firm, it’s a little bit unusual – there’s only been around twenty of us. One of the things that we always like to do is that, we have a workshop, that when we are producing the models for a particular project, we would experiment with ideas. Part of what we do, both my partner and I, in terms of getting ourselves involved in different ways, is experiment with different materials and ways of doing things. It’s an ongoing process, and isn’t 100% consistent, but we always look for opportunities.
We have advanced model making tools, so we use that as a way of looking at different things. We like to use all of the capabilities that we can, so we print models, build models, do three-dimension models on computers. We’re always analyzing and commenting on architecture, and all of that feeds into the experimentation and vibrancy that we try and generate in our business.
We’re privileged in a way because we get paid to play, but if you forget how to play, then you just can’t be paid enough. Part of what we try to retain is the joy of architecture and the surprise of creative art, but it’s not creative if it doesn’t have that. The surprise is not only what other people see us produce, but the surprise that we generate for ourselves in the process.
TAXI >>Being partners with Lawrence Scarpa, can you please tell us a little bit on the dynamics of your partnership and what fuels your inspiration on a regular basis even after so many years?
Gwynne Pugh>>It’s a question of trust, trusting the other person, in this case my partner, is doing things not only for the best interest of himself, but for the company at large, and because it is so, that I would be a beneficiary of that. So there is the trust, and also the acceptance of what those choices are – if he feels strongly that he needs to do one thing or another, unless there is very good reason on my part, or that there is something I have concerns about, which I’ll express.
We try and get together for lunch and talk about things, two or three times a week, and this is just an opportunity for making sure that we understand what’s going on, and if there’s any concerns to express them – but by and large it’s one of acceptance.
Our roles are somewhat defined, we’re too small to be just one thing or another. Scarpa does most of the client work, but not all of it, and I certainly have those aspects. I do more of the urban design aspect of the works that we do. We both generate work, so we’re both rainmakers if you like. I tend to do more of the administration, but he understands everything that’s going on with regards to that. I have technical skills that differ from his, being both an engineer and an architect, so that allows us certain capabilities to expand and create a larger scope than what we would do individually.
In other words, part of what I’m trying to say here is that in a way, the sum of two ones is hopefully more than two, and that’s what we try and generate between us. There’s certainly a lot of overlap but there’s also some unique capabilities that we each bring.
We keep the relationship fresh by not being on top of each other, by allowing each other to explore and grow and change, and that’s probably the biggest aspect of it. It’ a bit like a marriage in a way, inasmuch as a marriage can grow stale, or they can reinvent themselves, and part of how we keep it fresh is by the nature of the work that we do, and the challenges that we give ourselves.
TAXI >>In every country that has become affluent in a short period of time, it seems to be almost a trend where famous architects are invited to put their stamp on the skyline. How do you feel about this?
Gwynne Pugh>>In some ways, part of the reason why I came to LA was because it was architecturally a vibrant place. What you’re seeing in for e.g., Qatar, and with the Olympics in Beijing, etc., there’s a really strong desire to establish oneself as a creative center. Also, those societies tend to be very loose, i.e. anything goes, or tend to be very autocratic. Even if you look at LA when it was in its heyday and expanding rapidly in the 20s and 30s, even after the 2nd World War, it was an area where there was so much room for growth, and everybody was doing their own thing, that there was a kind of looseness about it.
What happened subsequently of course, that in this looseness there wasn’t really a clear vision of how and what the city should be, and it ended up being kind of lopsided, which is why we have all these traffic problems here. People get very upset about the parts of the cities that don’t work, and that can really generate those kinds of conditions. The rules tend to tighten up, and the ability to be fresh and open about things tends to be restricted. For architects, it’s a real opportunity to go to places like Qatar, or Dubai, or Beijing, and create this wonderful architecture. I think having iconic architecture is a wonderful thing, but there also has to be a real responsibility to make these work, and make the cities work with this kind of architecture, and that is not always true.
TAXI >>What is the WORD, which you think would reside and reverberate in the design world for the next 10 years?
Gwynne Pugh>> The area of architecture that’s going to be very interesting, is the idea of biomimicry, buildings having skins, and having a much more organic quality to them. Buildings will have much more of a sense of the living being, and I think this is particularly true as sustainability gets really integrated into architecture, and it gets to the next level. Beyond that, then it also needs to work in terms of how our societies work, and how towns and cities are built.
..........................................................................................................
Exclusive Highlight on TAXI Design Network
Interview with Harold G. Nelson
There are many examples of people in leadership positions or positions of great influence who have been architecturally trained. There are attempts now days to borrow ideas, such as ‘studio learning’, from architectural education models and apply them to the education of professionals in emerging design fields (information systems design for example), or in established professions like management. I feel that I was very fortunate to have had this type of academic preparation and to have been able to become more knowledgeable about the epistemological foundations of this educational design as a teacher.
Secondly, when working as a design architect, I became aware of two issues that led me back to graduate school and in a different direction in my career. The first thing I discovered was that my reasons for giving specific ‘form and function’ to the buildings I designed seemed too dependent on mere style, fashion, or technologic fixation. Interestingly architecture can be practiced as successfully as an applied art or as an applied science as it can as a design-based discipline. People can be compelled to inhabit sculptures or to live in machines based on choices made among styles of architectural practice.
For example, when I was researching energy policy at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientists there were formulating energy-based design specifications for buildings that essentially turned them into high efficiency machines rather than human environments.
Buildings in California that were built according to similar energy codes wound up making people sick and were even suspected of causing deaths. One state–owned building had to be closed. As an alternative, I was interested in architecture as ‘design’ where art and science are integral yet transcended.
The other thing I became aware of was that many if not most of the most important design decisions are made prior to a project being handed over to an architect. For example, the decision that the right solution to the needs of a business is a new building constitutes a critical design judgment. The solution might just as easily have been that the business needed to become virtual or needed a new organizational structure or product.
Also when architects say that they “design a museum or design a hospital” the truth is they design a structure for a museum and not the museum itself. In Seattle a ‘starchitect’ recently designed a high profile museum building that immediately closed because the people in charge of the museum discovered they had not designed a viable museum. The building was eventually reopened after the museum was finally designed.
These seed ideas led to my interest in systems science and design thinking beyond predefined solution-based professions. It also led to my interest in the design of design learning.
TAXI >>"Humans did not discover fire – they designed it" – as President of the Advanced Design Institute, what do you think is the biggest shortfall in traditional education systems of today, and what is the greatest misfortune in society stemming either directly or indirectly from this deficiency?
Harold G. Nelson>>Education, at least in the US, is focused on the creation of ‘routine experts’. Such experts are expected to have the right disciplinary answer to any problem that is defined from within their field of specialization at any place and any time. Such expertise may be necessary but it is not sufficient in today’s world.
The world is dynamic and changes unpredictably at any time. The world is also diverse, full of unique people and places. At the same time the world is complexly interrelated, as recent events have once again made clear. In addition to routine expertise we need “ adaptive experts”. People who are capable of adapting their expert solution-finding approaches to dynamic situations in particularized settings. However as valuable as this form of expertise is, we need professionals who are not merely or primarily reactive. We need professionals who can proactively create or change dynamic real-world situations to serve people’s needs and desires. These professionals are ‘adaptive design experts’ if you will. They have the ability to step into a moving environment and change its course such that desired outcomes are obtained.
The penalty we pay for too much reliance on routine expertise is that the complex dynamics of the real world is ignored in favor of pat answers and routine procedures. As a consequence people spend their limited resources in a reactive mode rather than in positive, intentional activity. The lost opportunity costs are immense and the damages caused by unintended consequences are piling up.
TAXI >>In "The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World", you talked about a new designerly approach being needed, which "applies to an infinite variety of design domains", both within "traditional" design categories such as architecture or industrial, and in other science and art categories which have long been thought unrelated. At its most fundamental, how can an ordinary person apply this to solve a common, everyday problem at work?
Harold G. Nelson>>Ordinary people engage in design at different points in their lives although they may not be aware that they are acting in a design way. They are not designing all the time (even professional designers do not design all the time) but they engage in designing aspects of their lives throughout their lives. That is, they create change intentionally rather than simply react to change by chance or necessity. The difficulty is that they typically have educational and life experiences that focuses on ‘problems’ as the trigger for change.
They are not familiar with a worldview that enables people to act in optimistic ways to identify their desires in life and to act with assurance in gaining what they hope to make real in their lives. People do not have the language to reflect on, and make improvements in their intentional behavior. Even though this is the typical situation, people create successful designs despite not having an appercetive appreciation of their accomplishments. I find that when I introduce design ideas to people without backgrounds in design they respond with an “of course” recognition of what they know instinctually.
TAXI >>If Design Competence were to provide a new, systematic blueprint for leadership and organizational skills, would this render traditional explanations and philosophies such as religion and spirituality obsolete?
Harold G. Nelson>>I believe that a deeper understanding of design abilities exposes challenges and metaphysical questions that re-energize reflections on religious traditions and explorations of spirituality. The act of co-creating the real world carries immense responsibilities. Scientific certainty or excuses of inadequacy cannot remove this accountability. Design enlivens questions of noble purpose and human limitations that leads to humility and openness to all forms of inquiry.
TAXI >>How has digital media and the internet helped or hindered the promulgation and process of Design Thinking, if at all?
Harold G. Nelson>>I think that the internet has been an invaluable means for building networks of individuals who are now helping to collectively identify and develop a culture of design. The idea of design thinking has spread like a virus to communities of practice that would, back in the day, not have had reason to interact with one another. I would not have had the opportunity to be in contact with TAXI for instance. The ability to communicate with people around the world at any time is essential to the process of collaboratively innovating the design thinking meme.
Technology can become a trap however. Energy and resources going into the development of computer based tools and methods can distract us from other significant challenges in the further development and implementation of good design practice. For instance there is a growing interest in the development of a ‘design science’ with all the expected discipline and assurance offered by a technologically supported scientific approach to designing. Financial and political support is attracted to this endeavor. As in all instances however there needs to be a balance. Digital media can enhance design activity at many levels but the challenge is to understand when, why, how, and where technology like this ought to be utilized in support of designing—fundamentally a human activity. It is the old idea that when one has a hammer everything is treated as a nail. This does not mean that we should stop developing a better way to hammer things together (i.e. air hammers). It does mean it is advisable to maintain a whole systems perspective when creating supportive technologies for design activity.
TAXI >>Many are now questioning the validity and usefulness of democracy and governmental aide in the face of the current economic recession. In introducing design as a base for leadership, how will incorporating Design Thinking help in redistributing resources in society, and where will the basic motivation stem from?
Harold G. Nelson>>Design in my opinion is defined as a ‘service’ based activity. That is it is in service to others and not to self-interests. Design leadership is a systemic relationship between designers, clients, stakeholders and others. It does not start with the vision of a leader that is then implemented. Design leaderships is a process leading to vision as an emergent outcome—an outcome that clients recognize as representative of their own interests and not as something imposed on them.
Sustainable development and decentralized governance for instance can become a framework for design intervention. Design thinking is deontic as well as pragmatic and aesthetic. Using design thinking does not remove potential conflict of interests but a design perspective makes things more transparent. Transparency comes as a consequence of deliberations concerning actual or implied contracting. Who is/ought to be served? Who is/ought to be the designers, decision makers, stakeholders etc.?
TAXI >>As increasingly more developing countries' governments realize the importance and impact that a stable design culture can have on the countries' economies, how does one ensure that the approach taken remains ethical?
Harold G. Nelson>>As mentioned above design needs to be ethical as well as rational and aesthetic. The “needs to be” statement is my own ethical pronouncement obviously. Design can be defined in many non-ethical ways; as a technical recipe, as a political process or artistic expression. However I try to make the case that design is best defined as a process animating human interrelationships that are defined as ethical in great measure. I have learned from experience that pushing for this kind of transparency can be very difficult or even dangerous. It is well worth the effort however.
TAXI >>What is the WORD, which you think would reside and reverberate in the design world for the next 10 years?
Harold G. Nelson>>Service.
..........................................................................................................
Read OTHER INTERVIEWS on DESIGN LEADERS
Shelly Lazarus & Jerry Della Femina
Steff Geissbuhler & Marcio Salem
Mary Warlick & Simon Waterfall
..........................................................................................................
© 2003 - 2008 by TAXI Design Network. All rights reserved.
Interview with Gwynne Pugh
 | TAXI >>Hello Gwynne. What are some of the most critical issues in design and architecture that today's architects need to address?
Gwynne Pugh>>I went through engineering school (Leeds, UK) before I went to architectural school (UCLA), and I realized when I was in engineering school that architects are part of a triumvirate of professions that are in some ways closely interrelated - engineering, primarily civil engineering here, and planning, and architecture. One of the things we miss out on is the cohesive interaction between all of those professions and what’s sort of panning out of this at the moment, is a space between, or the inability perhaps, of those professions to work closely together is an aspect now that’s called “urban design”, and it is in many ways a conglomeration of those aspects, of aesthetics and architecture in its more conventional sense, and planning in particular, and along with the planning there is a certain amount of engineering as it pertains to the public space. |
The problem we have in many ways is that our cities are somewhat dysfunctional, and even more so the way that cities have spread out so we’ve created an urban sprawl, which is really an inherently unsustainable way of living. This is nothing new but what is, to some degree, is that governments are beginning to realise that they are facing some significant problems. Particularly as they lose agricultural ground, the distinction between exurban or rural and the urban environment, and particularly as transportations are not functioning as well as they ought to.
The idea of vehicular traffic in particular here in California is a big concern as natives coming to terms that this is not effective. Along with this, governments are coming to the conclusion that they are realizing that it’s not very sustainable, and we have to deal with these issues. While architects have thought about these issues, they haven’t been very effective in inserting themselves into the public discussion.
What I like to say is not “What a city can do for a building”, in other words, how high you are allowed to build it, are there any subsidies you need to get, all of those kinds of things, but “What does a building do for the city” - for example, dealing with public health – how does that particular structure enhance the city as an organism.
TAXI >>You helped research and draft Land Use and Circulation Element Update (LUCE), which calls for smart growth over limited growth and more nuanced solutions for combating crippling traffic congestion problems. Can you please tell us a little more about your involvement with this, how it came about and what it hopes to achieve?
Gwynne Pugh>>Every city in California is required to review its plans to how it operates, and basically all the” elements” of the LUCE – for example, public safety is an “element”, which involves police, fire and emergency services; open space is an “element” (parks); we have a housing “element” which needs to be looked at on a periodic basis, to make sure the cities plans encourage the right kind of housing for what people need in the city. Obviously, one of the very important ones is land use, from which we get our zoning codes, and then the circulation issues (how we get around moving within the city), and that is more than just cars, but also the transportation systems, the bicycle systems, pedestrian systems, etc., and the other ways of moving around the city.
What’s happened in Santa Monica is that it gets choked up with traffic - probably about 10 years ago, most of the traffic was leaving the city in the morning to go to downtown LA or other parts of LA, and returning in the evening. Under the previous LUCE they had encouraged businesses to come into the city, because you could get tax rebates on that, provide increased services.
There’s also a good reason for wanting that -Part of that was because we have a whole industrial area that was being evacuated or the businesses were leaving it, because it wasn’t mutually compatible or economical for that kind of industrial business to occur. So they encouraged primarily creative, film and music businesses to come in to the city so they’d develop more for that kind of use. Along with that, they increased the amount of jobs in the city so that was about 75,000 jobs, for 50,000 people who work in the city. Of that, most of them leave the city, so we have only about 10,000 people who live and work in the city, and about 60,000 people coming in every day for meetings, a strong tourism industry, and a community college that brings in about 25,000 people every day in addition to all of that.
On a daily basis for a city with a population of about 85,000, we have something like 150,000 people in the city, and almost everybody is coming in in a car, single occupancy. That’s part of the problem of what we have with circulation.
What’s hopeful is there are some public transport systems that are being developed at the moment in the downtown area of the city, which is just outside of Santa Monica and would be extending into the downtown of Santa Monica. Part of what we are trying to do, is combine these aspects and try and deal with the situation. For instance, we have a station that we really developed for local commercially serving uses, retail uses, but we also have housing occur out of it. All of this was to examine what was right and difficult about the city, and to come up with a plan that made for a much more complete and integrated way of dealing with things.
The idea is first to have businesses occur where public transport is. For example, we have some major boulevards already where there are buses services, but they aren’t very big establishments, mostly just one or two stories – sometimes a little more than that. It is to allow for redevelopment to occur, so that you retain that commercial aspect and maybe even increase to it slightly, but not by a lot.
The whole idea is to add housing to it, also the kind of housing is very important because this is a very successful community, and therefore it is also a very expensive community. Part of the problem that we have is that the people who teach, work in hospitals, work for architect firms, etc., can’t afford to live here, so we need to generate housing that is more affordable.
One of the other things we are also working on, is the idea of the open space. We are trying to make a series of complete neighborhoods; in other words, you can walk to most of the activities that you might want to be involved in on a daily basis. Not necessarily work, but if you want to go to the market, or a coffee shop, or take your laundry someplace, or even if you want to go to a park – it is all within a ten to twenty minute walking distance, about a quarter of a mile to a half mile radius. This is so that everything you need, you don’t need to get to your car to get there.
Cities like Vancouver have been very successful at doing that kind of thing, so that people find that driving is the least desired alternative. That only works where you’ve created a livable city, where you have all the facilities at a short walking distance.
Apart from the LUCE, I have also been acting as a consultant in other places, like San Diego and Long Beach, where I helped them with the urban design aspect of things.
TAXI >>You established Pugh Scarpa Kodama to cater to the niche industry of affordable and special-needs housing. Can you please elaborate a little more on the unique benefits of such types of partnerships, and how such experiences and strategic alliances relate back to the work you do at your firm?
Gwynne Pugh>>We actually have many strategic alliances with other architecture firms, and we feel that architecture is really a collaborative process. Even within our own firm it’s always a collaboration between various different people within our company. I think the advantage of working with other companies is that you can leverage your skills or expand your horizons.
Inevitably, people are risking a great deal of money when they choose to build a structure, and so they want to have a high level of comfort that you’re capable of delivering what they need. They always look at the experience of the company they’re working with, so every time we try to do a different project such as say, a school, or a museum, they always want to know how many museums or schools you’ve done before. If you haven’t done any, or if you’ve only done one or two, then frequently people go with the more experienced company.
We consider ourselves to be design-oriented. There are other firms that are more production-oriented – in other words, they may do some very good quality work, but they’re not extraordinary, more of the fabric of the city, which is really important in certain circumstances, but our clients are looking for something more than that. What we provide is that original thinking about project, but we don’t always have all the experience that we need.
In the case of Pugh Scarpa Kodama, we collaborated with a firm in Northern California which had done a lot of affordable housing – which is really defined as 80% or less of median income. For instance, a family of four can earn up to $60,000 but are still considered eligible for affordable housing. We have not done a lot of affordable housing, it’s very specific in terms of agencies providing the funding having a lot of requirements for that, and there are a lot of significant deadlines, and also the issue of who does the construction (frequently it’s companies that don’t do the best quality construction). You have to work within certain limitations to make this work, and historically affordable housing has had a very poor reputation in terms of the design aspect.
We saw this as a perfect opportunity for us to collaborate with someone who had a considerable amount of experience, did solid work, but perhaps wasn’t considered as one of the top line in terms of design. Also, they were looking to spread more in Southern California, which we had a presence in, so that’s essentially how it came about.
The reason why more firms don’t do this is because sometimes people get very concerned about working where they don’t have absolute control of what’s going on. There tends to be a lot of specialization going on, which I find unfortunate, because it is repeating the issues that we have in architecture – there are sometimes set solutions which aren’t very creative, or effective, yet get repeated over and over again, because people do what they know, and they know what they do.
However, we found it to be tremendously productive and invigorating to work with other companies, because it allows us, not only to expand in other areas, but also to cross-fertilize ideas and thoughts with other companies, that we get inspired too by the process of collaboration.
TAXI >>Pugh + Scarpa is known for its constantly inquisitive approach to each project, with a commitment to producing new incarnations of formerly common materials. Can you tell us a little more about this process, and what in your opinion are the greatest and most overlooked materials?
Gwynne Pugh>>One of the things important to us is to be evolving ourselves all the time, and learning about new things – that is part of what makes architecture exciting and a creative field. However all too often one finds that people are just re-doing what they already know, and it just becomes a process of reconstituting of all of the stuff that has been done in the past. That is one of the reasons why we like the collaborative process, Getting into different areas and working with different clients challenges us, and this applies to different materials as well.
It’s a question of not so much using new materials, but about finding properties of materials that can be used in ways that they haven’t been used before. Over the course of the last fifteen to twenty years, we’ve really examined materials for the opportunities that they provide, and have often been able to use them so that they’re both fresh architecturally, but also effective from a practical standpoint. It’s often allowed us to generate great value due to the uniqueness of a common material, to use those materials, usually inexpensive, yet have a high design value to it.
For materials that are overlooked, when you expect to see something used in a certain kind of way, you tend to not really see it, or just expect it to be used in that way. You then become surprised if you see it used in a different kind of way, for e.g., using brushes as exterior skin material, or using ping pong balls as a screen wall, is something that’s a real surprise. Examining the idea of using the transportation of goods – we used the container as a conference room, but really it was just a discussion too, at some level, and a commentary on the import/export of goods and ideas and how we tend to discard things, and how those things can be really re-used.
Because we’re such a small firm, it’s a little bit unusual – there’s only been around twenty of us. One of the things that we always like to do is that, we have a workshop, that when we are producing the models for a particular project, we would experiment with ideas. Part of what we do, both my partner and I, in terms of getting ourselves involved in different ways, is experiment with different materials and ways of doing things. It’s an ongoing process, and isn’t 100% consistent, but we always look for opportunities.
We have advanced model making tools, so we use that as a way of looking at different things. We like to use all of the capabilities that we can, so we print models, build models, do three-dimension models on computers. We’re always analyzing and commenting on architecture, and all of that feeds into the experimentation and vibrancy that we try and generate in our business.
We’re privileged in a way because we get paid to play, but if you forget how to play, then you just can’t be paid enough. Part of what we try to retain is the joy of architecture and the surprise of creative art, but it’s not creative if it doesn’t have that. The surprise is not only what other people see us produce, but the surprise that we generate for ourselves in the process.
TAXI >>Being partners with Lawrence Scarpa, can you please tell us a little bit on the dynamics of your partnership and what fuels your inspiration on a regular basis even after so many years?
Gwynne Pugh>>It’s a question of trust, trusting the other person, in this case my partner, is doing things not only for the best interest of himself, but for the company at large, and because it is so, that I would be a beneficiary of that. So there is the trust, and also the acceptance of what those choices are – if he feels strongly that he needs to do one thing or another, unless there is very good reason on my part, or that there is something I have concerns about, which I’ll express.
We try and get together for lunch and talk about things, two or three times a week, and this is just an opportunity for making sure that we understand what’s going on, and if there’s any concerns to express them – but by and large it’s one of acceptance.
Our roles are somewhat defined, we’re too small to be just one thing or another. Scarpa does most of the client work, but not all of it, and I certainly have those aspects. I do more of the urban design aspect of the works that we do. We both generate work, so we’re both rainmakers if you like. I tend to do more of the administration, but he understands everything that’s going on with regards to that. I have technical skills that differ from his, being both an engineer and an architect, so that allows us certain capabilities to expand and create a larger scope than what we would do individually.
In other words, part of what I’m trying to say here is that in a way, the sum of two ones is hopefully more than two, and that’s what we try and generate between us. There’s certainly a lot of overlap but there’s also some unique capabilities that we each bring.
We keep the relationship fresh by not being on top of each other, by allowing each other to explore and grow and change, and that’s probably the biggest aspect of it. It’ a bit like a marriage in a way, inasmuch as a marriage can grow stale, or they can reinvent themselves, and part of how we keep it fresh is by the nature of the work that we do, and the challenges that we give ourselves.
TAXI >>In every country that has become affluent in a short period of time, it seems to be almost a trend where famous architects are invited to put their stamp on the skyline. How do you feel about this?
Gwynne Pugh>>In some ways, part of the reason why I came to LA was because it was architecturally a vibrant place. What you’re seeing in for e.g., Qatar, and with the Olympics in Beijing, etc., there’s a really strong desire to establish oneself as a creative center. Also, those societies tend to be very loose, i.e. anything goes, or tend to be very autocratic. Even if you look at LA when it was in its heyday and expanding rapidly in the 20s and 30s, even after the 2nd World War, it was an area where there was so much room for growth, and everybody was doing their own thing, that there was a kind of looseness about it.
What happened subsequently of course, that in this looseness there wasn’t really a clear vision of how and what the city should be, and it ended up being kind of lopsided, which is why we have all these traffic problems here. People get very upset about the parts of the cities that don’t work, and that can really generate those kinds of conditions. The rules tend to tighten up, and the ability to be fresh and open about things tends to be restricted. For architects, it’s a real opportunity to go to places like Qatar, or Dubai, or Beijing, and create this wonderful architecture. I think having iconic architecture is a wonderful thing, but there also has to be a real responsibility to make these work, and make the cities work with this kind of architecture, and that is not always true.
TAXI >>What is the WORD, which you think would reside and reverberate in the design world for the next 10 years?
Gwynne Pugh>> The area of architecture that’s going to be very interesting, is the idea of biomimicry, buildings having skins, and having a much more organic quality to them. Buildings will have much more of a sense of the living being, and I think this is particularly true as sustainability gets really integrated into architecture, and it gets to the next level. Beyond that, then it also needs to work in terms of how our societies work, and how towns and cities are built.
..........................................................................................................
Exclusive Highlight on TAXI Design Network
Interview with Harold G. Nelson
 | TAXI >>Hello Harold. You are a licensed architect in the State of California, and have taught architecture in several state universities. How has this particular brand of experience aided in shaping your thinking and in the work you do today?
Harold G. Nelson>>First I would say that my formal education as an architect was the seminal catalyst for what has directed my career path. The design of academic programs in architecture in North America has been the foundation for many careers outside of architectural practice. I have been told on more than one occasion that architectural education is a powerful pedagogical design wasted when only used to educate architects. Such an education prepares people to work with complex challenges that require both critical and creative thinking—competencies valuable in a variety of settings. |
There are many examples of people in leadership positions or positions of great influence who have been architecturally trained. There are attempts now days to borrow ideas, such as ‘studio learning’, from architectural education models and apply them to the education of professionals in emerging design fields (information systems design for example), or in established professions like management. I feel that I was very fortunate to have had this type of academic preparation and to have been able to become more knowledgeable about the epistemological foundations of this educational design as a teacher.
Secondly, when working as a design architect, I became aware of two issues that led me back to graduate school and in a different direction in my career. The first thing I discovered was that my reasons for giving specific ‘form and function’ to the buildings I designed seemed too dependent on mere style, fashion, or technologic fixation. Interestingly architecture can be practiced as successfully as an applied art or as an applied science as it can as a design-based discipline. People can be compelled to inhabit sculptures or to live in machines based on choices made among styles of architectural practice.
For example, when I was researching energy policy at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientists there were formulating energy-based design specifications for buildings that essentially turned them into high efficiency machines rather than human environments.
Buildings in California that were built according to similar energy codes wound up making people sick and were even suspected of causing deaths. One state–owned building had to be closed. As an alternative, I was interested in architecture as ‘design’ where art and science are integral yet transcended.
The other thing I became aware of was that many if not most of the most important design decisions are made prior to a project being handed over to an architect. For example, the decision that the right solution to the needs of a business is a new building constitutes a critical design judgment. The solution might just as easily have been that the business needed to become virtual or needed a new organizational structure or product.
Also when architects say that they “design a museum or design a hospital” the truth is they design a structure for a museum and not the museum itself. In Seattle a ‘starchitect’ recently designed a high profile museum building that immediately closed because the people in charge of the museum discovered they had not designed a viable museum. The building was eventually reopened after the museum was finally designed.
These seed ideas led to my interest in systems science and design thinking beyond predefined solution-based professions. It also led to my interest in the design of design learning.
TAXI >>"Humans did not discover fire – they designed it" – as President of the Advanced Design Institute, what do you think is the biggest shortfall in traditional education systems of today, and what is the greatest misfortune in society stemming either directly or indirectly from this deficiency?
Harold G. Nelson>>Education, at least in the US, is focused on the creation of ‘routine experts’. Such experts are expected to have the right disciplinary answer to any problem that is defined from within their field of specialization at any place and any time. Such expertise may be necessary but it is not sufficient in today’s world.
The world is dynamic and changes unpredictably at any time. The world is also diverse, full of unique people and places. At the same time the world is complexly interrelated, as recent events have once again made clear. In addition to routine expertise we need “ adaptive experts”. People who are capable of adapting their expert solution-finding approaches to dynamic situations in particularized settings. However as valuable as this form of expertise is, we need professionals who are not merely or primarily reactive. We need professionals who can proactively create or change dynamic real-world situations to serve people’s needs and desires. These professionals are ‘adaptive design experts’ if you will. They have the ability to step into a moving environment and change its course such that desired outcomes are obtained.
The penalty we pay for too much reliance on routine expertise is that the complex dynamics of the real world is ignored in favor of pat answers and routine procedures. As a consequence people spend their limited resources in a reactive mode rather than in positive, intentional activity. The lost opportunity costs are immense and the damages caused by unintended consequences are piling up.
TAXI >>In "The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World", you talked about a new designerly approach being needed, which "applies to an infinite variety of design domains", both within "traditional" design categories such as architecture or industrial, and in other science and art categories which have long been thought unrelated. At its most fundamental, how can an ordinary person apply this to solve a common, everyday problem at work?
Harold G. Nelson>>Ordinary people engage in design at different points in their lives although they may not be aware that they are acting in a design way. They are not designing all the time (even professional designers do not design all the time) but they engage in designing aspects of their lives throughout their lives. That is, they create change intentionally rather than simply react to change by chance or necessity. The difficulty is that they typically have educational and life experiences that focuses on ‘problems’ as the trigger for change.
They are not familiar with a worldview that enables people to act in optimistic ways to identify their desires in life and to act with assurance in gaining what they hope to make real in their lives. People do not have the language to reflect on, and make improvements in their intentional behavior. Even though this is the typical situation, people create successful designs despite not having an appercetive appreciation of their accomplishments. I find that when I introduce design ideas to people without backgrounds in design they respond with an “of course” recognition of what they know instinctually.
TAXI >>If Design Competence were to provide a new, systematic blueprint for leadership and organizational skills, would this render traditional explanations and philosophies such as religion and spirituality obsolete?
Harold G. Nelson>>I believe that a deeper understanding of design abilities exposes challenges and metaphysical questions that re-energize reflections on religious traditions and explorations of spirituality. The act of co-creating the real world carries immense responsibilities. Scientific certainty or excuses of inadequacy cannot remove this accountability. Design enlivens questions of noble purpose and human limitations that leads to humility and openness to all forms of inquiry.
TAXI >>How has digital media and the internet helped or hindered the promulgation and process of Design Thinking, if at all?
Harold G. Nelson>>I think that the internet has been an invaluable means for building networks of individuals who are now helping to collectively identify and develop a culture of design. The idea of design thinking has spread like a virus to communities of practice that would, back in the day, not have had reason to interact with one another. I would not have had the opportunity to be in contact with TAXI for instance. The ability to communicate with people around the world at any time is essential to the process of collaboratively innovating the design thinking meme.
Technology can become a trap however. Energy and resources going into the development of computer based tools and methods can distract us from other significant challenges in the further development and implementation of good design practice. For instance there is a growing interest in the development of a ‘design science’ with all the expected discipline and assurance offered by a technologically supported scientific approach to designing. Financial and political support is attracted to this endeavor. As in all instances however there needs to be a balance. Digital media can enhance design activity at many levels but the challenge is to understand when, why, how, and where technology like this ought to be utilized in support of designing—fundamentally a human activity. It is the old idea that when one has a hammer everything is treated as a nail. This does not mean that we should stop developing a better way to hammer things together (i.e. air hammers). It does mean it is advisable to maintain a whole systems perspective when creating supportive technologies for design activity.
TAXI >>Many are now questioning the validity and usefulness of democracy and governmental aide in the face of the current economic recession. In introducing design as a base for leadership, how will incorporating Design Thinking help in redistributing resources in society, and where will the basic motivation stem from?
Harold G. Nelson>>Design in my opinion is defined as a ‘service’ based activity. That is it is in service to others and not to self-interests. Design leadership is a systemic relationship between designers, clients, stakeholders and others. It does not start with the vision of a leader that is then implemented. Design leaderships is a process leading to vision as an emergent outcome—an outcome that clients recognize as representative of their own interests and not as something imposed on them.
Sustainable development and decentralized governance for instance can become a framework for design intervention. Design thinking is deontic as well as pragmatic and aesthetic. Using design thinking does not remove potential conflict of interests but a design perspective makes things more transparent. Transparency comes as a consequence of deliberations concerning actual or implied contracting. Who is/ought to be served? Who is/ought to be the designers, decision makers, stakeholders etc.?
TAXI >>As increasingly more developing countries' governments realize the importance and impact that a stable design culture can have on the countries' economies, how does one ensure that the approach taken remains ethical?
Harold G. Nelson>>As mentioned above design needs to be ethical as well as rational and aesthetic. The “needs to be” statement is my own ethical pronouncement obviously. Design can be defined in many non-ethical ways; as a technical recipe, as a political process or artistic expression. However I try to make the case that design is best defined as a process animating human interrelationships that are defined as ethical in great measure. I have learned from experience that pushing for this kind of transparency can be very difficult or even dangerous. It is well worth the effort however.
TAXI >>What is the WORD, which you think would reside and reverberate in the design world for the next 10 years?
Harold G. Nelson>>Service.
..........................................................................................................
Read OTHER INTERVIEWS on DESIGN LEADERS
..........................................................................................................
© 2003 - 2008 by TAXI Design Network. All rights reserved.
Most-read over the past week
- Top 10 Most Popular Stories over the Past Week
- Top 10 Most Popular Stories over the Past Week
- Top 10 Most Popular Stories over the Past Week
- Top 10 Most Popular Stories over the Past Week
- Car Company Awards The Worst Driver In Paris
- IKEA Does Banksy-Style Graffiti On Its Own Ads Along Milan Subway
- Designer and Filmmaker Hillman Curtis Has Died At 51
- iPhone 5 Likely To Be Launched In October
- Bill Gates To Become Comic Book Hero
- To Safely Deliver Pizzas, Domino’s Scooter Makes Human-Made Engine Sounds