MATERIALITY DESIGN DETAILING: Investigating a Contemporary British Attitude William Field 13030266 29|01|2016
Materiality + Design Detailing: Investigating a Contemporary British Attitude.
William Field 13030266 Dissertation U30099
ď ‰
A dissertation presented to the School of Architecture, Oxford Brookes University in part fulfilment of the regulations for BA (Hons) in Architecture* / BA Interior Architecture: Design and Practice
Statement of Originality: This dissertation is an original piece of work which is made available for copying with permission of the Head of the School of Architecture.
Signed:
Statement of Ethics Review Approval: This dissertation involved human participants. A Form E1BE for each group of participants, showing ethics review approval, has been attached to this dissertation as an appendix.
ď ‰ď ‰
Contents Page
p. 01 - 06
Introduction
- Abstract - Definitions - Main Body
p. 07 - 18
Maggies Lanarkshire
- Building Context - Sanctuary (+ Paradise) - Warmth (+ Support) - Journey (+ Layout) - Reflection (+ Privacy)
p. 19 - 30
Burntwood School
- Building Context - Concrete Panels - Coloured Motifs - Architectural Languages - Economic Influences:
P. 31 - 34
Stirling Prize
Conclusion
P. 35 - 40
- Ornamental and Decorative Details - Material Honesty - Material Longevity - Predetermined Rules of Bygone Architectural Movements
ď ‰ď –
Contents Page
p. VI - XII
Back Pages
- References - Image References - Bibliography - Acknowledgements
ď –
Abstract
This dissertation aims to investigate the current attitude held by the British architectural community, towards both Materiality and Design Detailing.Two buildings from the 2015 Stirling Prize shortlist, will serve as principal points of reference. A series of interviews, site visits and personal accounts, coupled with research into the attitudes of contemporary critics, act as the media through which the dissertation topic is investigated. Additionally, this contemporary view, will be explored in relation to the of philosophies of three well-known theorists, writing from the mid 19th Century, to the late 20th Century, providing an interesting point of comparison.
Definitions
Materiality:
“Materiality in architecture is the concept of, or applied use of, various materials or substances in the medium of building.” (Wikipedia, n.d.)
Design Detailing:
Design Detailing: “An architectural detail is a small piece of the whole, yet it has the power to characterize and define the entire building. Details tell us what a building is; they are fundamental to the life and personality of a space. Additionally, the design of a simple connection can and should be indicative of the designer’s attitude toward the building in general; indeed, detail is architecture at its smallest size.” (Weber, 1991)
Attitude:
Attitude: “A settled way of thinking or feeling about someone or something, typically one that is reflected in a person’s behaviour.” (Pearsall & Hanks, 1998)
Introduction
Main Body The role played by materials and design details in architecture is continuously evolving. However, both are as recognisable in structures built centuries ago, as they are in modern buildings. Each Age has placed certain restrictions on the possibilities open to an architect: He/she can only design and select materials according to what is available, in terms of resources and technology. In the present day, the architect has the opportunity to use any number and manner of materials in the design and construction of a building. Modern technology also makes possible today, what was impossible yesterday. Whilst materials and design detailing evolve with time, it is interesting to consider whether attitudes also evolve. By comparing and contrasting contemporary attitudes to each of these elements, with the theories of bygone architectural movements, it is possible to establish how much current thinking is new and how much is a continuation of the norm.
References The first theorist selected for comparison, is John Ruskin: An architect and philosopher considered by some to be the instigator of a ‘modern’ architectural revolution, reacting to the decadence of the 18th Century and earlier. As a major player in the Arts and Crafts movement, Ruskin instilled the inspirational importance of nature, as a way of clarifying architectural form; returning to purer architectural language. A considerable aim of the Arts and Craft movement was to simplify architectural decoration and ornamentation. This is an architectural element, which arguably is the result of a combination of both materiality and design detailing. Ruskin’s seminal work ‘The Seven Lamps of Architecture’ (1890), portrays his attitude towards the architecture of the preceding centuries. Taking an analytical and opinionated view, he consequently sets out what he regards as the seven broad roles of an architect. These seven roles, in turn, apply to the resulting architecture. His second chapter, ‘The Lamp of Truth’ considers the part played by ‘honesty’ and ‘deception’ in architecture. It discusses the way in which materials should be employed truthfully, without intentional deceit. Deception of a building’s structure, finished surface (or ornament) and aesthetic were condemned.
“We might not be able to command good, or beautiful, or inventive architecture; but we can command an honest architecture: The meagreness of poverty may be pardoned, the sternness of utility respected.” (Ruskin, 1890, p.61) The relevance of materiality and design detailing, is therefore, present in many of Ruskin’s principal attitudes, set out within the ‘Lamp of Truth,’ offering a captivating standpoint, which developed into the Modernist Movement at the start of the 20th Century. Adolf Loos, a key narrator of the early 1900s, is the second theorist referenced. He takes a Modernist attitude towards materiality and design detailing and his strident views display a radical departure from both Ruskin’s instigative opinions, and the Arts and Craft Movement. Loos’ nearly fascist approach to superfluous decoration and detailing, is exhibited the book ‘Ornament and Crime’ (1908). In it, he compiles a series of 36 essays written between 1897-1931.The most significant of these, gives its title to the book and was originally written in 1908. Loos believes that the use of materials in decorative design detailing is a complete waste; an argument fuelled by his view of the inefficiency of previous architecture. In a new age of technological innovation, the Modernist Movement paved the way for a new architectural culture. At the forefront of the Movement, was the notion of ‘pure simplification.’ White and geometric forms, made for architecture which intended to humbly cater for its function. The longevity of a buildings’ design was contemplated, departing from the ornamental fashions of bygone eras. Incidentally, by doing this, Modernist architects created a new trending aesthetic: Plain, white and glazed boxes, an iconic architectural symbol, which are still being produced today. The idea of a ‘pastiche’ was also something that Adolf Loos abhorred; arguing that the re-creation of architecture from a different era was fundamentally wrong. Today, this notion is seconded in numerous contemporary architectural articles, blogs and websites. It is also key to the current honest approach to materiality and design detailing. The third theorist referenced is Bruce Goff, an American architect who was not afraid to be different. Practising from the mid 1920s until the early 1980s, Goff took part in a monumental transformation in architecture. He often flouted the sterile vein of many European Modernist values. In a series of lectures given to Oklahoma School of Architecture, Goff set out his architectural manifesto. Inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright and Louis Sullivan, Goff formulated an original flamboyant style, comprising the ‘honest’ approach of both Loos and Ruskin, yet with a drive to produce a tactile and aesthetically distinguished architecture.
John Ruskin
This alternative approach makes Goff particularly relevant to the subject of materiality and design detailing; when reflecting on a contemporary attitude, current thoughts fundamentally result from a combination of architectural precedent, technological advance and innovative rationale.
Fig. 01 Adolf Loos
The ideologies expounded by the three selected theorists, form a basis from which to begin the discussion with three of the 2015 RIBA Stirling Prize shortlisted architects. Using selected quotations from each of the theorists, I was able to stimulate discussion during each interview and establish current views in relation to historical theory. This was, however, just a start point for further discussion and development of the subject. The Stirling Prize is widely considered to be the United Kingdom’s most prestigious annual architectural award and is presented to the architect(s) deemed to have “made the greatest contribution to the evolution of architecture in the past year.” (architecture.com, n.d.) Any discussion of a current British attitude must, therefore, include a consideration of buildings on the Stirling Prize shortlist.
Fig. 02
Fig. 03
Bruce Goff
The 2015 Stirling Prize shortlist comprised six buildings of differing scale, function and contextual location. Four of these buildings were situated in London, whilst the other two sat further north, in Manchester and Scotland. In order to investigate the topic of the dissertation, I decided to select two very different buildings from the shortlist. I decided upon Maggie’s Lanarkshire by Reiach and Hall Architects, and Burntwood School by Allford Hall Monaghan and Morris (AHMM).
Maggie’s is a charitable organisation, which operates a number of Cancer Care Centres, offering sanctuary and support to cancer patients and their families. Maggie’s Lanarkshire is a new addition to the charity’s collection of Centres, situated in Airdrie Scotland, roughly thirty minutes from Glasgow city centre. The building was the smallest and most intricate of the shortlist, offering an exquisite display of materiality and delicate detailing. Holding a face-to-face interview with Neil Gillespie, one of the directors at Reiach and Hall Architects, I was able to gain an understanding of his attitudes, as well as an insight into the background design concepts of the building. Burntwood, on the other hand, is a girls’ secondary school and sixth form located in the borough of Wandsworth (South-West London). The reconstruction programme was completed in 2015 and earned AHMM, their first Stirling Prize (after being shortlisted four times previously). In need of rejuvenation, the tired 1950s buildings were systemically demolished and replaced as part of the schools’ phased renewal, under the government’s Building Schools for the Future (BSF) scheme. The reconstruction had to take place whilst its 2000 pupils and 200 staff continued to work within it. Of a far more substantial scale, Burntwood offers a different perspective on the contemporary architectural situation, from the small, delicate Maggie’s. Not only very different physically, the two sites presented a completely different, atmospheric and emotive experience. Maggie’s Lanarkshire deals with an extremely sensitive subject within a soft, welcoming environment. Burntwood is characterised by a fantastically functional series of decisions, in a large and impersonal space. Together, both buildings provide an invaluable insight into the attitudes of two contemporary British practices. A third and final interview with architect Shih-Fu Peng of Heneghan Peng Architects (shortlisted for their new addition to the University of Greenwich), offers a further contemporary opinion on materiality and design detailing as well as a view on the Stirling Prize.
Neil Gillespie
Fig. 04 Paul Monaghan
Shih-Fu Peng
Fig. 05
Fig. 06
Maggie's Lanarkshire
(The text in blue, indicates an account of my own trip to the building) Building Context: At the start of the interview, Gillespie, qualified the scale and nature of the brief set out by the client. As a traditional ‘Design and Build’ set-up, Reiach and Hall were able to work directly with the client and builders, avoiding a main contractor, which gave the architects freer reign on the projects’ form and construction. Gillespie was quick to point out, that the practice was fortunate to be appointed by an experienced client with, amongst other members, Charles Jenks, a key architect in the Post Modernist Movement. He continued, “they understand what’s being put in front of them… so in terms of materiality, we kind of recognized immediately that Maggie’s was an opportunity.” (Gillespie, 2015) At first glance, Maggie’s Lanarkshire is a building with a design that is easy to understand: with a simple series of domestic-scaled spaces and a delicate use of modest materials. Jenks, however, was keen for the Centre to follow the vein of the rest of the Maggie’s group, having a ‘narrative’ within the building’s design ethos and concept. Through my own personal experience of the building and the interview with Neil Gillespie, I have identified four themes, which are expressed through the building’s materiality and design detailing. These are: Sanctuary (+ Paradise), Warmth (+ Support), Journey, and Reflection (+ Privacy). I believe that these four themes or design concepts, demonstrate an understanding of the current architectural approach of one British practice.
Crichton Castle
Sanctuary (+ Paradise): Research prior to my trip, revealed that one of Reiach and Hall’s main recurring inspirations and a key precedent for Maggie’s Lanarkshire, was Crichton Castle: a hidden splendour confined within walls and located just over eleven miles from their Edinburgh practice. Importantly, this building holds the stimulus to the primary design concept – the idea of an enclosed ‘sanctuary’. I visited Crichton Castle to understand the reason for its selection as an inspiration for Maggie’s.
Fig. 07
Monklands General District Hospital
The weather on arrival in Scotland could only be described as ‘dreich’ (a Scottish word for damp, cold and pretty miserable). As one approaches the castle, it is not immediately obvious; the tones of its weathered stone blend into the copper, beige and khaki coloured landscape of the surrounding valley. The external surface of the stone, on close inspection, wears the scars of the damage inflicted by the continual battle with the Scottish climate. It is easy to understand the architect’s fascination, as soon as one passes through the small-gated entrance way into the paved court within. The entirety of its inner-facing wall manifests itself as an astonishing, “Renaissance nail-head moulded stone façade.” (Reiach and Hall Architects, 2014) The architects further explain that it is the lack of awareness of what lies within, from an external perspective, which is exciting. The only way one can truly discover the extent of its beauty is by passing through a defined ‘threshold’. This architectural game is something that is very much inherent in Maggie’s Lanarkshire; A continued discovery of little pockets of comfort and simple beauty, in which the users can immerse themselves.
Fig. 08
The wall is constructed of Petersen Bricks; a hand-made, fawn-coloured Danish brick.These bricks are laid with gaps between their vertical joints, producing perforations in the brick course, through which framed views of the grounds outside can be seen. The enclosing walls at these points are perforated by a series of spaces left within the brick wall; giving a Centreuser the opportunity to glimpse Monklands, offering
Fig. 09
Perforated Wall Section
One of Reiach and Hall’s primary design focuses was to, “reinstate the idea of a boundary to the hospital estate;” (Reiach and Hall Architects, 2014) replacing the demolished garden walls of Airdrie House, which had been slowly engulfed by Monklands Hospital. Maggie’s Lanarkshire perfectly encapsulates the idea, by protecting its lowleveled pavilion behind a ‘finely articulated’ surrounding wall. The boundary created, provides sanctuary from the gloomy atmosphere of the rest of the hospital grounds. Taking a literal translation of the etymology of paradise (in Greek: ‘Enclosed Park’) the architects produced a textilelike brick wall, allowing users to immerse themselves in its enclosed ‘secret garden’.
Perforated Wall Section
Situated within the grounds of Monklands District General Hospital, the approach to ‘Maggie’s Lanarkshire’ is somewhat different to the Highland experience of a visit to Crichton Castle; a set of slightly tired looking functional buildings lies to the left of the entrance road, whilst a housing estate sits on the opposite side. A gently sloping grass bank, and dispersed copse of mature lime trees, denotes the site of the ‘Cancer Care Centre’. Directly adjacent, a series of car parks sprawl across the varying topology of the hospital site. This unpromising external setting creates an atmosphere, which is immediately contradicted when passing through Maggie’s primary ‘threshold’: The front gate.
Fig. 10
Perforated Wall Section
them “separation from the hospital beyond, but not a disconnection from the reality of the situation.” (Paterson, 2015)
Reiach and Hall highlight further apertures at different scales in the Centre’s plan, sections and elevations, as well as in its design details. Four courtyards manifest themselves as one type of ‘perforation’; all containing additional perforated elements within them. This series of details represent a significant part of the narrative of ‘Sanctuary’, as Maggie’s is as much about being a refuge, as it is about being a place to get practical advice on dealing with cancer. The solid brick walls form the element of protection and the holes through them, create a perspective. I asked, “why did you choose a Danish and not a Scottish or British brick?” (Field, 2015) In reply, Gillespie commented, “it’s because it’s a beautiful brick… that has a really beautiful surface quality.” (Gillespie, 2015) His response portrays the continual dichotomy faced by a contemporary architect, between a building’s function and aesthetic. In the case of the Petersen Brick, Reiach and Hall were able to provide both, at equal measure, due to the high quality of the material. In ‘Ornament and Crime’ (1908), Adolf Loos’ discusses the lack of concern for longevity, held by previous and contemporary architects. He writes: “Nowadays, putting decoration on objects which, thanks to progress, no longer need to be decorated, means a waste of labour and an abuse of material. If all objects would last as long in aesthetic terms as they last physically, the consumer would be able to pay a price for them that would allow the worker to earn more money for shorter hours.” (Loos and Opel, 1998) Fig. 11
The argument for buildings to be enduring, aesthetically and indeed physically, is as relevant now as it was at the turn of the Twentieth Century. Neil Gillespie addressed the subject, “we try not to succumb to what’s fashionable.” (Gillespie, 2015) As a practice, Reiach and Hall appear to pride themselves on having their own architectural language: an amalgamation of a regionalist Scottish influence, combined with a modernist Scandinavian one, instilled by Alan Reiach, an original founding partner. This approach leads to architecture informed by its surrounding context, as opposed to what is fashionable at the time of its conception. Gillespie describes the practice as ‘pragmatic’, being mindful of what else is happening within the architectural community, yet retaining a design strategy, which ensures their buildings will be relevant for longer. This is largely evident in the practice’s approach to materiality, demonstrated in Maggie’s Lanarkshire with the Petersen Brick. Gillespie, in answer to Loos’ quote on longevity (which I read aloud during the interview), discussed the concept of weathering; qualifying both concepts of the physical (“react to wind and rain…” (Gillespie, 2015)), and philosophical (“will it still be interesting…” (Gillespie, 2015)). Paraphrasing Mohsen Mostafavi, from his book ‘On Weathering’, he explains that the description of weathering on a building alters according to the attitude of the person perceiving it. “He compares a Corb[usier] white house… with a stone [building], like say in Oxford;” (Gillespie, 2015) A single stain on one, a disaster, whilst black streaking on the other, a thing of beauty, becoming part of the materials’ history. Gillespie rejects the Modernist utopia of a pristine white box, as it is unachievable, thereby exposing an important shift in attitude towards architectural materiality and aesthetics amongst contemporary architects. Another ‘toss-up’, that heavily influences a building’s materiality, is the “balance of function, budget, and ambitions,” (Gillespie, 2015) relating to both the client and architect. In the case of Maggie’s Lanarkshire, Reiach and Hall were keen to employ an interesting series of design details and materials. By keeping the Centre’s form incredibly simple, the architects were able to deliver a building that retained both. As the result of careful consideration, the Centre will maintain its architectural beauty, and may even improve. The material used, is evidence of a strong argument in favour of this opinion: “a brick wall… probably looks its worst the day you finish it; gradually it gets better.” (Gillespie, 2015)
Maggie's Muted Material Palette from the Kitchen
Fig. 12
Warmth (+ Support): Another design concept integrated into Maggie’s Lanarkshire, relates to the internal environment, providing architectural ‘Warmth (+ Support)’ much like its staff. Reiach and Hall achieve this with their clever use of lighting, materials and delicate building structure. Stepping into the building’s entrance, warmth, similar to the internal tone of light, washes over you, and the small Centre’s architectural identity and materiality is first appreciated. As described by Reiach and Hall, the Centre manifests itself in a “sequence of domestic-scaled spaces, both internal and external,” (Reiach and Hall Architects, 2014). This is immediately apparent to the visitor. Armchairs provide a comfortable place to sit, within a soft and neutral palette of materials. Blonde Finnish birch walls manifest themselves as multi-use pieces of furniture: Book shelves, desks and cupboards set within them. Limed oak flooring slightly muffles the sounds of footsteps as one walks inside. A slender series of white tartan-patterned structural steel frameworks, hold white-stained pine beams, which stretch across the width of the building, aiding the acoustic environment, as well as generating a beautiful rhythm, continuing along the length of the building.
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Maggie's Sitting Room
Ruskin discusses the topic of ‘surface deceit’ in his chapter ‘The Lamp of Truth’, one of ‘The Seven Lamps of Architecture’ (1849). The act of concealing or passing off a material as another is, for him, an architectural sin; a concept fervently supported by Neil Gillespie, “we would recoil in horror at that.” (Gillespie, 2015) John Ruskin offers an interesting parallel example, to Reiach and Hall’s use of timber stain; that of ‘white-wash’: “It shows itself for what it
Fig. 13 Natural Light Swathes Entrance
Although fresh and of high quality finish now, the muted and light coloured materials of Maggie’s interior could potentially diminish.The building’s domestic feel and design, works with the number of people that visit per day at the moment, however, with heavier footfall and wear, the Centre’s warm internal atmosphere, could become tired and alter.
Ceiling and Structure Junction
The floor, internal walls, fitments and ceiling structure are all timber in a natural range of tones, that produce a soft and muted environment. Chosen for their characteristics, each material “has a quality that works with the job they’re asked to do… the oak is very durable, the birch ply is cheap…” (Gillespie, 2015) In a contemporary online blog, Diego Samuel comments upon the subject of ‘Virtuous Architecture’. He argues, that when materials are, “employed precisely for their natural qualities: stone for its strength and wood for its economy and ease of fabrication,” (Samuel, 2011) they are at their most honest. Maggie’s Lanarkshire provides exactly this. However, a slight ‘white-lie’ is evident in its flooring and ceiling structure. An applied white stain alters the timber’s surface finish, pulling the internal palette of tones closer together; an aesthetic decision, with a functional output. Gillespie explained, that even with this aesthetic decision, the practice had the resulting light condition in mind; the whiteness of space draws the light in and becomes “a kind of absorbent space.” (Gillespie, 2015)
is, and asserts nothing of what is beneath it.” (Ruskin, 1894, pg. 88) The translucent stain is arguably more honest, revealing the wood grain beneath, and providing a protective layer around the timber. Reiach and Hall’s honest attitude towards material application shows a current and prevalent architectural interest, in line with a ‘Ruskinian’ perspective. If each material were left in its natural state, however (the oak flooring and pine ceiling, coated in a clear layer rather than a white stain), the materials would arguably be more honest.The internal palette of materials would not homogenise, leaving a set of contrasting structural details, in turn, highlighting the building’s construction; leading to further structural honesty. Leading away from the entrance, the user can pass either side of a glazed courtyard; one of a pair of external rooms, which divide the central space into three, along the length of the building, without obstructing the view from one end to the other. A beautifully crafted, “highly polished, gold perforated, metal light catcher,” (Reiach and Hall Architects, 2014) is suspended above both courts. With their external surface matted, and their internal surface perfectly finished, they reference Crichton Castle, and act as two treasures set within the confines of Maggie’s. They reflect and transform the dullest of natural lighting conditions into a golden hue. The chairs and tables below are bathed in light and light spills into the surrounding internal rooms. A further two courtyards occupy spaces adjoining the outer wall of the building.
The nature of cancer is sensitive and emotional, and the decision to enter the Centre for the first time is often unnerving for an individual. This difficult choice is made easier by the third design narrative: a Journey. This starts with the rill (small stream) in the ‘Arrival Court’ of Maggie’s Lanarkshire and ends in its reflective pool at the foot of the ‘Walled Garden’.
The rill provides, “something to look at… sit on… but the narrative is… about beginnings.” (Gillespie, 2015) The ‘Arrival Court’ allows time for thought; however, it is the warm familiar internal environment, which encourages an individual to take the next step; engaging with Maggie’s support. The soffit of the building is kept low, in line with the user’s eye-level. “Sitting around the table chatting, in a lounge chair reading a book, or lying on the floor doing exercises;” (Gillespie, 2015) a user generally perceives the building from a low-level. The building’s ceiling height helps create a sense of intimacy and domestic-scale. The open layout of the building, offers the Centre’s staff and visitors a view from most rooms, right through to its
Fig. 16
Rear Terrace Steps
As one enters the ‘Arrival Court’, a sense of calm is provoked. This is partially due to the slight enclosure and physicality of the space, but also due to the “linear rill, alive with the sound of running water,” (Reiach and Hall Architects, 2014) which animates the surrounding space, directly linking back to a natural Scottish environment. Warm light also spills from floor-to-ceiling windows on the right-hand side, onto the brick flooring, enticing any anxious building user forward. Turning to look through into the building, a horizontal framed space becomes visible, stretching from the front, right to the rear of the building without obstacle.
Front Glazed Screen from the Arrival Court
Journey (+ Layout):
Fig. 17
Maggie's Linear Rill in the Arrival Court Fig. 18
entrance. On my arrival, I was greeted by two Cancer Support Specialists, who were able to say hello from the centre of the quiet building, for this very reason (much like someone would do in a domestic setting). The most popular area of the building lies at its heart: the kitchen, which like in many people’s homes, is a space where one is drawn almost immediately. From here, it is possible to view each room, lit from all four sides by the building’s courts, making it a warm and bright space. In pride of place on the kitchen’s island, the kettle sat bubbling away, to which my guide, Gaye Paterson (Cancer Support Specialist) gestured: “it’s the most important tool of the building.” (Paterson, 2015) She further explained that people would often gather around the kitchen table, as a means of sharing conversation with others in a similar situation. This is where the building succeeds, as one acquires a feeling of security and comfort due to the layout, materiality and domesticity of its spaces. Log-fire burners, settees and rugs populate the rooms connecting to its central space. The Living room, Library and enclosed counselling rooms, are all elements contributing to its intimate atmosphere.
Reflection (+ Privacy): There are glazed panels in the courts and at either end of the building. The opacity of these panels changes throughout the course of the day, due to external and internal light levels. At certain times, they become slightly opaque screens, due to the reflection of objects and people within the building. This interesting feature adds to the factors of privacy within the buildings’ design, and allows users to hide away unnoticed if they so wish. The theme of reflection suitably marries with the function of Maggie’s Centre, guiding and supporting a person through their difficult situation. The architects approached the sensitive subject with a number of design details, which perform a function, as well as containing symbolism, reflecting the different roles and aims of the Maggie’s Centre itself.
“You get these moments in the building when everything’s clear and sometimes it is not, and I think that’s what that glass surface gives us: it shifts. When you go and see Maggie’s in the evening, it reverses completely; you see right the way through [internally] and from the outside, you can see in. But when you’re standing in the daylight, you can’t. They’re very private. So a lot of the detailing on the glazing, was to try and make [the rear] surface as sheer as possible; in contrast to the brick, the landscape and the trees.” (Gillespie, 2015) At the rear of the centre, another set of floor-to-ceiling glazed panels frame a view of the walled garden. Moving through this ‘threshold’, one emerges out onto a short stone terrace, which gently falls away with a set of long garden steps. The garden follows the ground’s slight decline until a long water feature marks the end of the site. Standing next to the garden pool, a sense of calm is once again prompted, similar to the feeling of calm induced in the ‘Arrival Court’. Peering back into the centre, the windows reflect the trees and sky under which I’m nestled, making it possible for me to appreciate the significance of Maggie’s Lanarkshire to its users. Discussing the topic of ‘Reflection (+ Privacy)’ Neil Gillespie referred to another of the building’s precedents: Sigurd Lewerentz’s Bjorkhagen Church, which offers an intense internal atmosphere and dark brick construction. By pulling a sheet of glass out onto the surface of the brick, Lewerentz suddenly produces a mirror. This relationship of glass to brick is also used in the rear façade at Maggie’s Lanarkshire.
Reflections from Maggie's rear Glazed Screen
Fig. 19
An Obscured View Through a Central Court
The Sky's Reflection in one Copper Light Catchers
Fig. 21 Fig. 20
Burntwood School
(The text in blue, indicates an account of my own trip to the building) Building Context: Through a visit to the school and a discussion with its head mistress, as well as an interview with Paul Monaghan (a director of AHMM), a range of materiality and design decisions were made apparent; all were a result of the discrepancy between both Function and Aesthetics. Highlighted in the previous chapter by Neil Gillespie, this ‘toss-up’ was a principal motivator behind the building’s form and design concepts; mainly due to the scale of the project’s brief, and its resulting buildings. Burntwood joined a series of other schools, in a government led programme called ‘Building Schools for the Future’ (or BSF), which was launched in the early 2000s. As a large public building, the project was run by ‘Lend Lease’ (“a leading, fully integrated, international property and infrastructure group,” (Lendlease.com, n.d.)) and were AHMM’s clients. Aiming to adhere to both the requirements of Burntwood School, as well as Lend Lease’s budget, the project became an interesting ‘juggling act’ for the architects. AHMM worked with a contractor who, in-turn, recruited further sub-contractors giving this project a completely different level of complexity to Reiach and Hall’s Maggie’s. The architectural practice had, therefore, a tighter set of constraints mostly based around budget-led decisions, making the task of designing the school more challenging. The resultant architectural project displays a fantastic range of materiality and design details, realized as a solution to the brief and encompassing functional and aesthetic values, within the budget set. Burntwood’s iconic faceted façades and pre-cast components form an important element of AHMM’s approach, whilst the bold colours of its entranceways and interiors show another. The practice’s attitude towards materiality and design detailing can be discovered through the exploration of architectural features. The budget-based decisions made by the practice can be identified at certain points on site, and demonstrate their innovative and contemporary approach. Concrete Panels, Coloured Motifs, Architectural Languages and Economic Influences are the main themes, which inform this chapter.
Harsh Sunlight on a Summer's Day
Concrete Panels: Miserable weather, on the day of my visit to Burntwood School, echoed my ‘dreich’ trip to Scotland,and changed my pre-conceived idea of the buildings, which had been based on photographs which had clearly been taken on a beautiful summer’s day. This different light, cast by the reality of dull weather gave me the opportunity to view the materiality and design detailing of the buildings, in adverse weather conditions.
Fig. 22
Damp Facets on a rainy November's Day
An angular succession of pre-cast concrete panels, form the façades of the curriculum buildings. Swathed with a diffused natural light, their sharp junctions were somewhat softened; harsh shadows cast by direct sunlight (of a summer’s day), were replaced by a change in the concrete’s tone where it was damp, creating an interesting, yet uncontrollable dimension. The grey sky reflected off the glazed panels set within the pavilion’s façades, causing them to blend into the monochromatic tones of the rest of the school. (Reference Fig. 23 + 22) In my interview with Paul Monaghan, he explained that the faceted panels developed from an old-school Modernist approach: of ‘Form-Follows-Function’. The final shape of the panels was a result of a series of functional design details: Each panel provides an additional 23% solar shading (AHMM, 2015), as a result of its deep-set windows and projecting slanting faces. Designed to sit in front of the pavilion’s concrete structure, the precast panels also have a depth, which enables them to be stacked into an airtight self-supporting skin, wrapping around all four sides.
Fig. 23
As well as their environmental and structural roles, the panels perform a practical function internally. A designed module of either 3.5m or 4.0m in width, allows each panel
Reflections from Maggie's rear Glazed Screen Fig. 24
to prescribe a flexible internal room space, at three possible sizes; a design element, which was critical if the panels were to be used, in all four curriculum buildings. Although wholly functional, the playful arrangement of panels makes for an engaging façade; the stacked concrete slabs’ ordered irregularly, conjuring images of a Mondrian-like grid. Monaghan explained that the practice had, “always quite enjoyed sliding elevations…[as] the composition makes it slightly more dynamic,” (Monaghan, 2015) unveiling the practice’s considered approach towards Burntwood’s ultimate aesthetic. Three central corridors stretch the entire length of each teaching pavilion, one on each floor. Double height spaces ‘bookend’ these corridors, becoming focal points, producing a well of natural light through their large glazed openings. A framed view of London can be seen at the northern end of block 1. At its other end, a perfectly aligned view along the equivalent corridor of block 4 demonstrates AHMM’s attention to detail and clever design. Stemming from either side of these central passageways are a number of classrooms, meeting-rooms and offices. A further series of double and triple height spaces assume the remaining volume. The external skin is most obvious internally, when viewed from these spaces; across numerous floor levels, its window openings rest unconnected, punched through their external panels in an alternated configuration.
Three levels of Concrete Facades
The discrepancy between function and aesthetic is blurred when considering the catalogue of panel shapes. By varying the size of the each module’s glazed panel and angled surfaces, AHMM play with the façade’s composition, as well as administering the level of privacy and amount of light let into each room. The toilets, for example, are set behind a panel with a small, high-level, window. The classrooms, on the other hand utilize a wide glazed panel, flooding their interiors with natural light (whilst the windows remain at a height allowing a table to be pushed up square against a wall below). The school’s layout provides a continually changing perspective from which to view its buildings; from a distance, one can appreciate the façade’s repetition and rhythm, whilst a close inspection reveals glistening mica flecks cast into its concrete panels. The considered configuration of different apertures set within the façade means that one is not immediately aware of its repeated panel shapes. The change in colour between each pavilion’s top two levels and its ground floor panels, arguably displays a decision completely led by aesthetics. Posed with the question of its purpose, Monaghan discussed the practice’s use of an ‘architectural base’. Inspired, initially by Aldo Rossi, AHMM use the change in architectural language in order to ‘ground’ the teaching pavilions; generating, “a different hierarchy to the façade.” (Monaghan, 2015) The practice’s attitude towards design detailing for a building at this scale, therefore results from a carefully considered process – one could argue that function and aesthetics were equally important for the building’s skin. Fig. 25
The pre-cast process, utilised by AHMM, was a key influencer of their design detailing. The fact that the panels were going to be made in a factory rather than on-site, ensured quality of manufacture, however it also established certain parameters:“we knew it could be about four metres maximum… [However] it was more about delivery and the weight that became an issue. [sic]” (Monaghan, 2015) The structural modules were factory-finished, and pre-glazed before arriving on site; allowing for an incredibly quick construction, much like a kit build. The contemporary architect needs to consider prefabrication, before making a judgment on detailing and materiality, defining a major change in attitude from the Modernist period (which inspired AHMM) and earlier. Ruskin’s opinion in ‘The lamp of Truth,’ is that technological and machine-made products are dishonest, due (at the time of his writing) to their poor quality of finish. He argues that products made by machine would never match the quality and beauty of a hand-made piece. However, this notion is largely outdated, due to the major shift in
Faceted Facade Close-up revealing its Myca flecks
When discussing the panels, it is essential to mention their pre-fabricated process. In a series of short films by Rob Parrish, one is shown the process of manufacture in Techrete’s Leicestershire factory. Collaborators with AHMM, Techrete acted as manufacturer and supplier of the architectural precast modules (as the current United Kingdom market leaders). Offering, “a complete precast solution, from design through manufacture to erection,” (Techrete.com, n.d.) the company transformed the initial architectural details and concepts, into the physical panels. As a wholly man-made process, Parrish’s videos display the steps taken, including: The construction of moulds, the casting process and the acid etching used to finish the precast panels and to reveal their ‘jewel-like’ mica flecks.
Fig. 26
technological advances of the past century and even more so, in the last couple of decades. It is now possible for a machine to make things that are more intricate and perfect than any hand could make. Although the pre-cast panels produced by Techrete, are largely hand-made, their process of manufacture is hugely aided by machinery and technology. A level of finish that was not achievable in the 1800s, is now possible. The school’s concrete façades, however, received criticism from Ike Ijeh of Building Design, who wrote a scathing review, arguing that the school brought nothing new to the architectural table. Expressing his opinion that there were “unnerving similarities between Burntwood’s elevational characteristics and those of several other schools within,” their catalogue; Ijeh reveals a potential issue with a Modernist approach. With a building’s simple form holding more significance than the site’s contextual importance, this contemporary approach could lead to architecture lacking relevance, producing buildings, which look the same regardless of their location. This references the ‘white purist boxes’ designed by many Modernist architects in the early stages of the 20th Century.
“Burntwood’s concrete facades may conceal all manner of technical wizardry but in their relentless repetition, heavy articulation and defensive form, they have all the charm and intimacy of a fortified military outpost and even worse, one that looks as if it could have been built fifty years ago.” (cited in Stott, 2015) It is, therefore, imperative that a change in contemporary attitude towards materiality and design detailing should occur. This approach would produce architecture inspired by its surrounding environment, as opposed to a building, which is devoid of context.
In collaboration with graphic designer and artist Morag Mysercough, AHMM contrast Burntwood’s grey-scale façades, with a vibrant flash of colour: A large entranceway punches through the first of the buildings to the North of the school’s site (running parallel to Burntwood Lane), providing the visitor with an introductory encounter with Myerscough’s work.Triangular tiles line the inside of its squared archway, forming a varied ‘golden’ surface, comprising three hues: yellow, tan and orange. Alternated in a geometric pattern, the faience is a beautiful artwork, which is easy to appreciate.
Set against the gloomy day and Burntwood’s concrete palette, the colourfully tiled portals of each building felt welcoming. The geometric patterns of the tiled faience echo the canted form of their surrounding concrete panels, which make up the majority of Burntwood’s façades. Forming a continual narrative, which threads through the site, playful colours act as the school’s way-finding system: Wrapping up stairwells as banisters, and in painted murals, which decorate the walls of its double and triple height spaces. However unconventional and decorative the colours are, they do perform a function. This follows on from the previous question of how a resulting architectural detail (or decoration) can be both functional and attractive.
Fig. 27
Economic and industrial staircase
This tiled lining represents one of four bold and colourful ‘portals’, present in the school’s teaching pavilions, each with its own identity: The Business Skills Centre (1 – including Burntwood’s entrance and reception) is a bright yellow, The Arts & Technology pavilion (2) is a rich red, the Humanities building (3) an emerald green and the ‘Maths + Science’ block (4) a deep blue.
Golden Faience of the Entrance Building
Coloured Motifs:
Fig. 28
Green Tiled Portal for the Humanities Building
When asking Paul Monaghan about the coloured graphics set within the building, I quoted Adolf Loos: “Ornament means wasted labour and therefore wasted health. That was always the case. Today, however, it also means wasted material and both mean wasted capital.” (Loos and Opel, 1998) Directing the conversation, towards Myerscough’s murals, Monaghan suggested that they could be viewed as “total decoration,” (Monaghan, 2015) before qualifying their purpose as departmental identities, (qualifying as much to himself as he was to me) that there was purpose behind them. AHMM, although interested in delving into architectural decoration, instinctively have to qualify a reason behind a particular design detail or materiality choice, beyond the idea of the pure aesthetics; perhaps due to an underlying Modernist/purist attitude present in British architectural culture.
Monaghan continued; “we’re rarely decorative with our work… I suppose when we are decorative… we are normally decorative when we’re working with an artist or graphic designer, or identity, that’s where I think we’re more playful, in those collaborations.” (Monaghan, 2015)
Fig. 29
The freeing title of ‘graphic designer’ or ‘artist’ potentially allowed Mourag Mysercough the opportunity to inject Burntwood School with a decorative narrative. Taking inspiration from the textiles and designs of Robin and Lucienne Day, the colourful presence of the school’s 1950s origin is referenced. Myerscough also references, the artwork of Bauhausian women, as part of the Modernist Movement, which influences AHMM. Further reinforcing the school’s deep-rooted drive for their pupils to achieve their full potential: “The best education today for the women of tomorrow.” (Burntwoodschool.com, n.d.) My visit to Maggie’s Lanarkshire evoked a considerable and personal, emotional response. Burntwood, however, was more architecturally poignant in a different way, its materiality and design detailing informing a more utilitarian set of buildings; most evidently due to the project’s scale and function. The one notable exception to this opinion however, was AHMM and Myerscough’s colourful way-finding system: Embracing the school’s warm philosophy within its design concept.
Architectural Languages: Two architectural languages present themselves within the set of buildings at Burntwood School: massive concrete structures form its faculty buildings, and a light and transparent framework shapes its communal spaces. Burntwood retained its two most architecturally refined buildings from the original 1950s campus: The Assembly Hall and Swimming Pool, both designed by Sir Leslie Martin. When on-site, it is evident that AHMM have considered the pre-existing buildings meticulously; the vertical framework of the existing Assembly Hall appears to inform the black fins of its new neighbour – the Dining Hall and Performing Arts Centre (contained within one building). Both the new Sports Hall and Performing Arts Centre assume a black coloured form, with vertically designed details on their façades. From certain angles, the Performing Arts Centre’s curtain walling reflects the concrete panels of the pavilion opposite; an incidence which camouflages its homogenous composition of dark glass and fixed metal panels into the rest of the site. (Reference Fig. 30) The large spans required for both the school’s Performing Arts Centre and Sports Hall, was another factor, which suggested the use of an alternative architectural language, from that of the curriculum buildings. A steel structure was required, as opposed to the ‘chunky’ concrete core, set behind the pre-cast skins of the pavilions. A functional reason, coupled with the contextually aesthetic argument that both these building would be formed differently.
Glass set within the Performing Arts Centre
Fig. 30
Vertical COncrete Panels clad the Sports Hall
A Scale model of Sir Leslie Martin's exisiting Hall
Fig. 32 Fig. 31

The Sports Hall, located at the Southern end of the site, is glad with thin, yet highly polished concrete slabs, similar to granite; its dividing joints replicate the Assembly Hall’s delicate framework. A physical connection between the Assembly Hall and the Performing Arts Centre takes the form of a modest concrete bridge. It is difficult to tell whether it existed previously, or was a new addition to the school. The bridge, therefore acts as a beautiful transition between the two buildings. Paul Monaghan described the design process of the Performing Arts Centre (and Dining Hall) as ‘hard’, due to the fine detailing and ‘skinny glazing’ of Sir Leslie Martin’s Assembly Hall. However, both the Sports Hall and Performing Arts Centre display AHMM’s ability to detail, with a considered ‘gesture’ to Sir Lesley Martin’s architecture, whilst affirming the contemporary re-design of the school. Burntwood joins numerous other contemporary projects, rejuvenating an existing site, whether that involves extension, refurbishment or repurposing. In the case of AHMM, the practice approached the school’s design detailing delicately, informing an architectural language, which solicitously complies with its existing architecture. The current British architectural climate is changing; with a rise in property prices and a drop in disposable currency, clients are commissioning practices to alter existing assets. A contemporary architect has to be familiar with a project’s existing context, thereby informing an element inherent in their design concept; manifesting in design details and materiality. Adaptation is the most sustainable and economic route forward.
Economic Influences: As discussed previously, the restricting role that budget plays in a large building like Burntwood, affects an architect’s ability to specify expensive materials and details. One might expect this to have a negative influence on the architectural outcome. However, conversely, AHMM have been creative, utilising design ideas that enable a high quality end product, using economic components. A perfect example of AHMM’s innovate thinking, is demonstrated along the school’s ‘spine’; an efficient circulation route extending across the site. A canopy, present in the initial design concept, stretches along this external path, which carries the main throng of movement between the buildings on the school site. The canopy is industrial-looking and is painted in a palette of colours which complement the surrounding buildings. However, as a design element installed at the latter end of the project, the architects had to come up with a solution costing just £50,000. Given the task, Monaghan was able to find an existing structure that could fulfill this role perfectly: a bus stop. Monaghan explained; “we took everything off it and it looked quite good.” (Monaghan, 2015) The practice purchased 20 of these bus stops, which enabled them to arrive at a design
Bus Shelter Promenade Canopy
Library Mural Fig. 33
Fig. 34
solution which fell within their budget. By fulfilling its function, as well as aesthetically blending into the school’s pre-fabricated ‘kit’, the bus stop shelter for the spine, portrays a cost conscious attitude. AHMM have a particularly expert ability to produce good architecture on a low budget. Another example of this is exhibited by the staircases within the Curriculum Building, where the practice employed a similarly mindful process. Monaghan explained that they “looked really elegant, but [were in fact] really cheap,” (Monaghan, 2015) Another economical solution, with an aesthetically pleasing outcome. When viewing the new staircases from their foot, one can appreciate AHMM’s industrial details at close inspection. Wrapping up the internal edge of its pre-cast concrete flights, bent plates of steel sit bolted in place in the form of a banister, left with an elegant shadow gap; accentuating the difference in their materialities. Painted in the vibrant colours of each pavilion, this simple architectural detail provides an exceptionally appealing aesthetic, entirely in line with AHMM’s Modernist ideals. Another notable detail, which performs well, but was inexpensive to produce, was the building’s interior murals. Stenciled and manually painted, the large surfaces of each double height space could be made to look unique, but at low cost. AHMM’s architectural attitude is attentive and mindful, particularly when considering materiality and design details. However, it also shows the current notion of producing interesting architecture to an increasingly tight budget. Architects are now required to contemplate each material and detail specified in order to produce economically efficient structures which both perform functionally and appeal aesthetically. I believe that with Burntwood School, AHMM successfully demonstrate how this can be achieved.
RIBA Stirling Prize
The RIBA Stirling Prize is arguably the most prestigious architectural award in the United Kingdom. It is an annual award, “presented to the architects of the building that has made the greatest contribution to the evolution of architecture. [sic]” (Architecture.com, n.d.) When considering a contemporary British attitude to architecture, it makes obvious sense to use the Stirling Prize as a benchmark. A series of four architectural jury panels, consisting of journalists, RIBA members and practicing architects, decide on the eventual shortlist and winner. The jury members represent a cross-sectional perspective of the ‘attitudes of the moment.’ The individual jury members differ annually, thus resulting in a completely different outcome from year to year. This change of personnel, contributes to the varying shortlists, which are arrived at through a series of completely subjective decisions, with variable outcomes. Shih-Fu Peng gives the following obscure explanation: “The most predictable part about the RIBA Stirling Prize, is nothing… You cannot predict it.” (Peng, 2015) Looking back at the past five years of winning and shortlisted buildings, one can appreciate this; varying in programme, scale and context, not one building conforms to a strict set of criteria. Take, for example, the sensitive, yet striking restoration of Astley Castle, in Warwickshire, which won Witherford Watson Mann Architects, the 2013 Stirling Prize. This is a building, which is completely incomparable to this year’s winner, Burntwood School. This changeable and unpredictable aspect of the Stirling Prize is acknowledged by all three of the architects interviewed: Gillespie, Monaghan and Peng. Paul Monaghan explained the role that the judges’ personal opinions play in the decision; one has to consider whether, “they work like you do; [and] are they likely to be sympathetic with the idiom you work in?” (Monaghan, 2015) When considering the members of the lead jury, it is possible to speculate that a certain level of vested interest in educational buildings played a part in the final decision. Take, for example Peter Clegg, senior partner at Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios, working “primarily in the education and cultural sectors,” (Architecture. com, n.d.) plus another panel member, Dame Theresa Sackler DBE, who spent seven years of her life teaching in a primary school. Without denying Burntwood its architectural merit – which is clearly strong – it is possible to deduce that an educational building may have be deemed more appealing than other candidates, by this year’s judges. A counter argument can be put forward, when considering the five other shortlisted buildings, of which one was another educational institution: Heneghan Peng’s Greenwich University building. One could also argue, that since the shortlist is narrowed down by its passage through four stages of judging, the final decision is
Astley Castle: the 2013 Stirling Prize Winner
likely to be less biased than if it were the result of a single judging panel.This judging structure is one thing that makes the Stirling Prize so unique. A particular judging panel is likely to be attracted to certain architectural aspects of a building, based upon their own personal interest. Neil Gillespie, describes this clearly when classifying the Prize as, “a product of the judges.” (Gillespie, 2015) In fact, once could argue that with this particular award, it is impossible to arrive at an entirely impartial result. Political agendas, fashionable ideas and evolving technologies are a number of the many influential motivators, behind a panel’s decision, in addition to each member’s own personal opinions. Two of the three architects interviewed, inferred that this year’s winner was selected as a result of a politically motivated decision. This is also the opinion of some critics. Edwin Heathcote of the Financial times compared Zaha Hadid Architect’s Evelyn Grace Academy (the 2011 winner), with Burntwood School, arguing that, “both wins could be interpreted as rebukes to the Conservatives’ abandoning of Labour’s Building Schools for the Future.” (cited in Stott, 2015) One could argue that the political element within the judging process, has the strongest influence, rendering other criteria less important; one such criterion being materiality and design detailing. The unpredictable nature of the Stirling Prize, makes it very difficult to ascertain the exact criteria against which the judges are selecting a winner.
Fig. 35
Neil Gillespie reflected on this year’s main judging panel, revealing (from personal experience) that a couple of its members are particularly interested in “detail” and “how buildings are put together.” (Gillespie, 2015) The two judges in question were Peter Clegg and Steve Tompkins,
When considering Burntwood School and Maggie’s Lanarkshire, given the wide variation between the two buildings, it is impossible to apply an identical set of criteria to both. The judging process, therefore, involves a series of visits to each of the shortlisted projects, since each of the four panels expect to experience the architecture at first hand, in addition to receiving an explanation of its design concepts by the architect(s) themselves.
Evelyn Grace Academy: the 2011 Stirling Prize Winner
both practicing architects. Due to their personal areas of interest, it is possible to infer that in the 2015 Stirling Prize, materiality and design detailing could have truly played a part. Steven Hodder, winner of the first Stirling Prize, explains this year’s six shortlisted buildings as, “‘Surprising new additions to urban locations” united by “their exceptionally-executed crafted detail.’ ” (Waite & Mark, 2015) This comment adds weight to my view that this year’s shortlisted buildings, are a credible medium through which to discuss contemporary attitudes to materiality and design detailing.
Monaghan stressed the importance of choreographing the tour. He explained that, by the final school visit, AHMM presented the building, in a manner in which they felt they could positively influence the panels’ decision. This consisted of a combination of ‘boards’ depicting various design concepts, drawings and images. These were shown at four different stages of the site tour, which luckily took place on a sunny day. AHMM were also joined on this show-round by the artist Morag Myserscough and the landscape architects, Kinnear. Shih-Fu Peng commended the tours as a positive element of judging process, as the award is not based upon “glossy images,” (Peng, 2015) but on a direct and personal experience. Gillespie also talks of the various panels’ visits to Maggie’s
Fig. 36
as enabling the judges to truly understand the feeling of its internal space, The visits also allowed judges to talk to the Centre’s staff and users, giving an insight which is only possible when visiting in person. Monaghan, also explained, that in his opinion, the judges alter their level of expectation in accordance with the scale of architecture concerned. For example, with a smaller building such as Maggie’s Lanarkshire, Reiach and Hall had a very small margin for error: Every detail and material choice had to be perfect. The size of Burntwood School, on the other hand, allowed for a greater leniency from the panel of judges, on particular elements of the building. Monaghan continued by explaining the vast difference in budget per square metre of the two buildings (Maggie’s costing approximately £5,700/m2 compared to Burntwood at £1,900/m2). At three times the cost per square metre of Burntwood School, Maggie’s should arguably be finished to a higher level of materiality and detail. When visiting both buildings, this is proved to be the case. Whatever the shortcomings of the Stirling Prize, it is clear that it holds a significant profile within the contemporary architectural community and is, therefore, an influential force. Until it ceases to exist or is superseded by another award, it continues to be an important barometer though which to assess current attitudes and opinions. In conclusion, since the judging panel, and hence the judging criteria of the RIBA Sterling Prize change annually, it is impossible to predict the role that design detailing and materiality will play in the selection of future winners. They evidently played a critical role in 2015, with a shortlist of six beautifully detailed buildings, displaying an extensive palette of materials. For future judging panels, however, a number of completely different criteria might steer the selection of shortlisted buildings. Additionally, the political climate, and certain political ‘hottopic’ might influence the decision. Rory Olcayto, editor in chief of the Architects’ Journal notes that Burntwood marked the swansong of the BFS programme. Gillespie, however, notes that affordable housing is very much still on the political agenda and may well prove an influencing factor in a future Stirling Prize.
Conclusion
The aim of this dissertation was to establish and discuss the views of the contemporary architectural community, towards the use of materiality and design detailing within current British architecture. A combination of personal interviews with three architects, contemporary articles, critical opinion and historical theories, have informed this discussion and allowed the drawing of a number of conclusions. As a result of the investigation, four areas of mutual interest have become apparent and serve as useful headings under which to sum up attitudes and beliefs. These are: Ornamental and Decorative Details, Material Honesty, Material Longevity and the Predetermined Rules of Bygone Architectural Movements.
Ornamental and Decorative Details: John Ruskin, Adolf Loos and Bruce Goff, all deliberated on the concept of ornamentation and decoration and it is immediately apparent that it remains relevant when considering contemporary materiality and design detailing. It is interesting that each architect interviewed, has a similar attitude to this topic. Neil Gillespie, Paul Monaghan and Shih-Fu Peng actively agree with Ruskin’s views on architectural deceit, which encompass ornamentation as well as structural and material honesty. All three architects agree that ornamentation and/or decoration exist in current architecture. However, they differ in the way in which they define ornamentation and decoration, as well as on how these elements manifest themselves. During each interview, I requested an immediate reaction to a quote from Adolf Loos’, ‘Ornament and Crime’ (1908), which demonstrated his strongly-held views. Peng was quick to qualify the difference between Ornamentation and Decoration; “decoration for decoration’s sake and ornament as a means of, for example, articulating junctions. [sic]” (Peng, 2015) This statement reveals a contemporary attitude in itself, demonstrating how architects currently follow a process of continually qualifying the function of a specific design detail. This is particularly evident in AHMM’s Burntwood School, where a softened ‘Loosian’ perspective - that ornamentation is acceptable, if it is utilised as a means of architectural articulation or expression – is practically employed. As soon as an ornament becomes an applied detail (ie. it completely lacks function), each of the architects interviewed, agree that it becomes superfluous.
Shih-Fu Peng’s more hard-line approach is countered by a softer view from both Gillespie and Monaghan. Each one suggests that there is a renewed interest amongst contemporary architects, in architectural decoration. Whilst maintaining their respect for function, both architects infer that their architecture is beginning to include details, which may not be the most pragmatic solutions, yet which evoke a joyful response from the building’s users. Moving away from the sterile approach of both architects’ Modernist precedents, they have rediscovered the use of materiality and design details, in order to make people smile. “It’s interesting that you talked about materiality and decoration, [as] I think that is what architects have rediscovered.” (Gillespie, 2015) The contemporary British architectural attitude towards materiality and design detailing, appears to combine the Modernist mantra of ‘form-follows-function’ with a playful nod to the Post-Modernist period, leaning towards a new era in architecture: ‘Post Post-Modernism’ (or ‘Post-PoMo’). A blog entry by Marcantonio Architects (The Fallacy of ‘Honest Architecture’), argues that architecture has always been about more than just a building’s surface; “architecture is not about what is under the skin, but about what is beyond the skin…” (Marcantonio, 2010) This is in contrast with the Modernist view, that architecture should simply be a sheltering structure. A number of contemporary attitudes appear to reveal a developing interest in the atmospheric and emotive qualities of architecture. This mind-set encompasses a new approach to the materiality and design detailing of a space.
Material Honesty: The concept of material ‘truth’ and ‘honesty’ is an essential element within the thinking of all three historical theorists referenced. It is, therefore, key when considering materiality and design detailing and the development of a contemporary attitude towards these factors. American architect Bruce Goff (1904-1982) discusses the topic of ‘Honesty in Architecture’ (1953), in one of a series of lectures presented to the Oklahoma School of Architecture. In line with John Ruskin’s standpoint, Goff explains that an architect must design with ‘truth’ as, “a desired principle.” (cited in Welch, 1998, p. 113) Goff continues, “we want brick to be brick and board to be board… to arrive at truth through honesty, then [we] have something that would transcend the nature of the materials.” (cited in Welch, 1998, p. 114) His concept stems from the idea that through designing with honesty from the outset, one can achieve a truthful outcome – using materials as their natural qualities stipulate.
Shih-Fu Peng also highlights an element of ‘truth’ within his own contemporary architectural attitude: “Yes honesty: Materials should be honest… [sic]” (Peng, 2015) Reiach and Hall also share this view, as Gillespie considers the practice’s use of natural materials, in applications where they are well suited: For example, at Maggie’s, brick for the external walls and timber for the internal environment. Monaghan reflects on AHMM’s approach to external façades, when considering the subject of material honesty. Continuing along the same vein as Goff and Ruskin, Monaghan (much like Gillespie and Peng), explains the practice’s drive to produce simple yet elegant architecture: “we don’t believe in over-articulating things… some everyday buildings we do, we don’t want to waste money on things like that… repetition and clean detailing is more elegant anyway… [sic]” (Monaghan, 2015) This attitude is almost exactly in line with Adolf Loos’ comment upon the crime of Ornamentation, when he states: “Ornament means wasted labour and therefore wasted health. That was always the case. Today, however, it also means wasted material and both mean wasted capital.” (Loos and Opel, 1998, p. 171) This is one example of how contemporary attitudes still align with the centuryold thoughts of a Modernist theorist. Within his lecture, Goff conceives the idea of an architectural ‘white lie’: “I don’t mind a few white lies if the result comes out architecture [sic], any more than I would mind a person telling a few white lies if he is basically honest and sincere and his aim is something good.” (cited in Welch, 1998, p. 129) Although Goff agrees entirely with Ruskin’s Pre-Modernist ideals, the lecture shows a shift in architectural attitudes during the 1900s, away from the hard-line Modernist approach. AHMM seem to align with this softened approach, more so than the other two practices discussed. With many decisions based around the aesthetic and function of the spaces at Burntwood School, Monaghan demonstrates the practice’s Modernist view; nevertheless, they are happy to utilise materials and design details, which do not necessarily show the building’s total truth. The main example of this, is the series of coloured motifs, which hold little function other than their playful aesthetic. A contemporary attitude, therefore, maintains that material, structural and surface deceptions are all architectural immortalities; yet there is now a current attraction towards a more engaging architectural language.
Material Longevity: As well as a contemporary attitude towards the atmospheric and aesthetic aspects of materiality and design detailing, the architects interviewed, appear wholly interested in their physicality. Threading through many of their concepts is proof of a functional role, demonstrating that the building truly works. Encompassed within this subject, is an attitude towards the continual discrepancy between budget, timescale and capital, as well as the difference in function and aesthetics. Shih-Fu Peng highlights an interesting concept, pitching the Dutch approach to building, against that of the Germans. There are two schools of thought: The Dutch design process is based around built obsolescence, giving a building a shorter life span, of about ten to fifteen years. This allows an architect to utilise recycled materials, and re-build as fashions and attitudes towards architecture alter.The Germans, on the other hand, use state-of-the art materials to build, within microscopic tolerances, producing buildings, which will intentionally last for over one hundred years. Peng argues that both processes use a similar amount of embodied energy, but are, however, entirely dependent on “budget, timescale and capital.” (Peng, 2015) I would argue that the contemporary British attitude lies halfway between the two, encompassing elements from each approach.This view can be appreciated when considering both Maggie’s Lanarkshire and Burntwood School. Paul Monaghan explains this eloquently, when clarifying the importance of fabricating a building’s base structure, to the highest possible quality:
“Some buildings you know are going to have a shorter life than you design them… but where we never try and skimp is on the basic hardware of the building. The sort of ‘shell’ and ‘core’ of the building. You know, the outside of the building; the roof; [and] the grounding of it. All those are really important. So it’s more like – what we say, “long life, loose fit.” (Monaghan, 2015) This approach enables a building to be repaired or altered, whilst maintaining its base architectural integrity: Services, circulation and core. Burntwood School’s internal concrete structure, is evidence of this, as is the Danish brick and steel framework in Maggie’s Lanarkshire. A contemporary attitude is consequently revealed, showing an architectural intention for built-in longevity, with a deliberate capacity for potential rejuvenation in future years.
Continuing developments in technology and the global sourcing of materials, allow the ongoing evolution of an architect’s ability to use materiality and design detailing, in way that was previously impossible. Such developments enable contemporary architects to move away from the previous techniques and designs championed by past Movements. Both Burntwood and Maggie’s facades, stand as testament to this architectural advance: The Danish bricks that make up Maggie’s external wall and the pre-cast fabrication of Burntwood’s faceted concrete panels. However, a great many of the concepts of the past century and a half remain. Ruskin’s Arts and Crafts, Loos’ Modernist, Goff ’s Late-Modernist as well as a Post-Modernist element, prevail in the contemporary British architectural attitude towards materiality and design detailing.
Predetermined Rules of Bygone Architectural Movements: As defined within the ‘honest’ principles of the bygone theorists, an architect must utilise materials in accordance with their natural characteristics. As previously mentioned, examples of this are found in both Burntwood and Maggie’s. However, there is a current school of thought that considers this to be a notion, which can only be flouted by an architect who wholly understands this rule before breaking it.This adds an interesting twist to contemporary attitudes, with certain contemporary practices bucking the common trend and demonstrating an entirely different view. Whilst the architects I interviewed agreed with Ruskin’s theories, a number of other practices both British and Non-British appear to disagree. They continue to play with form, materials and deception in order to produce contemporary architecture. Practices identified as non-conformists to the ‘Ruskinian’ principal are: FAT Architects, who use both bold colour and pattern, evidenced in their recent collabortation with Grayson Perry designing a fairytale-inspired holiday home, in Essex; Rem Koolhaas, with his ‘tongue-in-cheek’ design detailing of the Kunsthal in Rotterdam; Frank Gehry, expressing a disregard to the natural characteristics of a material, displayed in the undulating brick surface of the UTS business school, in Sydney; as well as Caruso St. John, Birds Portchmouth Russum and Will Allsop. (Reference Fig. 37 - 39) From my research and conversations, I conclude that, AHMM, Heneghan Peng and Reiach & Hall all hold an opinion, which echoes Ruskin’s beliefs on truth. I also believe that this ‘truthful’ architectural intent is demonstrably present in the buildings on the 2015 Stirling Prize shortlist. Reiach and Hall’s natural material palette present in Maggie’s Lanarkshire expresses one of these elements, whilst the restrained and industrial design of Burntwood’s stairwells, conveys another.
Frank Gehry's UTS Business School, Sydney
OMA's Kunsthal, Rotterdam
FAT Architects and Perry's Holiday Home, Essex
Fig. 37
Fig. 38
Fig. 39
In much the same way, the current attitude towards architectural honesty echoes Ruskin’s ideal. Monaghan explained that when his practice finds itself design detailing its way out of a situation, this proves that the underlying concept of the project is not correct. The contemporary British attitude drawn towards materiality and design detailing; reveals both a respect to past theories and movements, as well as an aspiration for new original concepts. This attitude continues to evolve, alongside the materials that are available; which is made possible by technological advance. Summed up by the Guardian critic Hugh Pearman, in his last newspaper article, he eagerly awaits a new movement of architecture:
“There is a promising rising generation of architects who are once again interested in history, context, ornament, ethics and ‘joie de vivre’, and who therefore tend to reject minimal modernism, random shapeism and hair-shirt grungitecture.Who will rise to the top and what they will get up to over the next few years, I have no idea. But it will be fascinating and I’ll be watching…” (Pearman, 27 December 2015) th
Word Count: approx. 9650
Back Pages
References: For primary interviews with: Neil Gillespie, Paul Monaghan and Shih-Fu Peng, see separatre Appendix.
• Architecture.com RIBA Stirling Prize. [Online] Available at: https://www.architecture.com/stirlingprize/ ribastirlingprize.aspx (accessed 20/ 01/16).
• Burntwoodschool.com Home » Burntwood - An Academy for Girls. [Online] Available at: http://www. burntwoodschool.com (accessed 10/ 01/16).
• Hogan J (2015) RIBA Stirling Prize 2015 finalist: University of Greenwich by Heneghan Peng. The
Architects Journal. Available at: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/riba-stirling-prize-2015finalist-university-of-greenwich-by-heneghan-peng/8690098.fullarticle.
• Lendlease.com Lendlease - About Lend Lease. [Online] Available at: http://www.lendlease.com/ worldwide/about-us (accessed 09/ 01/16).
• Loos A and Opel A (1998) Ornament and crime. Riverside, Calif.: Ariadne Press • Marcantonio D (2010) The Fallacy of “Honest Architecture”. Marcantonio Architects Blog. Available at: http://blog.marcantonioarchitects.com/the-fallacy-of-honest-architecture/ (accessed 21/ 01/16).
• Pearman H (2015) The Highs and Lows of my 30 years. The Sunday Times. • Pearsall J and Hanks P (1998) The New Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press • Reiach and Hall Architects (2014) Maggie’s Centre Lanarkshire - Project Booklet. Edinburgh: Reiach and Halls Architects
• Rob Parrish Photography (2012) Burntwood_Façade Installation. Available at: https://vimeo. com/125501966 (accessed 10/ 01/16).
• Rob Parrish Photography (2012) Burntwood_Façade Manufacture. Available at: https://vimeo. com/36937879 (accessed 10/ 01/16).
• Ruskin J (1890) The Seven Lamps of Architecture (2nd edition). London: George Allen • Samuel D (2011) Virtuous Architecture: Honesty, Respect, and Humility. [Online] Available at: http://blink. hdrinc.com/virtuous-architecture-honesty-respect-and-humility (accessed 04/ 01/16).
• Stott R (2015) Critical Round-Up: AHMM’s Stirling Prize Success. [Online] Available at: http://www. archdaily.com/775691/critical-round-up-ahmms-stirling-prize-success (accessed 21/ 01/16).
• Techrete.com Techrete :: About Us. [Online] Available at: http://techrete.com/about-us/ (accessed 10/ 01/16).
• Waite R and Mark L (2015) Revealed: RIBA Stirling Prize 2015 shortlist. [Online] Available at: http://www. architectsjournal.co.uk/news/revealed-riba-stirling-prize-2015-shortlist/8686288.fullarticle (accessed 20/ 01/16).
• Weber P (1991) Architectural details, construction, meaning. Thesis (M. Arch.). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Architecture.
• Welch P (1996) Goff on Goff. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press • Wikipedia Materiality (architecture). [Online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Materiality_%28architecture%29 (accessed 22/ 01/16).
Image Figure References:
Introduction:
• Fig. 01 – Downey W John Ruskin. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ruskin (accessed 24/ 01/16).
• Fig. 02 – yatzer.com (1903) Adolf Loos Portrait. Available at: https://www.yatzer.com/adolf-loos-josefhoffman-mak-vienna-modernism (accessed 24/ 01/16).
• Fig. 03 – Milstead D Bruce Goff Portrait. Available at: http://brucegoff-castle-bandb.com/7901.html (accessed 24/ 01/ 16).
• Fig. 04 – architectsjournal.co.uk (2011) Neil Gillespie Portrait. Available at: http://www.architectsjournal. co.uk/home/neil-gillespie-lands-obe/8616070.fullarticle (accessed 24/ 01/16).
• Fig. 05 – phaidonatlas.com Paul Monaghan Portrait. Available at: http://phaidonatlas.com/architect/allfordhall-monaghan-morris-architects/349 (accessed 24/ 01/16).
• Fig. 06 – dbz.de Shih-Fu Peng Portrait. Available at: http://www.dbz.de/artikel/bildpopup_1807328. html?image=21 (accessed 24/ 01/16).
Maggie's Lanarkshire:
• Fig. 07, 13, 15, 17 – Field W (2015) Personal Maggie’s Lanarkshire Photographs. • Fig. 08 – nhslanarkshire.org.uk Monklands General Hospital. Available at: http://www.nhslanarkshire.org. uk/Hospitals/Monklands/Pages/default.aspx (accessed 25/ 01/16).
• Fig. 09, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 – Grandorge D (2014) Maggie’s Lanarkshire Photographs. Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/620480/maggies-lanarkshire-reiach-and-hall-architects (accessed 25/ 01/16).
Burntwood School:
• Fig. 22 – Parrish R (2015) Burntwood School Photographs. Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/771424/ burntwood-school-allford-hall-monaghan-morris (accessed 25/ 01/16).
• Fig. 23, 34 – Field W (2015) Personal Burntwood School Photographs. • Fig. 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33 – Soar T (2015) Burntwood School Photographs. Available at: http://www. archdaily.com/771424/burntwood-school-allford-hall-monaghan-morris (accessed 25/ 01/16).
• Fig. 25, 28 – Soar T (2015) Burntwood School - Information Pack (1st edition). London: Allford Hall Monaghan Morris
• Fig. 32 – AHMM Model Photographs. Available at: http://www.ahmm.co.uk/projectDetails/72/BurntwoodSchool?image=3 (accessed 25/ 01/ 16).
Stirling Prize:
• Fig. 35 – Binet H (2013) Astley Castle Front Facade. Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/434184/
critical-round-up-stirling-prize-2013/524b446fe8e44ecb1700038b-critical-round-up-stirling-prize-2013photo (accessed 25/ 01/16).
• Fig. 36 – Hayes L (2010) Evelyn Grace Academy. Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/95234/evelyngrace-academy-zaha-hadid-architects (accessed 25/ 01/16).
Conclusion:
• Fig. 37 – Hobhouse J (2015) FAT Architects and Grayson Perry’s Essex Holiday Home. Available at: http:// www.dezeen.com/2015/05/15/house-for-essex-fat-grayson-perry-charles-holland-living-architecturealain-de-botton/ (accessed 26/ 01/16).
• Fig. 38 – kunsthal.nl OMA’s Kunsthal at Night. Available at: http://www.kunsthal.nl/en/about-kunsthal/ building/ (accessed 26/ 01/16).
• Fig 39 – Worssam A (2015) Frank Gehry’s UTS Business School. Available at: http://www.
archdaily.com/597531/the-4-most-amusing-responses-to-frank-gehry-s-uts-businessschool/54da1a7be58ece14f7000235-7c35bf1a-1b48-4fd3-82a4-ea612cfe1478-2060x1236-jpeg (accessed 26/ 01/16).
Bibliography:
• Alofsin A (1995) Letter. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. 54 (1), 114-115. • Bess P (2015) Building on Truth. First Things, 47-53. • Clancy M (2012) “Truth” and “Honesty” in Architecture. [Online] Available at: https://michaelclancyarch. wordpress.com/2012/09/28/truth-and-honesty-in-architecture/ (accessed 20/ 10/15).
• Darley G (2015) Dissertation: Facadism. The Architects Journal. Available at: http://www.architectsjournal. co.uk/culture/dissertation-facadism/8678769.article (accessed 02/ 08/15).
• Goldberger P (1981) From Bauhaus to Our House. The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes. com/books/98/11/08/specials/wolfe-bauhaus.html (accessed 22/ 10/15).
• Masden K and Salingaros N (2014) Intellectual [dis]honesty in architecture. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism. 38 (3), 187-191.
• Melhuish C (2002) The question of honesty and architectural integrity. The Architects Journal. Available
at: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/home/the-question-of-honesty-and-architectural-integrity/172595. article (accessed 02/ 04/15).
• Pallister J (2013) Zumthor’s Rapture. The AJ. 237 (6), 60-63. • Petersen, Jr. B (2012) Material Honesty in Architecture and Construction. [Online] Available at: http://www. neenan.com/material-honesty-in-architecture-and-construction/ (accessed 20/10/15).
• The Art Institute of Chicago Bruce Goff Archive | The Art Institute of Chicago. [Online] Available at: http://www. artic.edu/research/bruce-goff-archive (accessed 18/10/15).
• Venturi R, Scott Brown D and Izenour S (1977) Learning from Las Vegas. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press • Venturi R (2011) Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. New York: Museum of Modern Art • Whiteley N (2003) Intensity of Scrutiny and a Good Eyeful: Architecture and Transparency. Journal of Architectural Education, 8-16.
Aknowledgements: With great thanks to my parents, who always manage to support me through anything, as well as the entirety of my family and close-friends who have oftered huge encouragement. I would also like to thank each architect, whom gave-up their time in order for an interview to take place.
ď ˜ď ‰
Materiality + Design Detailing: Investigating a Contemporary British Attitude.
William Field 13030266 Appendix - Architect Interviews U30099
ď ‰
Contents Page
p. 01 - 24
Neil Gillespie
p. 25 - 40
Paul Monaghan
p. 41 - 56
Shih-Fu Peng
p. 57 - 59
Ethics Review Approval
Neil Gillespie Practice: Reiach and Hall Architects, 6 Darnaway Street, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH3 6BG Date:
24th November 2015
Time:
09:30am
Interviewer:
William Field (W)
Interviewee:
Neil Gillespie (N)
W:
These are photographs, yes these are ours so if you copy them that’s OK, no copyright, no problem OK fantastic. So do you want to hear a little bit more about the dissertation?
N:
Up to you, it’s your show
W:
So what I’m interested in, effectively, is trying to gauge a current attitude towards design detailing and materiality amongst British architects, in comparison to theorists like Adolf Loos, Ruskin and Venturi. I just wanted to gauge people’s attitudes towards the architecture and materiality, and the way through which I’m doing it in my dissertation, is I’m obviously visiting the buildings and talking to the architects; Right
N:
N: W:
N:
To compare my views on what I believe the current attitude is doing and obviously what you believe in and how that kind of weighs up. So, I’ve been to see Burntwood School and I’m interviewing the architects tomorrow, so those are the two that I’m talking to Right. So AHMM and ourselves.
W:
Yes
N:
Is it Paul you’re meeting?
W:
Yes.
N:
OK
W:
N:
I’m excited about it. It’s been a very intense few days. I went to the school then I had a crit, so it’s been fairly manic but it’s all good stuff. So I suppose where I want to start is with the theorists themselves. So I’ve got a couple of quotes, this first one is Alf Loos: “Ornament means wasted labour therefore wasted health. That was always the case. Today, however, it also means wasted material and both mean wasted capital” (Loos and Opel, 1998). So it’s a very negative view on ornamentation, but what I wanted to ask was, in your opinion, is there still space for ornamentation within the design of the building, or does material and design detailing remain a purely functional pursuit? Right. That’s a pretty open question.
W:
It could be with relation to Maggie’s if that helps.
N:
How to get into this. It’s quite a difficult subject. You’re looking at…ultimately I think it’s really interesting you’ve picked Burntwood School and Maggie’s, because they’re both… they’re coming from very different directions and so the first thing I’d say, is that you operate within an environment. So it’s not one size fits all. So in terms of our attitude towards the subject that you’re looking at it would vary depending on what (this sounds a bit RIBA ish), procurement band we find ourselves in. So if you’re working on, say, Burntwood School, the critical thing you need to understand there is, that building is procured. Because it’s part of a design/build ethos, right, which means that the areas that you can influence and design are very different from Maggie’s. Maggie’s is a traditional contract with a client, a user client that we can talk to; a set of drawings that we can draw and then we go out to tender to a builder and say we want you to build this. And we can select, (we selected the builder), a very, very select group of contractors. I wouldn’t call them contractors actually, I’d call them builders. I’ll explain why in a bit. So we were very aware that when we were designing Maggie’s, that we were working in a very traditional, procurement environment, if that doesn’t sound a bit ‘Management Speak’. No, no, that’s cool
W:
N:
W: N:
W: N:
W:
No. Because in Loos’ time, or any of these other architects your talking about, they would be working always in a traditional kind of set up, where the architect sets the agenda, the builder builds the architect’s dreams or image, or aspirations or ambitions, and you get what you get. And what we’re dealing with now, is we’re dealing with very different ways of making and procuring buildings, which is really affecting the way the buildings are made. So lots of things are not open to you.You know, for example if you’re …I won’t steal Paul’s thunder…but you might not be able…you would have a generic description of, let’s say a window, and the contractor’ll come back and tell you what window he’s buying. Alright.. OK, so you’re more of a guideline as opposed to an instruction Well, it will be a design technical specification, which the window has to meet in it’s performance specifications, and they’ll come back to you and say we need a gigot and you go, “ah, that’s a shame”. A comparison between..
W:
Yes, I was thinking as an architect, if you go into a design/build team, thinking that you’ve got control over everything, you’ll get a very frustrated architect, because the rug will be pulled from under you. And it’s very interesting if we look at the architects you’re working with within that sector and how they deal with that. You’re piecing things together..
N:
You’re piecing things together..
W:
As opposed to specifying what you’re …
N:
But you might find that AHMM will explain this to you again. I’m looking round the room … but there could be other projects that we are equally working with which is design/ build where we’re not working for a client – well we are working for a client, but our client is the contractor. OK? So if we were doing a school or a college or a hospital, our ability to influence the construction is much less than it would be in a Maggie’s building. So all I suppose I’m warning you, well I’m not warning you, is flagging up, is that you can’t compare the projects… The buildings directly …
N:
W: N:
W: N:
W:
Exactly, and that was why I was making a distinction between a contractor and a builder. In my book, a builder is somebody who actually knows how to build a thing. When you deal with a contractor, quite often, they won’t be building anything. What they’re doing is they’re organising sub-contractors, where they, you know, sub-contractor packages, so there’ll be a façade package, there’ll be an interior package, there’ll be a services package. And they all go out to different people. Just in the same way that Sainsbury go out to different parsnip growers. Yes, OK, yes. I see the connection So, just to be careful that AHMM’s buildings won’t all be design/build. They’ll have jewels and Maggie’s is in that jewel category, we were very fortunate there. Because what you really have there, is you’ve got a client, an expert client, and you’ve got Charles Jencks; you’ve got Laura Lee (Maggie’s Chief Exec) who’s now built 15 Maggie’s, with some pretty powerful architects, so they’re demanding and they understand what’s being put in front of them. If you’re looking for a contractor – they don’t care It’s about getting the building.. It’s about getting it built, getting it built quickly, for the least amount of money – more profit for them. So in terms of materiality, we kind of recognised immediately that Maggie’s was an opportunity to work; to make something; to work with materials. So materiality was really top of our list, which is why we started to develop the design and knew immediately that we needed a contractor that was capable of doing two things well; one was brickwork and one was timber. So they had their own joiner. So that was really critical and because of that we were able to explore quite simple surfaces, because we knew that the surface was going to be beautifully made and therefore - I’m not saying we’re aligned with Loos, because I think that he was setting out a very different position. He was looking at incredibly decadent buildings and saying that we need to do something, to tone… Tone it down, yes
N:
W:
N: W: N:
W: N:
W:
Whereas, we’re saying in a situation where a lot of the architecture that the public have got used to through the 60s, 70s, 80s was bland. Was actually quite inhuman. So we are… you say surface decoration… but what we’re interested in, is in surfaces that are pleasing or exciting, have a depth to them, have something that… Because I think human beings really do react to detail and to pattern, to texture, and that level, seems to me anyway that architecture has to work on lots of different levels. So it works at city or a town or landscape level, works at building level, your plan and your section and your strategies like that. And then right through to the detail, texture, surface; it has to operate on all of those for it to be a satisfying kind of building Yeah. That’s perfect. It’s just sort of seeing your position between the two which is cool. Another thing that he was talking about was longevity. So, “If all objects would last as long in aesthetic terms as they last physically, the consumer would be able to pay a price for them that would allow other workers to earn more money for shorter hours” (Loos and Opel, 1998). So how do you approach designing longevity into the building’s aesthetic, function, materiality? So I suppose in link to Maggie’s especially, how do you think the building will weather? And have you designed that… Weather in terms of how it’s going to react to wind and rain or.. do you mean weather, in terms or a more philosophical weather, in terms of will it still be interesting? At bit of both actually Well, I mean obviously we were very keen that the external material, that the brick, was the best brick we could get, so we… obviously architecture’s always a balance of function and budget, and ambitions, so we kept, effectively we kept the form of the building incredibly simple, so that – and we do this on a number of our buildings even our design/ build buildings – we will argue for a really good external material and, you’ll probably see that a lot of architects are interested in brick at the moment. Yeah A lot of brick buildings and you might say well why is that? Is that fashionable? I suppose there is an aspect of that, but I think what it is, it’s that blethering; the stuff that I did at the beginning, which is if you’re faced with a contractor who is just assembling industrialised products, that to actually specify brick means that someone is going to have to build a brick wall… A craftsman’s going to have to…
N: W: N:
W: N:
So you get a bit of that kind of… The great thing about a brick wall is that it probably looks its worst the day you finish it and gradually it gets better Yeah, I agree Industrialised products look great the day you finish and gradually get worse, be it your car, or your AppleMac…so, we know that that wall, even if it stains, or weathers, that weathering will actually appeal to people, rather than…it’s a really interesting subject, I’m trying to remember the book on weathering, by Mostafavi. Do you know the book? I don’t, but I’m… It’s called On Weathering, I think it’s by the guy who used to run the AA (note: I looked this up and it’s very interesting and it goes through how we view weathering. So for example, he compares a Corb white house; a single stain on that is a disaster, isn’t it? Because it suddenly destroys this notion of an abstraction; of this object sitting in a landscape, because suddenly it’s not an abstraction any more, it’s part of this world. He compares that with a stone, like say in Oxford; you know white stone, that has huge black streaks down it. But it’s an ancient building and it’s got black streaks, and we love that. But those same streaks on a concrete building would be seen as a disaster. Yet on a stone building, they’re seen as character building, they’re part of its history. So weathering is a really complicated thing and it’s not… because of Corb and early Modernists this notion of a pure white, unstained perfect thing is not achievable. Therefore, it’s always degrading or seems to be degrading. Whereas, so now if we use a brick wall, we don’t really care if it’s covered in moss and streaks, in fact, it might look better. Looking out there at the stone walls, out the window, they’re weathered. It adds to the character, it adds to the aesthetic, doesn’t it?
and it’s a book by Mohsen Mostafavi called On Weathering)
W: N:
W:
Yes, so. Tricky question. That’s a thesis in itself. But I think that would be a good book for you to read. It really opened my eyes to thinking about it much more, philosophically not pragmatically. We get clients that phone us up and say the building’s streaking. Well, it would be nice to go back and say yes, isn’t it beautiful; turn round and say, ‘why are you viewing that streak as a problem?’ Cos there’s a stone building across the street that’s got the same streaking, but you like that. Yes I see that
N:
W: N:
W: N:
In terms of whether a building will still be interesting; in terms of whether… fashion, we try desperately not to succumb to what’s fashionable, if you like. And I suppose we slightly … how that works is we… the practice was formed in 1965, when two practices came together, Alan Reiach and Eric Hall. So Alan Reiach had been practicing since the 1940s; he worked for Reiach, he worked for Alto and so he was very much a Modernist, of that world, touring Europe and coming back to Scotland saying we should be doing something. But (I don’t know if there’s a reference in there) I’ll give you another ?. There’s a book that he wrote in 1944 with Robert Hurd. Robert Hurd was a conservationist and they wrote a book and it was called Building Scotland. And the message was, we need to look to the best contemporary architecture, but we need to be mindful of our past. So… in many ways it was a pretty early, kind of a regionalism that he was promoting. But what he was walking about, was that you need to be aware of, this kind of Scottish pragmatism. - Way back, he was probably Calvinist, guilt or something – that you act with common sense, you’re not wilful, and what he was saying was that we should be mindful of that. So when Alan Reiach would come round the office when I was a student, he was very careful to ask if you were being wilful about anything “ Cut that out.” So in what a way, what we’ve got is we’re quite a pragmatic practice, which hopefully saves us from… makes us boring, but saves us from… I disagree Saves us from the ups and downs of… But by the same token, its’ not that we’re dismissive. I think you’ll find that we’ve got every book that’s going, so we’re watching everybody very, very closely but trying to say, well what is it that people are interested in? It’s interesting that you talked about materiality and decoration and I think that is what architects have rediscovered. A kind of joy, that a shiny surface might not be the most pragmatic solution, these little eye catchers are not the most practical things, they have to be cleaned, but they make people smile. And that’s what… Yes, it’s the enjoyment factor And that’s what a lot of…I mean, I’ve just come back from a wee trip to Istanbul with the AJ, looking at mosques, and looking at the wonderful mosques how they operate from these vast structures, sitting in a Curdich right down to the Izmic tiles, you see people going up and touching a tile, and looking at it and it’s that operation at all these levels, I think, that decoration or articulation or whatever you might want to call it, … I think that’s what you get. I’m blethering…
W:
N: W: N:
W: N:
W: N:
No, no, that’s great, it’s all interesting. So we’ll move on to John Ruskin. So in his chapter The Lamp of Truth, Ruskin highlights four inherent architectural flaws; that’s Structural, Surface, Operative and Aesthetic deceits. So in his surface deceit section, he writes “To cover brick with plaster, and this plaster with fresco, is perfectly legitimate as a mode of decoration, as it is constant in the Great Periods. But to cover brick with cement and divide this cement with joints that it might look like stone is to tell a falsehood.” (Ruskin, 1890) Very profound again. So reflecting on the quote, would you say that this is applicable to your own ideas and are there times when you have indulged yourself within a bit of an architectural white lie, a deceit or is there something that almost lies? No. Back to Alan Reiach and being wilful. If it’s a brick wall then it would be a brick wall, but I totally understand that a brick wall may have to be plastered. Yes But plaster couldn’t exist without the brick wall, so it’s very much a hand-in-glove construction technique. Why would you use plaster when you could just expose the brick? Well you might do that because, you need a surface internally that is about people, how they might use the wall, therefore it’s a very practical kind of thing. Plastering externally would be quite a traditional thing to do, all over the globe really, and it’s a weathering device because brick’s a pretty porous material if you can’t get wondrous bricks – at Maggie’s it’s Danish bricks – then you might, and from a cost perspective, you might be looking at a more traditionally rendered masonry. So it’s either blockwork or brick you would use on it Yes Understand that. But all he’s really saying is you’re trying to pass the brick with cement off as something else. Obviously, that’s kind of part of our DNA. We would recoil in horror at that. But it’s not to say that for example, if we took, in Maggie’s for example, all the timber surfaces, we looked at the quality of tim … in other words the three elements.. there’s the floor, there’s the walls and the fitments and then there’s the ceiling structure. Now, there’s three different timbers being used there. The timber structure is just softwood, just a regular wood/redwood, the furniture doors finish is ply Ply yes, And the floor’s oak. In each of them has a quality that works with the job they’re asked to do..
W:
The function
N:
W:
So the oak is very durable, the birch ply is cheap, and we’re actually demanding quite a lot of the carpentry, because it’s totally unfinished in terms of it’s … you know all the edges are exposed Yes, I was going to say it’s not even coated is it? It’s left matt
N:
Well it is coated
W:
Oh is it?
N:
Yeah, but it’s coated in a… to stop it getting filthy
W:
Yeah handprints and things
N:
And obviously you have other things, like spread of flame. So there’s a fire coating
W:
Yeah of course
N:
But what we realised: we had to do was pull them all together as a surface. So they all have, I say they all, the softwood and the floor has a white stain on it, to pull the colour closer to the birch ply. Now that’s an aesthetic decision: that was an aesthetic decision, to visually pull them all together so there’s a certain whiteness about them. But we would never do that … in that situation we did that as a translucent stain, so that you’re still aware what the timber Yeah the grain and the …
W:
W:
So there is an aesthetic decision there to pull it together and that’s where we were thinking about the light, the kind of light we were trying to create within the interior, but also very aware that the light catcher, with its bling, gold, needed to sit within an interior that was quieter, so the white stain had an effect of pulling… the light became a kind of absorbent space Yeah, it’s very soft isn’t it
N:
Yeah, that’s a good way of describing it. And then the bling, then there’s more bling
W:
So it makes it pop even more
N:
It heightens it.
S:
W:
N:
W: N:
Yeah. So leading on with that, would you say, in your opinion has this pre-Modernist view of surface deceit become out-dated in contemporary architecture? So in some senses, you’ve answered that by the way that your practice does it, and to a certain extent, from what I’ve understood that this comment is very much still valid, with the fact that you wouldn’t do the cement to stone thing. Would you say that from a general perspective, there are buildings that are doing that, that there is deceit within the community at the moment? Yeah. I think generally that the architects we kind of look at a lot, would kind of subscribe to that kind of notion, but I think there’s always maybe the opportunity. You do it really with your eyes open and you let people know that you’re doing that. You know there’s a kind of… I always remember my old tutor, a guy called Andrew Jackson, when he taught us, it was all about consistency, where the idea was how the circulation worked. So he’d pull your project apart until he got that consistency. And that was a period of a year of really intense pulling back and pulling back. But then at the end of the year, he gave us a little talk. And we were all sort of sitting there, third years, and we could all plan a building then; we all knew what a section was; we had a real sense of what structure, what it meant, what the façade was, what the envelope was. We all had to design in the same materials: brick, timber, tiles; no one was allowed to use anything else, because what he was concentrating on, was plan and section. Basically he taught we have steel, we have concrete bla bla. Anyway, but at the end of the year, he gave us a little slide show and you have to remember that this was a Newtown gent giving us this talk, so it was the tweed jacket, the white polo neck with the Douglas Fairbanks moustache. And he always called you by your second name, so I was Gillespie and he would be Mr Jackson. And he then gave us a slide show of his country house up near Strathearne and it was a photograph of a fireplace, his fireplace, and it was very Danish: brick hearth, rendered fire surround with a cantilevered corner; logs piled up. You can imagine it Yeah, it sounds a very Alto fireplace And he said, in a very kind of condescending way, “some of you may, if you’ve been concentrating this year, have noticed that this structure is cantilevered when there’s no need for it to be cantilevered.” He said “I can do that, because I’m an architect, and you can’t.” I’ve thought about that, what he told me there for years, because we all came out, going “huh”. What he was saying was that there are rules and there is a language and there is a structure to architecture. It’s hard, it’s a practical discipline. But there are aspects of it that once you know the rules,
W:
You can break them
N:
You can break them. You can only do that with knowledge. So I think there are architects who can make falsehoods, if you like, and do it, but they do it with great knowledge and with great skill. And I suppose that’s why we probably pull back from it because we’re not that great, but you know what I mean? It’s, you have to be very aware, that you’re doing it and know why you’re doing it and to it at a moment that people go “Wow! That was worth it”. But I think if you’re constantly doing it, it’s like crying wolf, it becomes like crying wolf Doing it for the sake of doing it…
W: N: W:
N:
W: N:
Well, I think you become a clown really. Ready for you next trick, you know. Everybody gets a bit fed up, god, not the same old joke again. So yeah. Elements. Yeah. I’m going to go over to this one, which is more based around the building itself. So, I’ve formulated these through a bit of research in the building during my visit. So you mentioned Danish brick being the best, the brick you used, being the best kind of brick. Why did you choose Danish and not Scottish or a British brick that was nearer by? Well, it was simple really, it’s because it’s a beautiful brick. It’s got to do with… well, it’s hand made… I’m not saying there’s not beautiful bricks; Scotland doesn’t particularly have a brick industry. Obviously, there’s a lot of great English bricks. Although that’s not to say there are not brick buildings in Scotland. There’s a kind of fallacy that people talk about Scotland is all stone. There’s a lot of stone buildings, but in contemporary work, it’s very difficult to use stone. The expense. So, there’s a lot of brick buildings around. The thing about the Petersen brick, is that it has a really beautiful surface quality. It’s available – I sound like an advert for the brick.. No no, Please buy our brick! What’s great about it is that it’s available in a lot of very simple variations, so you can play really simple games with it. It’s module is, well there’s luther brick, you probably know there’s luther brick, you know it’s available in and they’re very elegant. And I suppose it was Zumthor’s building in Cologne (The Kolumba Museum) that alerted us to that particular company. And the reason we were interested in it, being perfectly honest, is that Alan Reiach - we spoke about Alan - and his design partner, I think it was a guy called Stuart Renton, and the tutor I was telling you about (Andrew Jackson) all of these guys were immensely influenced and connected to Scandinavian architects.
W:
Yeah, I thought that..
N:
Jacobsen, Udsen, Aalto, there was a connection, a northern connection in Edinburgh - well the whole of Scotland really – that was immensely strong, so they lived their lives almost as if they were Scandinavian. If you went to Stuart’s house, it could’ve been in Denmark somewhere. All the furniture was all Jacobsen. His plates, cups, everything; cutlery, lights, food – they ate open sandwiches – and even in Edinburgh, Basil Spence did a Danish café on Queensferry Road, which is closed now. It’s long gone. And all the architects round about here, in this area, there used to be a lot of architects based in Newtown, not so many now. They’d meet there in the afternoon. At 3 o’clock, all the principals would go for coffee. Isn’t that wonderful? And chat. Sounds really cool
W:
W:
So there was a very strong Scandinavian influence. So when we were doing the Maggie’s and the series of buildings still in college particularly, we were kind of making a nod back to those Scandinavian roots and we – starts to get to be a personal thing – and I think that Scottish architecture really could do with seeing how Scandinavian architecture has developed from those roots. I think we’re too influenced by what’s happening in America or what’s happening in England. So I think that’s kind of… There was an overt… Yeah…
N:
Because it was hugely influenced by (Inaudible word), housing
W:
Ok, yeah. Let’s just think about this. I’ve asked about Crichton castle, but I haven’t asked about Bjorkhagen church. I looked at that as a precedent, I know that you mentioned it in one of the articles that I read online, which linked to, I think it was your project portfolio online. Was that to do with a similar sort of vein from Stockholm, so or Scandi… Yea, Lewerentz is slightly different. Lewerentz would have been mentioned by Alan Reiach and Stuart Renton. Lewerentz is a different kind of guy I think altogether. He’s a maverick I think. And his work is much more intense. I think his work is much more about melancholy. Whereas the other Scandinavian architect’s we’ve been talking about, Jacobsen, Asplund, are about light, about walking in the countryside; about being healthy. Whereas Lewerentz for me is a guy for me who sits up all night drinking whisky, (here’s his photograph) smoking a cigar, right through the night. You know there’s a kind of… Intensity
N:
N:
W:
W:
Ah an absolute intensity to his work., And his buildings are really difficult. They’re hugely atmospheric. Whereas, the work of, let’s say, Asplund, would be about light and about connection to the outside and that sort of stuff. So Maggie’s was a bit more that way. In here, we all love Lewerentz; we think Lewerentz is a demigod really. And there’s an aspect of Maggie’s which is about Lewerentz . In a lot of Lewerentz’ churches, his later churches, the relationship of the glass, glass to brick is really interesting. He’ll pull a sheet of glass out onto the surface of the brick and suddenly you get this mirror.You find, we work a lot with an artist called Alan Johnston, and he… his website is called Northern Mirror… and for a lot of our projects, we like the notion of introducing a mirror into a situation, so that what you’re looking at is not quite what you see. So the facades, the glass facades, sitting within the walled garden were about these big mirrors; so our photographs attempt to show that idea that placing a mirror in a landscape, and there’s lot of, I don’t know if there’s many references back to… I saw a fantastic photo of the reflective golden box and it had the corner of it so that it made up a reflection of both the sky and the reflection of.. it was sort of a geometric shot that was lined up. That’s what I immediately thought of when you were talking about a mirror. Yeah. We’re getting to one of my talks actually, which is too long. But, it’s a bit like when you look at yourself in the mirror. That’s how you understand yourself to be. But if your girlfriend or your wife or whatever, were standing next to you, she would go ‘that’s not what you look like’. But it is you. So, and I think it’s called etopic, or etopia, but there is a space; so we’re looking at a space for example, which is different from geometric space. It’s about your imagination.The only way I can explain it is… we’re standing in this room here; right. Next door, that’s maybe someone’s bedroom. But as far as we’re concerned, in our imagination to get to that room we have to leave this room, go out through our reception area, down the steps, out into the street round, ring the door bell. We’re invited in to someone’s hall. Then we might get into a public room but we wouldn’t get into this inner sanctum and yet, when we’re sitting here and the alarm goes off in that room, suddenly we’re aware that that room is only separated by 300mm of stone or something. So the geometric, the reality of it is that we’re absolutely adjacent to that space but in terms or real space, we’re miles away from it. Yes, OK.
N:
We’re a lifetime away from it. See what I mean?
N:
W:
N:
W:
Yes, yeah.
N:
So you get these moments in buildings when everything’s very clear and sometimes it’s not. And I think that’s what that surface, what that glass surface gives us, it shifts. When you go and see Maggie’s in the evening, it reverses completely. You see right the way through and from the outside you can see in. But when you’re standing in the daylight, you can’t see into those. They’re very private. So, it was very much a lot of the detailing on the glazing was to try and make that surface as, as sheer as possible. In contrast to the brick. And the landscape and the trees. But there’s a whole series of projects that led up to that. Mostly to do with art galleries. Small art galleries. And environmental improvement in the area. But we introduced a glass wall into a public square. And that was about sitting on the north side of the square, against a stone wall, looking south at a glass wall which was reflecting the north. So, that was a slightly political project where we were actually saying that Scots or northerners, always look south for inspiration or for… historic things, you know, the Grand Tour of Italy, so you’re almost drawn south. But, and this is me reflecting literally on Alan Reiach, they looked north.They looked to Scandinavia for their inspiration. So the idea of putting the glass reflective wall on the south was as you’re looking south into the sun… You’re looking north
W: N:
W: N:
You’re looking north. Yes. So there’s a few projects where we’ve played with that and in Maggie’s there was a narrative, to use Charles Jencks’ word, that he was looking for that we weren’t giving him, because our building was a very simple, straightforward thing; Garden wall with a little building in it and people wandering through it. And he was looking for some sort of narrative about cancer. OK So, what we eventually came up with, was the idea that with a poet, Thomas Clarke, we introduced the rill (note: this is a stream) at the entrance, and that practically is about – on the one level, it’s just really about providing an activity, an active thing when people make that really difficult decision to cross the threshold. So there’s something to look at, sit on and put your hand on if you want to. It’s an acoustic thing, with sound going on, but the narrative is that it’s about beginnings. So by entering that threshold, there’s the beginning of support that Maggie’s can give to that person.
N:
W: N:
W:
N: W:
N:
As you then go through… the destination for the building as you go through it, is the reflective pool at the end of the building. And that is; the journey might not be a good journey, but what happens is that people come to terms eventually, with what situation they’re in. They might get better, but invariably, they don’t. Or they… whatever. So what happens is, but there’s maybe some peace. And there’s something about that. So the idea of putting the pool in was putting a mirror – a horizontal mirror, which reflected the trees. But it’s also looking back at the building; that glass wall which was translucent, transparent as you walk through the building, becomes a mirror. And you reflect back on yourself. So you can see what we’re playing… Yes, yeah, definitely We’re playing with this notion that sometimes, something, one situation is one thing and in a second, the sun, the sky changes, a cloud comes out the glass which was reflecting the sky a minute ago, when the cloud passes, it goes transparent and you see through the building. So, Yeah.There was a lovely bit that she mentioned, (the woman that showed us round, I think that she was one of the support staff.) And she said that all of the glass throughout the building can be opened up to allow that transparency through Yep And she said, that… cos one thing that I was aware of was, and from what I gather, was intentional, was this domestic scale and homely feel. And what she said was, it can transform between being a place like that, to being an open space for a community; it can become an institutional building if it needs to be. And so opening that space up allows events to happen. Yeah and events are really critical to Maggie’s. Because they’re fund raising all the time but they’re also giving back to the community that have paid for the building. But we, one of our, maybe a lot of our discussions with Charles Jencks was our lack of volume. In terms of internal space. And we are, or I was, really keen that when you’re in a Maggie’s – most people when they’re in Maggie’s are sitting down – or lying down.They’re sitting round the table chatting or they’re sitting in a lounge chair reading a book or they might be doing exercises, where they’re lying on the floor. And so your view, your field of view is actually really quite low. And our scheme, as you know, is really about horizontal use of space, rather than vertical uses. The idea is that when you arrive there, you can see right the way through. So the building is less of an obstacle.
N:
W: N:
W: N: W: N:
W:
You’re drawn through the building. So we were very keen to keep the soffit quite low as opposed to a lot of other Maggie’s, which create a lot of volume. Because we wanted an intimacy but the monumental, if that’s the right word, dimension is the horizontal vision that you see right through the building. Yes So we were trying to convert, to give it that, civic, that sense of a public building not through volume through a dome or something, but through a dimension which is really pretty long actually. It’s a huge dimension. Especially when the dining room’s made up because the doors are always in the corner there’s a view from that: Lounge, right the way through. So you’re always getting quite long dimensions when the building’s opened up. If that makes sense. Yea, no that’s good. So, yes, you mentioned briefly the artists; so Johnston, ah no sorry, oh yes it was Johnston and Clark Yes there were three artists and there was a Dutch artist, Stephen Aalders. So where did that connection come from? Was that something that you put together or was it… Well, we have worked with artists, well I started maybe, I don’t know, 25 years ago maybe, working with artists. It’s something I’ve always been interested in basically because I’d rather have done art than architecture, but found myself doing architecture and so I was under a really strong connection back to working with artists, but we were really mindful of what a collaboration is. We’ve been working now for a long time so we realised that a collaboration isn’t a shared object or a shared… it’s working in parallel, with someone who’s in the right mind-set as yourself. So, while there are works in the Maggie’s, they’re independent works, they’re not, how can I put it; they exist autonomously to the building. So there’s two pieces there: there’s the poetry that Thomas Clark wrote and the full story’s in this wee book. So his piece, The Burn in the Lochan talks about the proximity of flowing water paradoxically calming effects in the garden. So he explains the practicalities of it. “The Lochan is a reflective surface holding a depth of sky but also a receptacle for reflections.” So he kind of talks you through the building in a way
N:
W: N:
W: N:
W: N: W: N:
W:
He talks it through but we had nothing to do with his text. And he had nothing to do with the design. His text… we knew that he was doing pieces on this. We said we were going to put in a rill and we were going to put a pool; end of story. He then comes up with this text. For him, the rill becomes a burn, so it becomes about Scottish culture, which we really bought into and then that’s his piece… Yeah OK? So that’s useful. Alan Johnston’s been a friend for a long time. His work is really… you talked about surface and decoration and truth of materials and all that stuff, well his work is very much that. It’s a linen; it’s always a linen, it has beeswax and charcoal. Those are really… those materials have a kind of resonance. But if you look at the work, I think the work actually is…(shows Will a picture) It’s more than just that, but anyway. If you look at that piece, which he selected to go in the building: he donated it to the building: there’s two cuboids, or two squares. One is the raw linen and the other one is beeswax and charcoal. And then the white paint. So in many ways that..it, what we’re saying with that, we’re not saying anything it’s just a work, right? But there’s a void and there’s a solid. So we’re talking about a garden and a building.There is a white line – this is me reading it – so the artwork, you know the theory of the artwork’s only complete when the viewer completes it – So I complete my story of this piece of art. The white I think is the structure of the garden wall, or the structure of the… Yeah, the white structure of the building If you look at the Stephen Aalders scheme, there are three zones: there are three zones to the plan. So there’s the private zone, there’s the public zone and there’s the larger spaces. So there’s three As well as you can read that being three (points at something) Yeah. So you’ve got the three and then if you, it’s not very good, but if you look him up in the Ultimate Tooler you’ll see Yes I’ve seen it in real life as well so… So the white are in a rhythm that will run through the canvas. So the white columns do that. They’re rigorous. And then the colour of the courtyards, they… so there’s a … that work existed.. Yes
N:
But it gives us an idea for a plan. But we’re not saying that it’s the same
W:
No
N:
So it’s really important that they’re autonomous works. So that piece of work could be anywhere really Yes, because I was going to ask, whether or not they influenced each other. But you were saying that these were parallel works Yes, well one of our other artists from our (I’ll show you our little gallery, it’s super) was a guy called Roger Ackling, who died two years ago I think. And his work was about burning. He’s from the kind of group round Hamish Fulton, Richard Long, English landscape artists. He used to take a magnifying glass and burn, draw, into pieces of wood. And he became really influential for us on a Pier Arts Centre project, up in Orkney. Where we had ribs. But the ribs as you moved the ribs all closed up, so you get a black façade and a translucent façade. So we didn’t collaborate explicitly with Roger, on that project, but his work made us think in a different way about how you make a contextual building or make a mark. He literally burns it into the wood. So we used this black… so that’s.. sorry I’m rambling a bit No, no not at all
W: N:
W: N: W:
So what I’m really saying is we’re not… We don’t sit round a table with our artists and say well what What are you doing
W:
Right. We probably just sit in the pub having a pint and we look really carefully at their work and we say well, there’s an idea that’s really interesting. But that ain’t the idea that we’re picking up, maybe not what he’s intending What he’s intending or…
N:
You see. Does that make sense?
W:
N:
Yeah definitely. The final thing that I wanted to chat about was a bit to do with the Stirling Prize and it’s relevance, because I wanted to pick a medium through which I thought was really relevant for a British architecture scene. So from your experience of the Stirling Prize process, would you say that material use and design detailing were important criteria? I think obviously the Stirling Prize is a judged prize
W:
Yes
N:
W:
Therefore the Stirling Prize is a product of the judges. So you look at the judges and you could say you’d have to ask them that question really. Peter Clegg, Stephen Hawkins, is it? Yes, No, Steve Tompkins. Steve Tompkins if you look at their practice’s work there is all about detail and about how things are going together and having just spent, as I said I was just back from Istanbul and Peter Clegg was on the same trip, and his… listening to him analysing mosques and their surfaces, he’s really interested in how buildings are put together, how they work. So yes, I would say that that group of judges were really interested in how things are made. I think if you had another Stirling Prize jury, they might have been more interested in, I don’t know … concept Concept, yeah.
N:
But you know if it had been Will Allsop, Peter Cook…
W:
I sat in a lecture at the beginning of the week with Peter Cook
N:
Yeah. You’ll probably find that you would find that they were the dullest buildings on the planet. So it’s all about who’s looking at it. It’s that thing we were saying earlier about Alan Johnston’s work or Steven Aalder’s work, you complete the work by looking at it and you get what you get out of it. Whether it’s the story that Alan wrote and it’s the same I think with architectural juries. You get to a position because the juries were aligned with your work. Obviously all the buildings that were on the… that won a national RIBA award were on the whole, pretty good buildings, but how did they select those six? Because there wouldn’t have been your six. No, yeah. It changes every year
N:
W:
N:
So I don’t think it’s inherently in the building. The building is what the building is and then it’s the jury that says ‘I like that one’. OK. Because I was going to ask you which elements within Maggie’s would you say earned the building a spot on the final shortlist? Phew. I don’t know.
W:
Is it the general experience in the building as a whole?
N: W:
N:
W: N:
W: N: W: N: W: N: W:
I think what was … what we were interested in, and it’s in the wee book, was this notion of a paradise garden and it’s just amazing that we were asked to go to Turkey and look at mosques, because you know they’ve no notion of external to the building. You know your world is frantic. It’s tiring. It’s worrying and then, for the mosque garden, you go in and suddenly it’s a calm. In many ways, that’s what we were trying to think. As architects, what could be give somebody who’s going through… A sanctuary Not just somebody, their families. A place that had a bit of dignity about it, a bit of stillness and so I think without being arrogant, I think it does do that. You know, I think it is quite calming and that so the staff tell me, I think that’s what the jury got. I think when they went in they suddenly got it. I mean it was really helpful that we had the Maggie’s people, the women that work there, men or whatever – fantastic. So they themselves are pretty much selling The building And then there was patients there and they …and I think the jury sat and they had time to be in the building. And I just think, I don’t know, you’ll have to ask them I think No I think the car park was just this manic…the cars circling like sharks trying to find a space Yeah And it was tipping it down with rain and it was cold and then when you got inside, it was like this kind of urban oasis, this kind of sanctuary which I definitely… Yeah. I think we were very wary that we didn’t want to be divorced from the outside, hence the perforations Yes, yes I noted that
N:
W: N:
W: N: W:
And the ability to look over the wall. We could have made the wall higher, but we needed to make it … you can’t deny it’s situation. And that’s what the Maggie’s support is all about. It’s about helping people with incredibly practical things. You know there is a kind of a notion well, what does a Maggie’s do? The clinical support is in the hospital, but Maggie’s are giving support in all sorts of things. You know, how to deal with it psychologically, this news; how to deal with your family; how the family has to deal with it. But it’s also things like how you can pay your mortgage. So it’s financial stuff going on there.There’s pain relief, there’s make-up – how to put make-up on and wear a wig. How to deal with pain; pain control. All of these really, really practical … or just somewhere to sit. You know, because you know how it works, is that you walk in and there’s no reception area. So when people have been there, they go in and they just get just get their coffee and their cup of tea and they might just go into a corner and sit there, because all they’re looking for is 15 minutes… A conversation and some support Yeah, I mean it’s harrowing. You know sometimes they need 15 minutes before they have to go and pick up their kids from school. You know, they’ve been to a clinic they’re then maybe really upset, so they need somewhere to just sit, get themselves together before they go back out to buy food to feed the family and all that stuff … so I think the jury got that, but they were pretty critical.You know they were very critical about how it was made, you know, poking a finger, so it wasn’t easy to get to the final six. But I think, going back to how we got there, I think it’s just about people, that group of people saying ‘this is one that we can relate to’. But, well I say that… the amazing thing about the Stirling Prize is it goes through four different juries to get to the shortlist. So it’s not one group of people, visiting it once, and putting it on the shortlist. It’s going through four separate groups and they each put it on to the next stage and then they hand it on to the next jury. So it wasn’t just Peter Clegg and Steve Tompkins, it was 30 or 40 people and then, you know, it’s interesting chatting … it would be interesting to see what Paul says about Burntwood school, because you’ll be asking him, “why do you think you won?” Yeah I mean I’ve got a few questions which I think I want to field to their … I mean the reason I think it won, as opposed to anybody else, was that I think it ticked more boxes. OK
N: W: N:
W:
Than any of the other ones. Cos I think… we were kind of precious, traditional, great contractor, great client… Yeah Anybody can design a good building. So there was a slight preciousness, if I’m being honest. Maybe about the Maggie’s process and I think probably the same for The Whitworth. You know, you’ve got a cultured client, you’ve got a beautiful site bla, bla, bla, so you can kind of go mmm… so I think we were probably scoring on quality of finish, construction, idea… Success of the building, to be honest
W:
Yeah. And then you’ve got other ones where you’ve got, Heneghan Peng, which is a very strong brand, I haven’t seen it so I… I actually had an interview with Shih Fu Peng on the phone and it was interesting hearing his side of things. Again, I haven’t seen it. But I was more interested in these two buildings, they’re sort of different scales Different scales. And I think the…I thought Neil McLaughlin’s might have pulled it off but - I’ve been to see that – but then again, I suppose it’s; the flats weren’t necessarily amazing flats. They were beautifully put together I think, and I think the school had a really great story. I think Paul put a nice story to it. They phased it over five years or something. And it obviously made a huge difference to that whole group of … you know, so I think it was scoring on real need. Not that Maggie’s isn’t real need, but you know what I mean, it’s a different A different type..
N:
And the politics of how we build schools and things
W:
That’s what Shih Fu Peng mentioned was that he thought it was more of a political standpoint, that people need to, or the government needs to be spending more money on building schools and a fantastic way through which we could, or the community could push that, was through choosing a school, to put it on the map, to a certain extent. Yeah, but I think there… you have to be… you don’t want to undermine the …because I think equally, Neil McLaughlin politically, if you were being.. the school’s programme’s pretty much coming to an end, so housing is not though. So the real political thing maybe, is social housing. So I’m not sure. Listen, the one that I found saddest I suppose, was the flak that Richard Rogers were getting for…
N: W:
N:
N:
W:
I wasn’t even interested in talking to him, if I’m honest
N:
Do you know, it’s a funny thing It’s a funny thing. I think if you spoke to all the … cos we all had to present our scheme a couple of times in front of everybody else, which was pretty nerve-wracking, (particularly when Neil McLaughlin’s speaking, cos he’s so good) the thing about … I don’t know… I think people get this kind of moral, were just kind of moralists. It was a really, really difficult project the Bankside thing. Now, whether the developer’s gone off and done the dirty deed on this social housing, I don’t know. But tomorrow, we could be commissioned to do upmarket housing and we wouldn’t turn that away. If I’m being honest, we would say ‘yeah, we’ll do that’. We’re not sitting here as some kind of Marxists, saying we never do houses for the rich. You do what comes along I guess
W: N:
W: N:
W:
As Heneghan Peng would, but Neil McLaughlin would do really expensive one-off houses. So it’s not… if there they find themselves with this project and actually, forget the vocabulary, cos I think that, kind of the bracing and all that sort of stuff, but the description of how they broke the mass down; if you compare it to Allies and Morrison’s Blue thing behind it, this mass of building, capitalist thing that blocks the sunlight. Rogers Graham Stirk have really tried hard to bring sunlight right through. Ok at that level, it’s still for the rich, but a good guy to speak to would be Rory Olcayto from the AJ. Because he thinks it would have been better if it hadn’t been housing. If it had been offices or something. But I think from a design point of view, the ground plane that they’ve made, the landscaping and the routes through it, are just superb. It’s design/build and I’ve never seen detailing that’s as immaculately resolved through a design/build contract. It’s a remarkable achievement. But of course it’s got this stigma of expensive houses bla, bla bla Yeah But I don’t know. Architects are tarts. We just …Whoever comes up and rings the doorbell and says “I’ve got a cheque book and it’s full of money, would you like to work with me?” There’s very few architects who are going to say no. So what you do is, you then move it towards being something. And I think they’re townscape, breaking down of this massive block – because it could have just been a big block of flats, instead they’ve made five – is it five – different blocks. Yeah I think so
W:
Something like that. And the scale – goes from 15/16 storeys something like that, down to… It’s actually very clever. But they were taking so much hate What, from everyone that was listening?
N:
No, no. I mean hate mail.
W:
Oh, right, wow
N: W:
Not quite “we’re coming to get you” but not far off it. And you think oh, where’s that coming from? Yes, just anger. General anger.
N:
Anyway ,so I’m sorry. I’ve blethered a lot, but hopefully…
W:
No. Thanks so much. Awesome. That’s fantastic. It‘s interesting just hearing your input. I mean Sorry if I’ve.…I think that how the building works … you can pick that up
N:
N:
N:
Yeah. I feel it’s quite - not from a negative point of view – but I think the building is easy to get. Yes, absolutely
W:
Because you feel it, rather than need to know about it, if you see what I mean
N:
I mean that’s quite good . We were genuinely surprised to get to the Stirling shortlist with it, because we were trying our hardest to be as quiet as possible and that in many ways was interesting that it got that far. Because of many of our buildings, it’s the quietest building we’ve done.
W:
Paul Monaghan Practice: Allford Hall Monaghan Morris Architects, 5-23 Old Street, London, United Kingdom, EC1V 9HL Date:
25th November 2015
Time:
17:00pm
Interviewer:
William Field (W)
Interviewee:
Paul Monaghan (P)
W:
P: W:
So, the two theorists which I’ve looked at, are Adolf Loos and John Ruskin and I wanted to compare their attitudes towards a similar point of view. So one of the quotes from Adolf Loos is, “Ornament means wasted labour and therefore wasted health. That was always the case. Today, however, it also means wasted material and both mean wasted capital.” (Loos and Opel, 1998) So, in your opinion, is there now a space for ornamentation within the design of a building, or does material and design detailing remain purely a functional pursuit? Sorry, what was the first sentence? Do you want me to have a look at it? It is that. OK? Yeah, OK … I mean it’s quite a broad question, so if you want to relate it to Burntwood in the way that you talk about it
P:
W: P:
W: P:
W: P: W: P:
So I’m just sort of getting my … Sorry, I’ve just moved from doing an RIBA lecture to trying to answer these questions. I think there is space for ornamentation. I think maybe that’s not what we’d call it. I’d like to think in Burntwood, it would be that area that might be considered to be decoration or architectural features or whatever one might say, come out of two elements. I suppose, so the first, which is more of the old-school Modernist, it comes out of the way the panels are manufactured. So that, the fact of the manufacturers and the factory and the detailing because they have to sit on top of each other; and the fact that the facets are related to stopping solar gain, so the deep dip depth, the depth is also to do with constructing it; how it can sit on top of each other, so structural elements. And then the windows themselves are located at a height that allows you to put a table or a … Yeah So everything is totally rational, but when you put it all together, the panel is facetted and is decorative. So I suppose on one element, that’s quite purist Old School or form follows function, on the other element, I suppose what there is within the school are several elements that are sort of are working with an artist’s collaborations. So things like the coloured tiles Yeah, is it Morag Myerscough? Yeah Morag Myerscough. I suppose with Morag, they are that collaboration … I suppose, we commissioned those pieces and worked out with Morag where those interventions could occur and they occurred on the portals and within the building as it goes through. So that, I would argue that the faience there is total decoration, I was going to ask you … but also sometimes that’s come out of Burntwood so there is a reason for it because each of those colours relates to the departments and the departments … Yes, so it has a function as well as a decoration So, I suppose we’re quite comfortable to do both. We’re very rarely decorative with our work in a … I suppose when we are decorative … we are normally decorative when we’re working with an artist or a graphic designer or identity or that’s where I think we’re more playful, in those collaborations. We’re more uncomfortable to do it on our own, because we’re not, you know, that’s not what we do.
P:
Yeah. Because I was going to just ask briefly what the colab was like. So you commissioned Morag to do the pieces. So did you have a say in what that was going to end up looking like or was that something that you did as a team together? I’ve worked with Morag for twenty years so …
W:
Oh right, Ok
P:
I think we always had these openings, from really early on. Can you see they always had a lining in, and Morag started to … Because of the faceted panels, Morag, when she was looking at colours, started to look at sort of faceted patterns that just came, and that had a link with 1950s, sort of what Robin Day, Sir Robin Day did – he was a very famous 50s designer – and there was something about the campus that was 1950s. So it came from a few streams and that then morphed into what about the linings: why didn’t we turn them into tiles? And these were the initial samples for the buildings. And that’s how that came about. So in a way I thought why don’t we do that, why don’t we make those tiles and she said “OK yes, how do you make them?” So we worked together a long time. So what I do know is I’ll say well I’ll bring it into the building into the staircase, into the bogs, and then Morag said well some of the rooms, the big special rooms, we’ll put a wall painting on, that will if you like, it turns the faience into something more abstract. And then, you know, we worked with a furniture designer. And I suppose these other pieces she did, which are real colour and real pieces of art because she painted them. So they’re her pieces. I think that one was the maddest colour-way, was it in the …
W:
W: P:
W:
Yes this one was really …so this is where the collaboration works. So we were trying to decide which colour that building should be. The staircases and the – because there was no faience in it – so we inverted it and turned the faience into these real art, on plywood. And then I said, “why don’t we make it all the different colours, because it’s the mixer?”. And then Morag said, “great, so I’ll do that.” And then we were trying to think well, what should the bloody staircase be? And I said it should be all the colours. Because it’s not like one colour. So in a way that’s collaboration and then, I was like, I’ve always liked: we always refer to Mies Van der Rohe, within the design of the campus. The sort of way it’s designed. Particularly the IAT, and I’d just been to Chicago and saw the graphics here, which are literally in that wall there. And we stole them totally. So in a way that was a quote, a direct quote, Is that why you …
W:
It’s a sort of joke, a sort of ‘in joke’ that no one really – people do know because we’ve been telling everyone – but you really wouldn’t know unless you … so it’s a nice little joke. Is that one of the reasons why you called them pavilions? With the connection to …
P:
It just sounded good
W: P:
Yes it just sounded good. Yes because I was interested in why that was the chosen vocabulary It’s more gentle isn’t it?
W:
Yeah
P:
I think it’s just a word we … it’s just a word. I mean in a way … I don’t know, I don’t think we … we just did because it sounded more elegant. So, I went off piste a bit there No that’s cool, that’s fine. Another quote by Adolf Loos is “ If all objects would last as long in aesthetic terms as they last physically, the consumer would be able to pay a price for them that would allow the worker to earn more money for shorter hours.” (Loos and Opel, 1998) So I suppose this section is more to do with designing longevity into the building’s aesthetic function and materiality. So, how did you approach that with Burntwood; was that something that you wholly considered? Yeah. I suppose. Because when you’re designing schools, the maintenance of them is tied in … the contract is tied in… So Lend Lease, who were the clients for this (because it wasn’t the school, Lend Lease were doing a contract within what was called Building Schools for the Future, which was the government’s procurement route.) So Lend Lease go in, design two schools and as well as agreeing costs to build them, they agree a cost for looking after them for 25 years. So that’s the maintenance costs.Those maintenance costs are very, very rigidly set out. So there’ll be, literally, there will be 20,000 square feet of area to hoover twice a week. There will be 400 square meters of tiling that will be cleaned three times, or five days a week. And if it grows or shrinks, then that’s it. And then there’s about vandalism: it’s like when is it their fault and when … and so I suppose what happens, therefore, is that Lend Lease are very interested in the finishes. And robust finishes, because they are liable for cleaning. So, and for maintenance, so it’s OK in the first year, but as you can tell… So I suppose there, the things that matter, I suppose were things like self-finish materials. So trying to eliminate as much plasterboard as possible; trying to have as much exposed concrete, because concrete ultimately …
P:
W:
P:
W:
Wears well
P:
In areas like the staircases, if that was plasterboard, it would … you’d have to paint it all the time. So, in a way there are those things. I think other things, were things like the panels themselves are highly insulated panels. So things like the heating bills are greatly reduced, because it’s a very airtight building. So those sort of things become important. Yes, I think that those are the things that are sort of inherent in this contract. And I’m a believer that… well sorry, some buildings you know are going to have a shorter life than you design them. And some buildings, also you know, haven’t quite got enough money this time, but in a future life, in a few years time maybe, there’ll be more money spent on them. We did a library years ago in Barking, which is still there but it’s got very tatty. But we always knew it was going to be; our fit-out was going to be a cheap and cheerful fit-out and one day, they might have enough money to do that sort of British Library level of finish. Right
W: P:
W: P: W: P:
W:
I think you have to know that. But where we never try and skimp is on the basic hardware of the building. The sort of shell and core of the building. You know I think the outside of the building; the roof; the grounding of it. All those things are really important. So it’s more like - what do we say “long life, loose fit” – so long-life elements and loose fit elements. And certainly Burntwood; we saw things like the classrooms and some of the internal partitions as things with an ability to change or be repaired, but with key things like the bogs and the staircases and the outside, the roof, the services are really key and needed to be you know, need to be very robust. How did you come up with the module for each one; as in the dimensions and things like that? How did it work? It was based on … classroom … the brief for schools is very particular, but … so there were basically about three different sized rooms. Right Side slab rooms which are those, ordinary classrooms which are more square and then there’s smaller offices as well. But we looked at the elevation and broke it into effectively a couple of modules. Let’s get to the … (I think he’s looking something up here ) So, we broke it into … effectively we got depending on what the grid was – is that 3 – let’s see I remember reading that it was something like 3.5 and 4 or something like that
W:
Yes, it was something like that. It’s in here somewhere. It’s better if we looked. Anyway, when you combine … when you’ve got that small one and that big one, by combining them together, you get rooms wherever you want to; you get the three different sized rooms. So that allowed… this one we always had to account, really was a one-off small room. But we didn’t always use it, in that case the bigger ones worked well for classrooms. And then we slid the composition, because on each floor, those partitions were in different locations; the classrooms had flexibility and we’ve always quite enjoyed sliding elevations as well, it’s something that we quite enjoy; the composition makes it slightly more dynamic. So I suppose that’s where, it was just trying to keep to two modules that then gave us the flexibility to do all the different room sizes and it also gave us this ability to show off a bit Have a bit of a play
P:
Particularly on these side elevations when you see the, you know, you see a on that one
W:
Yes, that was very successful
P:
W:
And that was before sliding the different … this was saying look, you know, that one is the same as that one, all we’ve done is turn it round by 180 degrees. This one here; occasionally we have ones where that hole would be up here, cos we swivel them, you get the same … you get variation for no extra money, so … How many different … I think I’ve written down somewhere…
P:
Panels? About 12 wasn’t it?
W:
An optimised panel catalogue, so there’s about 12?
P:
There’s about 12 of them, yeah. It’s the moulds that you … it’s the moulds they’re made in. You’ve probably seen on our website a really good film about how it’s made and the factory, you have a look at it. Yeah it shows the whole machining of it and you’ll see what I mean by the moulds: the moulds are expensive. So then there’s infill. So say, for example; no actually all these are … this is mostly the mould. There’s that one, the wider one, and that one, the vertical version, and there’s that one the corner window and the solid corner. And whether it’s black concrete and the darker concrete or yellow, it doesn’t really matter. And then there’s this corduroy bit at the bottom, that gets stuck on the mould for the base panels. But, you know, that is the same mould and they have this extension for this bit. So, in the end, you know there are about 12. But it’s quite a hand-made process anyway. In a way. I think the moulds would have saved money but quite as… You know, I think it was more about speed of construction as well.
P:
W:
Was there a purpose for the colour change from heights? Is that anything to do with…
P:
The base?
W:
Yes the base as opposed to the top bit?
P:
That’s a very good point. Bases? You know, when you look at our work, you almost … actually some of it came out of Adolf Loos. In Paris years ago. If I look at our work over the years; so if I go back to maybe buildings that are a bit like this so… (this is my wife Helen. She’s in America: he speaks to her on phone) (Pause)
P:
See the base?
W:
Yes
P:
There’s another base there you see?
W:
Yeah
P:
So I suppose we … and some of them; quite a lot of them have come out of …so we always used to do a base and it really was – can you see here? – it was sort of ‘to do’ … in that period; and we liked Aldo Rossi, so it was like, I think both those things … there’s quite a lot of Aldo Rossi in our earlier work actually.You know, this one, if you take out the surface of it, it’s actually quite a simple square-windowed building. Which opens up at the back. So that’s where the base came from. So we’ve always believed in just grounding a building and it gives a different hierarchy to the façade. So yeah Awesome. And OK. Sorry I’m just…So when it came to the concrete module was that something that you wholly came up with or was that something that was born from a colab between you and Techcrete? Well, I think it was Techcrete and BuroHappold the engineers. But I think we drew that cartoon and we knew a little bit about … we do quite a lot of work with panels, so we knew it was possible to do the floor. We knew it could be about 4 metres maximum; we wanted a window in it because we knew it would be quicker so I suppose we, in a way , it was just drawing in… then saying let’s keep going. So it wasn’t a piece of rocket science, but it was quite a hard … you know, it’s quite a heavy thing to… it was more about delivery and the weight that became the issue.
W:
P:
W:
So the way they work is, they don’t …we’ve done a few buildings where, say there’s the structure; say a two-storey, three-storey school, and there’s columns here and there’s the ground. Some of the panel systems we use, it’s the wall that say - so it finishes at those windows there - that wall panel, which you know is probably quite … you know, there’s the windows, is actually like, it’s acting as a column – the whole outside. And then we have columns inside. That system has got a column on the edge and those panels don’t do any structure. They basically sit on top of each other OK
P:
So that all they are …
W:
They support their own weight
P:
P:
They’re self-supporting So they literally sit against it, which is different to the structural version. So in a way, that was the most important … once we knew that we were doing that not that, it meant we could go deep and make them heavy. Yeah. So going back to the theorists, John Ruskin is another chap. Within his chapter The Lamp of Truth, Ruskin highlights four inherent architectural flaws, that’s structural, Surface, Operative and Aesthetic deceits. So, in his section on surface deceits, he writes, “To cover brick with plaster and this plaster with fresco is perfectly legitimate as a mode of decoration, as it is constant in the Great Periods. But to cover brick with cement and to divide this cement with joints, that it might look like stone is to tell a falsehood” (Ruskin, 1890). So reflecting on the quote, would you say that this statement was applicable to your own ideas? And are there times when you have indulged yourself in a bit of an architectural white lie, if you see what I mean? Yes, no I do. It’s like when. It’s a conceit
W:
Yeah, yeah
P:
In a way we always have a thing, that buildings do what they do naturally, and we don’t try and over articulate things to make them look like they’re … sorry, I’m lost for words slightly …We don’t try and make things look, compositionally… if it doesn’t work with the inherent construction techniques that you’re using, we don’t try and articulate it to make it look like it’s doing something it’s not Ok, yeah
P:
W:
W:
P:
W: P:
W: P:
W: P:
So, often, you know, we might have a diagram, a plan of a diagram, solid glass, or you might have things floating over, and I think it’s always in the cleanness of that detail. So I don’t think we ever try and make something look like its… I would say in a way, what you’re doing there is you’re sort of, you’re having to detail your way out of it. So you’ve created a compositional technique that when you then get to the larger scale of detailing it, and it actually doesn’t sit very happily and you’re having to make it work, you have to work hard with it. To me then that’s you know …you’ve done the heinous thing, you know, you then have to design your way out of it Yeah, it’s dishonest in a way So sometimes you; you do sometimes have to design your way out of things as well. Because sometimes there is something that’s occurred on site and you have to design your way out of it. But that’s different to something you’ve …something that you might be trying to… So I suppose things like the base and the top, there might be occasions when, I suppose that is a conceit. Is the base always the same height or does it move around? But; and sometimes that catches you out as you go round the building. On the whole I think we are always, ‘what you see is what you get’ and the project needs to … We don’t believe in over articulating things because the …I think you know the some of the every day buildings we do, we don’t want to waste money on things like that. We want to … repetition and clean detailing is more elegant anyway, so … Would you say that what he was talking about is out of date? No. I think he, what he’s saying isn’t he: It’s Ok to do a brick wall then do something decorative on it but it’s not OK to do a brick wall then pretend it’s a stone wall. No, I think that’s still valid. And you could say similar to the … some people who over articulate buildings in this day and age could still … I think a lot of architects still believe in that. It’s fine. Yes. Would you say that there was any one that you know of who doesn’t apply that in the British…? FAT. FAT architects probably aren’t they?, because they’re still the most … there might be someone like Birds Portchmouth Russum, who are quite a little firm who’ve been going a long time. Birds Portchmouth Russum are quite … they often play with … there’s an ambiguity about materials and about you know distorting things. Maybe Will Alsop at times.
W:
OK
P:
The trouble about it, is it’s sort of … it can be something that can go out of date very quickly Yeah, yeah. His opinions towards operative deceit revolve around the role of technology within manufacturing, so since this has changed tenfold since the late 1800s, his arguments become obsolete in my view. So are there any design elements within Burntwood School that you would say, could only have happened because of the advances in technology? Albeit it material or structural or aesthetical? Probably almost all of it. I think almost all of it because, you know, you couldn’t deliver the panels in the old days, because there needed to be lorries – they’re very heavy. The breakthrough in reinforcing bars; well that’s not particularly very … I suppose the sort of manufacturing …the emphasis on offsite construction is something that’s relatively in the last 15 years. So, building buildings in a factory and that wasn’t around, well that wasn’t around 20 years ago, really. There was the illusion you could build things in a factory 20 years ago so, Richard Rogers; a lot of his work looked like it was bolted together like Meccano but in fact it was highly crafted pieces of metalwork. So I suppose those things – literally those tiles are printed tiles. They’re not cer(amic), they’re printed which is a very different technique. That allowed us to do them, which is a very new technology. So printing’s new in that way. Is there anything else? Well, they’re probably the main thing. All the things like the services and the windows I spoke to Shih-Fu Peng on the phone, Heneghan Peng, and one of the things he said was ‘they don’t do surface’. I don’t want to put him out of what he meant, but I think what he meant was that he, within their buildings, they try and do the outer layer with the structure. So would you say that the tiles that you just talked about were surface application or is that arguably part of the architectural fabric? Well I’d like to say it’s a lining. So its like a …so you know like you have a suit, you know if you get a Paul Smith suit and it’s got a bright pink inside but it’s black on the outside; I’ve always been quite interested in linings. A lot of our buildings have linings, so I see it as the inside, but of course it’s a conceit; it’s an applied surface yes. But it’s very hard to create a building these days where … because of u values, where the outside isn’t just stuck on. Because you have to separate the two.You have to have insulation between them, so they never quite touch each other.
W:
P:
W:
P:
P:
So it’s almost impossible to create a totally pure building, I don’t know, like The Parthanon, where it’s about …unless you are looking at that thick. So … but there are degrees of conceit, this is what he’s trying to say. But I suppose with us, there normally … yes, I think we… I’d see that as lining. So, I’d see that as articulating an idea of a portal, we needed to emphasise that and it actually, it needs to be covered in something, because … so if it was concrete … I mean the way I’ve told you about the cladding; effectively all of that is stuck on, because all of the panels are nothing to do with structure. So they’re mainly to do with keeping the rain and sun out, so … Yeah. So my last sort of port of enquiry, is to do with the Stirling Prize itself. Because a lot of my dissertation is based around why, what is the current attitude; but arguably, if I’m talking about it through that, then the attitude of RIBA, becomes the attitude of the British sort of attitude in a way. So, from your experience, of the judging process, would you say that material use and design detailing were important criteria? Yeah.
W:
Yeah. That’s it?
P:
Well. The judging process is a highly complex thing, hard to … I mean everything’s important, or not important if you like. You know, it was important when we were shortlisted in the first place that we had a sunny day. It was terribly important to us that it wouldn’t rain, unfortunately it did when the Stirling Prize judges were going round. You know, cos a building is visited four times during the Stirling prize. With four different sets of judges, so there’s no consistent set of criteria there that work. What I always say, with a smaller building … so say like with Neil’s building; It’s absolutely vital it’s perfect because it’s small. With small buildings you can’t … if you’re going to win the Stirling Prize, there’s no excuse for anything to be wrong with it. In bigger buildings like this, you know you’ve seen it, it’s vast, it’s more forgiving, so … and also the budget’s different. Budget’s five times the price in Neil’s building per square metre, so this one’s a cheap building. So it’s important that the judges have an understanding of what is appropriate for that budget and what is exemplary. I suppose what they liked about our building, was we’re quite expert at building buildings for that budget, so we’ve got techniques like how the staircases looked; the staircases looked really elegant but they’re really cheap; they came out of a way of working; how building can make them really cheaply but we just made it our own little detail. So, I mean things actually, things like the stencilled wall paintings are a cheap way of decorating buildings, because it’s paint and it’s a signwriter. It’s not like fact that Morag has to then commission it, it’s just one element extra, so that’s quite important.
P:
W:
P:
W: P:
W: P:
W: W:
Yes, I think so I suppose that’s important. I think on the day there’s so many things that are important. You know, you just have to be lucky. Because we’ve been shortlisted four times and we’ve been favourite one of those times and then I think we were the least favourite this time, after Neo Bankside, but that was so far away, and we weren’t. So I think there’s something about the function of the building; so you know clearly Neil and… educating 2,000 girls who are from a slightly deprived area and the school doing phenomenally well, and the head teacher, who’s very emotional; in a lovely landscape and where you think well that’s giving every kid a proper chance in this world in a State school, you know it’s a cuddly building type. Just as Neil’s building is in terms of cancer patients; it’s doing good. That’s why Neo Bankside was so hated Yeah Unfairly, I think. In it’s building typology, it’s good, it’s great. So I suppose that’s important. So is the building type, you know the typology. I think there’s an element of what’s your track record like as a firm? Is this a one off? Have you done it before? How well do you know the people who are judging? You know, everyone knows the judges a little bit. Sort of like, the work they do; are they likely to be sympathetic with the idiom you work in? And, to be honest, the first time we lost, the judges were not… they were people who did not like our work. The architects who were judging it. We were just poles apart. So you know, it’s as favourites it doesn’t really matter, because the people who are judging it had a different take on architecture. So I suppose those are the key things. It is quite a key thing about how you present the building on the day, how you do that. I always remember a story about one… I think it was the Velodrome; it was the Velodrome, where they spent about an hour describing the concepts behind the building before they started taking the judges round. And, I remember Peter Cook told me, Cookie was saying it was just so f**ing boring he just couldn’t believe it. And it was so dreary anyway Yeah And, you know about 15 people said to Peter it was just such a beautiful building but that’s why it didn’t win. I think all the judges were really irritated, so (I think it didn’t win for a number of reasons ) but the little things like that, the daft things than can lose it. And I think that …but we’ve learnt over the years how to choreograph the tour Yeah so it is a very choreographed thing, that you’ve thought about from start to finish; it’s not …they don’t just turn up Yes, of course
P:
W:
P:
I was really terrified by it because, to be frank with you, some of the earlier designs for it, you know, we did not have the money. You know, we could not do some sort of, I don’t know, elegant Chipperfieldesque glazed, stone panelling, so it was going to be just terrible. So finding something we could just buy that was just made in a factory was really a stroke of genius I think it fits the pre-cast slabs, it’s kind of a pre-produced thing. It’s really good. What was the existing building, the Sir Leslie Martin building: How did you approach the connection between that, because I knew that would be something that was … so there’s that bridge there. Was that connection between the two something that was difficult to do or…? Well, this was what it was like before.
W:
OK
P:
Can you see?
W:
Yeah. I can see the difference between…
P:
W:
You do need to get … there’s one little idea, that I knew would always work, You know there’s some stories which occurred in a lecture a few times on it, always got a real laugh, and that people always … so there’s one thing, I always knew that, ending with a giant cardboard penis in a girls’ school was always guaranteed to get a laugh on a community project, so that was one thing. So that makes it makes it slightly light hearted, cos these tend to be quite … people get a little bit … you know … it’s cool that we’ve got this far; we don’t need to be totally earnest. And the second bit was, sort of, more about what we’re like, is the bus stop story, where we couldn’t afford … there’s meant to be this canopy going all the way through the middle, we couldn’t … you know, we only had 50 grand. We found this bus stop that we took everything off it and it looked quite good. And basically we bought 20 of them and it cost 50 grand and they looked really good. And it’s about re-appropriating an object. So it’s sort of funny haha but also clever and people liked that so … I think that’s a really successful spine, as you call it
P:
W: P:
W: P:
W:
You had the staircase, so I would say, you know, the two things, the two elements, that look like we didn’t do anything to, we spent the most time on, were the bus stops – because we had so many designs and I was saying you know it’s going to f**ing ruin the building we’re not doing that; we’re not doing that. You know it was going on for about a year - And the other one was this bridge and in the end, the bridge … what I wanted was to take it from the old building; take the idiom of what it was like and we tried quite hard to see if it could work as it was, but we couldn’t, because I thought the staircase was really beautiful, but we couldn’t. None of the levels were right and then we kept the railings, the railings were very simple. In a way it was just trying to touch the building and be completely neutral Yeah And actually, I’m quite happy because when you look at it you’re not sure if that’s always been there . It looks like it’s part of what was there, yes, so it was tricky but I think it… and there’s little things like it goes slightly narrower, cos the opening from that building is wider than our new opening. So there’s little touches that you don’t really see, but they made a difference I think. Yeah, but that was hard. Actually designing this building was hard because you’re next to quite a fine building with very, like, skinny glazing, you know, really skinny glazing Yeah And, the budget for this; to do this building now would be, you know, five times the price of this one. So I suppose our idea was just taking those verticals that grid, that vertical grid and so using the same sort of grid, (slightly different because ours is a more metric grid), but instead of it being skinny, we go, it’s fat. So it’s really… it’s fins, so if you like, when you see it, you know, actually it disappears. Completely; the glazing. So it’s just an abstraction of the vertical grid. And then we quite liked the idea and then we make it very dark. And really dark because there’s big chunks of it that are solid. So some of these are solid. And if we made the glass dark as well, the composition would always be quite homogenous. I suppose that was… and then we liked the idea that the dark glass then reflects the building. So it’s like camouflage. So really it was meant to be a backdrop and then different to these buildings, which are the teaching blocks or pavilions. Because, I don’t know whether or not this is your words, or something that I’ve read, but I’ve read that there was an existing language of architecture between the two things.There was this kind of massive concrete block for the teaching areas and then a lighter, more transparent area for the communal spaces, like the hall or something
W:
Yes, it was this building and the other building, which was the Sports Hall. We took the vertical grid for each of them, and they were both big, (because that’s a sports hall), they were all big span buildings where it wasn’t concrete, it was going to be steel. So we wanted to articulate them differently, so they’re both black and they’re both… and this one is clad concrete so that’s literally stuck on, and the groove is … Actually I suppose that groove is a little bit like our friend’s grooves in the stucco isn’t it. But that groove is nothing to do with the joints, it’s just a groove and that’s to maintain that vertical grid that we’ve … because there’s a vertical grid on this Leslie Martin building here. And I suppose there was the idea that they were articulated differently because of the steel frame So was that something that you as architects highlighted?
P:
Yeah
W:
Yeah. Looking next door to it, I think the chap who took me round was either the deputy…
P:
Howard
W:
W:
Yes it was Howard and he was saying that it wasn’t on the agenda to re-do the building next to it, just purely because of the cost of it. Do you have a plan for that in the next 20 years? Or is that something that … It would be nice. Well, it needs about £3million spending on it which isn’t going to be knocking around I don’t think after they got £40million I don’t think they’re going to get another £3million. There’d have to be some very rich benefactor, but I don’t think so. I don’t think so. It’d be nice to.There’s an idea that they might … there’s a bit of the site that could be used to develop some housing, and the housing could pay for the new building; so they could sell the housing and pay for it. So there’s an idea about that, but it’s quite early days. Fantastic. Well, thanks for giving me your time. It’s been really good ?
P:
You’re welcome, I’ve got it in there (book) if you want one.
W:
Yeah, that’d be great any information
P:
Is this the new one? It’s hot off the press. No, it’s still the old one, I’m afraid.
W:
That’s OK
P:
That’s the one without ‘now recommended by the Stirling” have you seen the Stirling Prize? It’s there. Did you see it when you came in?
P:
P:
W:
Yeah I need to have another look at the model as well, because I’d seen the model of the façades…
Shih-Fu Peng Practice: Heneghan Peng Architects, 16 Lord Edward Street, Dublin 2, Ireland, D02 YC63 Date:
16th November 2015
Time:
09:30am
Interviewer:
William Field (W)
Interviewee:
Shih-Fu Peng (S)
S:
Hello
W:
Good morning, it’s William Field
S:
Hi Shih-Fu Peng
W:
We organised an interview maybe last week
S:
Yup
W:
Awesome, So thank you for getting back to me, as I mentioned before, I was quite ill the week before last, so I’ve sorted it all out. And also thank you very much in advance for letting me speak with you this morning. I’ve got a list of a few questions and I suppose you’re a very busy man, so I should probably fire away right away Yep
S: W:
So my first questions are based around sort of quotes from the theorists I’m studying and the first one is Adolf Loos
S:
Sorry, can you go through again what the whole gist of this thing is, is it a paper or…
W:
Yes, this is my dissertation study so originally I was going to look at honesty within architectural material and I’ve changed it ever so slightly, so that I’m talking about materials and design detailing within this year’s Stirling Prize shortlist and the way through which I’m going to do it - talk about it - is through a number of case studies and at the end of it, I want to kind of highlight a general contemporary British perspective or kind of British idea towards what the attitudes are with material honesty and design in sort of a broad sense. OK
S: W:
S: W:
S: W: S: W:
So that’s where I’m going with it and I think it’s important for me to interview architects, because they are in charge of this attitude, if you see what I mean. This contemporary perspective. And so the way that I’m doing it, is by looking at theorists like Adolf Loos and John Ruskin from the pre Modernist and Modernist times, just to get their attitudes and theories towards the subject, so that I can see how, ascertain how it’s changed through the last centuries, a contextual history as well as a contemporary thing. Fire away My first one is a quote from Adolf Loos - a Modernist author and he writes: “Ornament means wasted labour and therefore wasted health. That was always the case. Today, however, it also means wasted material and both mean wasted capital” (Loos and Opel,1998), which is kind of a sceptical view on the time. Wastage is still very much an issue in the manufacture, social responsibility and make up and sort of economics of architecture, is as relevant today if not more so, however in your opinion, is there now space for ornamentation within the design of a building or does material and design detailing remain purely a functional pursuit? With relation to some of the things that you are designing at the moment, would you say that there is space for ornamentation within what you’re doing? It depends. Have you been… has your history teacher gone through ornament versus decoration? Yes, briefly. So, ornament yes, decoration no. It’s basically the fine line between what is decoration for decoration’s sake and ornament as a means of, for example, articulating junctions Understood
S: W: S:
W: S:
W:
S:
W: S:
W:
You say there’s something applied, no I don’t think there’s room for that. I think that’s a waste of money. Ok, Yes. If one had, has to contend with how corners meet or why things do what they do, in terms of resolving… so I don’t know: We did a table recently and people like to rest their arms on the edge, so in order to rest your arms on the edge, you need to basically…, you can’t have a 90 degree angle, you need to somehow curve it, so that your arms don’t hurt Right You, do it - you have to do it with a CNC machine. So if you do it with the CNC machine, then in theory, whether you make it triangular or square or semi-circular or 45 degree angle, it makes no difference. So one could use it as a means of articulating that edge, and there’s something quite nice about it. So then yes, when it’s used like that yes, but no, not when it’s applied. Yes, that’s interesting, yes. And would you say sort of in a contemporary sense, whether or not it is something that you design or whether it’s something you’re aware about and a precedent you might use, whether or not ornament has disappeared in contemporary architecture, or is your … No it hasn’t disappeared. It depends how and where it manifests itself, so is Giant’s Causeway ornamental? We think so. So if you look at the joints on the stones, when you match them to our construction documents, they don’t match, because the stones are based on the … well the stone is very fragile. So the joints are a result of the fragility of the stone – basalt – and depending on which blast it came from - and there were 12 blasts in order to basically excavate the stone - they produced a precise stone. So, therefore, the jointing size was based on the average size for each blast. So the whole façade changes when you walk along the inside. Yes So therefore is that ornament? Yes sure it is, of course it’s ornament, but it’s a result of conditions that we had to build into the cost. Because if we said we want everything to be x distance, it would be prohibitively expensive. Because then they would have to do 36 blasts, to achieve the sizes Yes
S:
And we thought, why not integrate that into it. Yes. Is that ornament? Yes, it is.
W:
Yes. Interesting. So, another theme through which Adolf Loos talks, is objects will last as long in aesthetic terms as they last physically. The consumer would be able to pay a price for them that would be able … sorry… would allow the worker to earn more money for shorter hours… Can you try that again, I missed you
S:
S:
Yes, sorry. Yes so, “ If all objects would last as long in aesthetic terms as they last physically, the consumer would be able to pay a price for them, that would allow the worker to earn more money for shorter hours.” (Loos and Opel, 1998) So it’s effectively an argument for longevity within designing, but how do you approach designing longevity into a building’s aesthetic function? and it’s materiality, I know it’s kind of a very broad, question but is there something that you aim to do as you’re designing the building? That is something that’s very much culturally and client based.
W:
Right Ok
S:
So, if one were to take 2 extreme examples, both of which are by nature sustainable: The Dutch versus the Germans. Methodology. The Germans build everything to microscopic tolerances and the way … they build these microscopic tolerances; the material used is basically state of the art materials with alloys that will last to eternity. And the buildings are designed such that; it’s a culture where buildings built even post war/ pre war, are concrete structures – I don’t know why they’re concrete structures Yea, yea
W:
W: S:
W:
Just immediately post war.You can strip the façade off and re-clad the whole thing and the structure is there.You don’t have to basically do anything to reinforce it, because it’s so well built so that it lasts for eternity. The Dutch method is the exact opposite. Obsolescence occurs within 10 years/15 years. So after 10-15 years, you have to demolish the whole thing and build it again. In terms of embodied energy, do they take the same amount of energy to build? Yeah. Because the amount of energy used to build the German product due to stringent requirements, are so high; the amount of wastage is so high, that the energy that’s put into it, damn well should last 100 years otherwise it’s a waste of energy Yeah
S:
W: S:
W: S:
The Dutch ones are built with effectively, let’s say, think of plywood or think of plateboard. It is built with materials which are almost discarded; waste. And because it uses almost - I’m exaggerating, because it doesn’t actually have those requirements, those stringent requirements - it can use such, you know you can use waste and recycled materials that at the end of the day, it lasting 15 years is just as sustainable, because the body of energy over its lifetime substantiates itself so they’re both net zero. So you just have to pick one. Yeah, So. So from our point of view it depends how the client looks at the building. Do you,… and to some degree, it’s driven by capital. If you don’t have the money, you can’t build the German building. In the way, does the German look at sustainability as something that needs a passive house, which is a building built tight and therefore, doesn’t leak? But unfortunately it’s not sustainable, because you can’t build in China and Africa with that kind of quality and tolerance. Therefore, its model for sustainability tends to only occur in 2 countries that, were the World War II aggressors – Japan and Germany – where they can build to those tolerances. Yeah. OK. So, for you as a practice, it’s a sort of a British perspective, it’s kind of a play up of both. It a … It’s a … between actually the British one. The model. It’s probably for developer buildings, (which we don’t do) would not be built for such long lifespans. Educational buildings probably would. Cultural buildings probably would. And there’s a certain degree of how much performance, how much does a building perform. So I don’t know, let’s just say it’s 50 million and it’s x square metres, and the client wants it to last… I don’t know, 80 years or something like that.There’s only so much form that you can give it before you spend all the money doing the form and there’s not enough money left to make the thing last 80 years. Do you do a Zaha building? It depends on your budget, timescale, capital. It’s all a bit of a balance. As long as the 2 are aligned, it’s fine. It’s just aligning the 2 that takes some time.
W:
Yes. Ok. So just to move on from Loos.There’s another theorist which I reference, which is John Ruskin. And within his book the Lamps Within Architecture, he had a Lamp of Truth. Ruskin highlights four inherent architectural flaws, which are Structural, Surface, Operative and Aesthetic deceits. And in his section on this surface deceits, he writes ”to cover brick with plaster and this plaster with fresco is perfectly legitimate as a mode of decoration, as it is constant in the Great Periods. But to cover brick with cement, and divide this cement with joints, that it might look like stone, is to tell a falsehood.” (Ruskin, 1890) So, reflecting on the quote, would you say that this statement is applicable to your own ideas? I suppose that in some sense, you’ve answered that above, with this ornament versus decoration thing. But would you say that that Ruskin ideal is something that you still value? It’s just truth. It is true. Stucco. If you want to apply wallpaper to it, keep it wallpaper. Don’t make it look like stone or concrete. Yeah, you’re being honest.
S:
Which is quite a sweeping statement. Yes, honesty. Materials should be honest.
W:
And are there times where you have indulged yourself in white lies?
S: W:
There is kitsch. Which is when in the 70s where they made Formica look like wood. You know, plastic laminate look like wood. Yeah.
S:
There is that and I don’t quite understand it, but I think it just is in a slightly different realm.
W:
OK. Would you say there was any… Were there any points within some of your buildings where you have indulged in telling little architectural white lies or being dishonest, but for a reason, if you see what I mean? Like a deception so that one might have something that looks like it’s a really thick stone wall, for example, but it’s actually only a skim surface or something like that? You have to do it with irony. Do it with tongue-in-cheek and that’s why Koolhaas is so good. Because he’s one of the few architects that actually is more aware than any other architect, of what he does. In some ways, I almost think when he makes his presentation to a client, and does it with a serious face, behind that, he’s laughing. Right. OK
W:
S:
S:
W:
S:
To a large extent, that it’s almost just a plausible fiction that he constructs within a particular context. And without him, it has almost no validity. He creates his own fiction. He creates what they call, ‘plausible truth’. Your usual thesis; what your Professor tells you, is we’re not here to create truths, we’re here to create plausible truths. Plausible fiction, which we … you basically convince us to such a degree that we believe wholeheartedly, but at the end of the day, it’s all fiction. It has not truth. OK. Oh, right. Yes, I suppose it’s evident in lots of his buildings. I hadn’t really thought of that. Yes They’re all fabricated realities.
W:
OK
S:
W:
They don’t need to do what they do. I’m not saying they’re not great buildings, they’re fantastic buildings, but they do it in a peculiar way, where he actually fabricates the problem, and he solves his own problem. So therefore, you believe that the problem that he’s created, and that he’s solved, is actually the problem. Where another person can come in and fabricate another problem. Yeah
S:
No truth. Total fiction. That’s why he’s great.
W:
(Laughs) That’s
S:
W:
S:
true. I read a AJ article by James Hogan, which is a nice sort of summary of the shortlisted buildings and he writes: “ each ligament of ducting and bone of concrete is meaningfully uncovered” (Hogan, 2015) so I assume, going through what we’ve talked about, that this was something that you were aiming for and intending within the building? What is this? Is this for Greenwich?
W:
Yes, this is for Greenwich. The University building
S:
Yes. What did he say?
W:
He said; “each ligament of ducting and bone of concrete, is meaningfully uncovered” (Hogan,
S:
Yes, no. I think it’s an interesting statement and I didn’t read that, but yeah. It’s actually the reverse of that. We chose to uncover there; everything therefore, every piece of concrete and ducting had to be meaningfully considered. He’s reversed it, which is interesting. Oh really? OK .
W:
2015)
S:
W:
S:
We chose to reveal everything and because you’re revealing everything, you have to contend with it. And therefore, it has to be meaningfully uncovered; meaning consciously dealt with. OK.Yes, I’m just trying to see how he’s… yes, I see how he’s flipped it. OK, because there’s a conscious decision within uncovering it with ease, if you see what I mean, apparent ease. OK. In your opinion, has this pre-Modernist view of surface deceit become out-dated in contemporary architecture? I think Ruskin can say that really easily with, “right you can’t do this, you must do this”. So has it transformed, or is it wholeheartedly exactly the same, would you say? I’ve lost you again. Try again.
S:
OK, sorry. So in your opinion, has this pre-Modernist view of surface deceit become out dated in contemporary architecture? Effectively Has the pre-Modernist …
W:
View
S:
View of surface deceit. Where you take a surface
W:
S:
Yes, I don’t know. I think surface deceit is effectively where what he’s talking about in the brick with plaster or the plaster with cement that looks like stone. But I think that in your opinion it still remains relevant, doesn’t it? We actually never did surface.
W:
OK
S:
W:
That’s the thing. The whole surface thing passed us by. We just never did it. It’s still going on right now, but it’s taken a total of about 15/20 years and we just never dealt with it. We just never did it. OK
S:
We just don’t do it. We just don’t believe in surface.
W:
OK. So, you say that…
W:
S:
W: S:
W: S:
It’s pointless. To some degree, I think that surface is a result of … you see there are a few things that dealt with surface. Remember when all these cool computer things came up with blogs and NURB and all that Kind of stuff, and everybody wanted to play with it. So …hold on one second, can you just wait 30 seconds let me just do one thing …. OK The ornament, OK. A couple of things. The reason, a few of the reasons it came up is these are my own reading - these are just a number of possible reasons. Number 1, NURB came along and students became interested in Maya OK And making funky forms And the reality of the funky forms is that at the end of the day, you cannot really enter the building very easily unless you spend a lot of time, because people bump into walls and it’s very hard to walk up a sloped surface. So it kind of got relegated to a space or place where architects can play around with NURB, which is the façade: Because it really doesn’t affect the inside, because they put conventional floors and doors on the inside. You know, some people brought it in - if you have the time and money to do it , but generally it’s on the outside. Because otherwise, you just can’t walk down the corridor without hitting your head. So, in some ways, it almost became a bit of a Disneyland. It’s become this kind of playpen for architects to hang out in and do funky form and somehow substantiate it. But at the end of the day, it’s really they like to play with NURB and you can’t do it inside buildings. So,… I mean, Zaha can do it primarily, because she has the money and those cultural building have so much funding that you can allow it to enter the building. But generally it doesn’t enter inside. So, from our point of view, we don’t really have much interest. I mean there’s nothing wrong with it, we just don’t have interest in playing with that surface stuff. Which is not to say it isn’t good. The whole of the pavilion. This goes into research and development and a lot of the CAD-CAM systems have been developed as a result of this: Somehow in order to fabricate these curved things, construction technology manufacturers had to somehow agree to rethink how things are done, and there’s a kind of investigation project in and of itself it was very interesting. I mean Gehry developed all these things, and fantastic. But the notion of … to a large extent, I do find it to be excess, because people say that, you know, you can do a rain screen, the computer can cut all the different thousands of shapes because the computer just cuts it and knows what it’s cutting, but at the end of the day, you’ve got to go on site and some guy has to put it in place.
W:
Yeah
S:
W:
And it’s a pain in the ar*e to put together a thousand panels in shape, in place, and the notion of economy isn’t there. So in principal, we just never did it, because number 1; we’re busy designing the inside of the building, and Number 2, maybe I did schooling too late and we never did NURB when I was at school. Maybe if I went to school about 7 years later, I’d be doing NURB now. And it’s usually done as an off-set skin, which is really Gehry. You just offset secondary structure and then you mount these panels onto it. Which is actually not that it hasn’t occurred before, Nervi has done stuff like this before, but what’s interesting about Nervi, is that it’s structure. And it’s very rare that surface today is structure. And I think when surface and structure merge, there’s a kind of integrity to it, there’s a truth. It isn’t actually wallpaper, it is pure ornamentation, it actually has to stand up, that I find it interesting. I’m sure there’s many reasons why surface has come to the forefront, as something quite topical, I’m just guessing a few things and trying to contribute to it. We just never got around to it because it would take a lot of time and money and effort to do it and we don’t have that kind of budget. I left school a bit too early. (Laughs) Running along with the theme of technology, was there anything within the Stockwell Street building, (the uni building) that could have only happened because of the material sort of advance, material technology? Like for example, I think you talk about a glass reinforced concrete fin for that North face, which is next to the railway. Is there anything within the university building which is … The GRC fin’s fine but that’s not new, everybody’s doing it – there’s nothing special about that. GRC, that’s all. Or what they call these days, ‘Ductar’, which is micro reinforcement of concrete rather than Rebar. Basically it becomes goo. A goo of steel. Is there anything? (asks himself) Not really. OK, yeah OK
S:
Not really. More traditional I would say
W:
I suppose the traditional Limestone outside goes along with that, doesn’t it? So, having watched a video about the Stockwell Street University by Stephenson Bishop, I recall you mentioning the materiality of the external stone and the building’s continuity and relationship to its surrounding context. I believe I’ve understood the design choice behind the limestone. However, I’m intrigued to know whether you knew it would be this material from the outset, or did you have another material in mind during the design concept stage?
W:
S:
S:
We actually had stone all along. I mean (phone rings) can you hold on one second please)
W:
Yeah, that’s fine
S:
Hello, are you still there?
W:
Yes, I’m still here.
S:
Let me think. That was one thing that’s always been the case. I must say, we’re not iconic architects. We do not believe in fantastic form, that is meant to express new architecture, new individuality; new ways of doing things, new this, new that. We’re not about doing new. We’ve always believed that there’s been a lot of stuff done in the past that’s quite good and there’s no reason to cancel them, and that new is not necessarily better. It’s this whole thing of evolution versus revolution. We believe in evolution, which retains quite a bit of the past. We don’t believe in revolution where everything we do is new and has never been seen before. So, to a large extent you have to look at the… there’s AB,AB bands, in the… it’s not limestone actually. If you look at the façade it’s actually composed of the wide bands, which are limestone, which follow the curvature of the street, and the narrow bands, which are cured steel. Which is actually, where it’s orthogonal to the interior logic of the programme within. And those steel bands, the narrow bands do not follow anything contextual. If you look at the façade, it’s actually composed of the mix of the two. That which pushes the logic of the steel in the space of the programme pushing out from within, which follows its own individuality and the limestone curvature bands, which actually push back from without. And it’s actually the blending of the two that actually make the façade. Neither nor. So it’s the old and the new that exists simultaneously. Yeah, that’s nice. I hadn’t appreciated the mix of materials. So I’m going to have another look at that. If you look at the narrow bands, the residents very much hated it because it did not follow the curvature of the street. And the reason it didn’t follow it, it’s because it actually followed the orthogonal logic of the space within. The steel chamber within. The factory space within. OK. Have there been other projects where it has been more difficult to select a palette of materials? Also, how’s the process through which you determine the final candidate, or is that too much of a broad question? What did you say?
W: S:
W:
S:
W:
S:
W: S:
W:
S:
W: S:
W:
Have there been other projects where it has been more difficult to select a palette of materials, and has this process of selecting materials got a general process, or is that too much of a broad question in terms of every project? Sometimes it’s quite easy because it’s site-based. You know basalt. Giant’s Causeway was basalt because that’s basalt. The client took the position of, I want local stone, I want to spend the extra money to be sustainable. Limestone’s quite easy because it’s Greenwich. Yeah On certain other projects, no. It’s not as obvious, so you pick one. It’s the Koolhaas thing. You pick a material and you basically have to argue it such that the building can be no other material and the clients would say, “of course”. Meanwhile, you could have argued any other material. OK yeah. So you put your point across. So, just wrapping up; just another thing that Hogan said in that article, was “the real testament to the scheme’s conceptual rigour is that its material approach is almost secondary” (Hogan, 2015) So I think he’s commenting upon the strong spatial concept behind the building’s form. Would you say this comment is true and if so, how high in priority is the choice and application of material to the design? So, in terms of a hierarchy of your design concept and development, you’re designing the spaces and the internal things first, and at what point does a material get assigned? Or is that something that’s in your mind throughout and you’re applying it afterwards? The material is used based on the kind of spaces that need to be made. So, unless you go for perversity, I mean if you have long spans, you do them in steel. If you have a surface like the ceiling, which has all these ‘dammits’ that people can hang stuff from, and people want to drill things everywhere, the concrete makes sense. If you need the passive slab for cooling, or not for cooling, but to create a naturally ventilated environment, use concrete. I mean, they kind of just… Just fits… The building needs a material to do it and there’s usually a material that does it well. I mean, which is not to say that you can’t be perverse about it. Which is actually in a different territory that we don’t do. Probably Caruso St John would be better at it, where materials are used in very odd ways. Like … there’s a factory or church in New Jersey, where they made everything out of concrete, right down to the individual mullions. Wow
S:
W:
S: W:
W:
Nobody knows.You cannot predict it. It’s not something you can bet on. It has no logic to it. It’s really, as Peter Cook would say, it’s a bunch of people that have never met before, that come together, in a room for the first time and nobody knows what’s going to come of it. (Laughs) OK.
S:
It’s usually the loudest person that actually sets the criteria. But not necessarily.
W:
OK
S:
It could be just that fact that, the winner got chosen, by the client; could be anything
W:
Yeah
S:
The nice thing that we like about it is … there’s one thing that’s not based on glossy images. That’s what’s interesting about it Yeah
S:
W: S: W:
And it is just the weirdest thing in the world. It’s just like, these things are metres high like Gothic windows. And then you go up to it and you knock on it and you see pieces falling off, because they were all made out of concrete. It’s like how much did you (inaudible word) bars back then years ago. It’s just amazing it’s all falling apart but that’s a slightly different thing. We don’t do that. But there’s another world that people do things like that, which is quite neat. It’s definitely Caruso St John’s territory. OK. And finally, in terms of the RIBA Stirling Prize, with your experience of it, would you say that material use and design detailing were important criteria that they judged upon? Or were you not involved with the judging panel at all? The most predictable part about the RIBA prize, or the Stirling Prize, is nothing. You don’t know. OK
It’s not … if you took a bunch of photos of all these buildings, it’s not the one that most people would expect to win from a pure conventional architectural point of view. Yeah, OK
S:
W: S: W:
Sometimes when there’s an amazing project, yes. But typically, 80 percent of the time, it’s not the building that you expect to win the architectural award, to win. They have a completely different agenda, from good architecture in the conventional sense.That’s what makes it interesting. Yeah. What would you say from a material and design point of view … Irrelevant. It may be relevant, it may be irrelevant. It may be relevant or irrelevant. You don’t know OK yeah.
W:
Maybe if a person fell over a pile of bricks, they think bricks is important. That’s just about as relevant as it is. What do you reckon earned your building a spot on the shortlist in terms of what we’ve been talking about? The material and design? What would you say was the thing that earned the university building a place? Architecturally it’s a good building and it dealt with a very difficult site. It dealt with a programme that didn’t fit the site. In a site that didn’t allow the programme to happen and it allowed the two to be combined quite successfully. That’s something relatively complex. OK. Understood. From….
S:
Basically, we put the elephant in the Volkswagen.
W:
Yeah, yeah, From a, just an interested point of view, what did you think of the winner?
S:
Oh, I think the winner … is it the best architecture? No, but the winner is rarely the best architecture. It was … most people pretty much know what they want. It’s a political position. It’s to say that the whole drift in UK funding towards education has gone backwards. And that one needs to move back to what allowed good education buildings to be built. And what better place to basically make that point than with the Stirling prize. Yeah, OK. That’s an interesting…
S: W:
S:
W:
W:
It was used as a political statement. And it is probably the best venue to make that political statement. Say that, “don’t do what you did. Go back to what it was”. Yeah, yeah
S:
We need that for education.
S:
W:
Yeah. Understood. Well thanks ever so …
S:
The Stirling Prize, you have to move beyond the building. You have to move beyond the building. You can’t just talk architecture. It’s too small. It’s too myopic. Much bigger. Well, thanks ever so much for your time this morning. It’s been … I’ve appreciated it loads. And it’s interesting to hear your side of things, and I really enjoyed researching the building. I’m going to have to go and see it. But yes, Fantastic thanks ever so much. Have a good rest of the day. OK, bye.
W:
S:
Ethics Review Approval