A Critical Question and Answer Regarding Design

Every architecture school has a lecture series where the university invites architects and thought leaders to speak about their current and past works. These talks provide inspiration, thought provoking conceptual analysis, and new directions of the craft. These talks are very important to students and professors. I made my best effort to attend all of these lectures during my five years of architecture studies.

My very first lecture one week after I arrived to campus for the first time was Italian architect Benedetta Tagliabue. I remember the details of that first lecture so well. I remember the setting and the gathering of the people. I can close my eyes and see the location of my seat and that vantage point towards the stage. I had never heard of Benedetta before nor seen any of her work. At the lecture, I remember that she was neatly dressed, lean, somewhat tall, and interestingly beautiful. She was very European, whatever that means, and possibly what I had in mind when I envisioned a intelligent and stylish Italian woman. She spoke with an Italian accent and maneuvered through the presentation gracefully.

The work was very complicated and embedded with notions of movement, fluidity, and poetic meanings. The projects were a contrast to my novice exposure to European architecture. I imagined much of the context to be a gradient mix of similarly formed structures with orange tile roofs embracing narrow streets which all travelled towards the most prominent urban element, the church. Benedetta’s work was comprised of internal elements pulled away from the interior space and delineated as form on the exterior shell. There was a juxtaposition of planar and curved elements interacting through merging, collisions, stretches, and extractions. All of these elements were held together with a vibrant color palette and extremely technical and expressive structural components.

The presentation left a great impression on my mind and future thoughts of what architecture is. Her presentation focused on the formulations of the architectural elements, but that manifestation of architecture was all rooted in the process of design. She illustrated in tremendous clarity how the process revealed the design and how that translated into working architecture.

After the presentations there is a question and answer session. In my experience, there have been times where the students have not asked anything. Maybe there was just too much information to digest immediately after a forty five minute to hour long presentation. I always saw the Q and A as a great opportunity to gain some experience from the masters. In my mind it was like having the ability to “speak” with great architects. Although the “talk” was only me conveying a short question, it was what I felt a brief discussion. I have had many short discussions with the greatest architects of our time. Frank Gehry, Thom Mayne, Tadao Ando, Han Hollien, Zaha Hadid, and many others.

This was my very first lecture and when the moderator asked, I almost jumped out of my seat to deliver a question. I remember so well the question and her answer has remained with my to this day and it is so important to my approach to design. I asked: “Your projects are very complex; how do you know when the design process is complete? At what point is a design finished?”

She replied: “I don’t think that a design is ever really finished. The design process has to come to some type of finality to get the project built, but when I visit a project or review a design after the project has been completed there are always things that I want to add or do differently. That is all a natural process of design that never ends which is very exciting and interesting.”

What a great way to start off a university journey with such a clear message that would go on to assist us all with how we design and understanding the stages of the architectural craft. What I took away from that answer was that bringing the design process to finality is part function of the business of architecture and also a choice by the architect. It must be understood that a design for a specific project needs to transition from the design and planning stage into the phase of execution.

I also saw a danger with allowing the architecture project to lose focus and detoured by forces that may arrive in the midst of the design. It is important to thoroughly analyze the contextual forces that exist during the design phase and also attempt to address forces that may be revealed during construction. However, it is important to note that new forces should not prevent a design from reaching completion.

The presentation also allowed me to contemplate how architecture actually works after its execution. Architecture is an element that is rooted in the built environment through form, structure, and contextual interactions evolving through time. Once the project reaches its intended completion, the project and surrounding context is activated. Once this occurs, adjustments occur and project, along with all of the existing site conditions, becomes a force. It is important to note that the transition into a force emanating construct can occur immediately, or evolve at various speeds through time. This is the impact of architecture and the positive change that can be evoked through design.

This never ending design process which is expressed through architecture is so important to the growth of an architect. I once overheard a professor saying that an architect should never live in a house that he himself has designed. Maybe this never-ending design process can be a strain on the psychology. I would counter that with the fact that many great architects live in the houses that they have designed and those houses became the basis of their architectural voices. Look at Frank Gehry. Look at the Gehry house in Santa Monica and then look at the current house he designed for himself. There are striking similarities and you can clearly see the evolution of the process. It is as if he took all those design ideas and corrections and implemented them in the new house. It is interesting that Frank Gehry had so many issues with the neighborhood when he was building the house. Imagine if he had to tear down the house. In reality it would not really matter, he still would have become Frank Gehry because the architecture is not always a matter of permanence. In fact, some architecture is ephemeral, and in some cases, intentionally derived that way.

Architecture is an evolutionary process that never ends. It is conceived, built up, torn down, born, killed, rejuvenated, and buried. The incompleteness of the process is just as important as the completed project. The finished building will remain grounded and depreciate in various levels over time. The design process and the unused concepts are stored away and used again when appropriate. For some architects the processual components that are reused becomes a signature; for others architectural concepts are newly invented for each project and specific site conditions. Ultimately, architecture and being an architect is a mix of the two.

To conclude, it is inevitable that you will eventually walk away from a project, even if that project is one that holds significant attachment, like the Gehry Residence. But just like Gehry, he moved away from that house and moved on to other projects and places. The process of design is much the same - we reside within it and absorb all of its critical details before moving on.