April 14, 2025 • 48 mins
What happened to the architectural manifesto? This fascinating question from a listener propels us into an exploration of how architects have historically proclaimed their design philosophies—and why such bold declarations seem increasingly rare in contemporary practice.
The architectural landscape was once dramatically shaped by manifestos: Le Corbusier's "Towards New Architecture," Adolf Loos's "Ornament and Crime," and the revolutionary Bauhaus movement all articulated clear visions that transformed how we think about building. But today, as we scroll through endless Instagram feeds of similar-looking projects, has something fundamental been lost? Have we surrendered the courage to stake out distinctive architectural territory?
We examine whether BIG's "Yes Is More" represents perhaps the last true modern architectural manifesto, and whether practice websites and mission statements have become watered-down replacements for the revolutionary spirit that once drove architectural movements. The conversation takes surprising turns toward craft, material engagement, and how the "tall poppy syndrome" might be preventing architects from boldly declaring their principles.
Most importantly, we consider whether writing your own manifesto—even if just for personal clarification—could help combat the global homogenisation of architectural styles. By articulating what you believe about design, perhaps you can recentre your practice and contribute something meaningful to architectural discourse. As we navigate a world increasingly dominated by AI-generated forms and committee-driven decisions, maybe the time is right for a return to architectural conviction.
Key Sources:
- https://www.archdaily.com/921760/how-to-write-an-architectural-manifesto
- https://designformindfulness.blog/significant-manifesto-examples/
- https://www.architectural-review.com/awards/world-architecture-festival/a-manifesto-for-the-next-10-years
- https://www.thoughtco.com/architecture-timeline-historic-periods-styles-175996
- https://archeyes.com/architecture-chronology-timeline-important-architecture-projects/
Chapters:
0:29 - Episode Introduction
2:03 - Defining Architectural Manifestos
6:44 - Famous Historical Manifestos
13:19 - Modern Manifestos - Do They Exist?
17:56 - Global Homogenisation of Architecture
27:43 - Manifesto vs Craftsmanship
36:56 - The Future of Architecture
Please Like and Subscribe it really helps :)
Follow us on @designpriciplespod on Instagram and if you wish to contact us hit our DMs or our personal pages. We love to hear from you it
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Our feathered friends see the world differently.
Through birds' eyes, thingsmight look almost psychedelic to
us, with heightened colours andfresh hues forming a surprising
new spectrum.
This hazy, citrus and stonefruit accented IPA, with a
mellow, soft and silky texture,gives a similarly refreshing
change of perspective.
This week's episode is broughtto you by the one and only
(00:23):
Parrot Dog.
Hazy IPA bird's eye Nice.
Welcome back to the DesignPrinciples Podcast.
This week we have the first ofour listener recommendation
episodes.
So over the last couple ofyears we've been asking
listeners to message in onInstagram and email with their
(00:43):
thoughts on what we shoulddiscuss, and we've plucked this
one out of thin air and decidedto give it a crack.
So this week we will bediscussing architectural
manifestos.
Time to dive in.
This week we thought we'd cometo you guys with a listener
(01:14):
recommendation.
So we've had a few listenersemail in with suggestions for
episodes, and one of the onesthat we kind of found the most
interesting was somebody askingabout architectural manifestos
and movements, um, and justwanting us to discuss those.
So I thought we'd, we thoughtwe'd bring that to you, um, and
probably take it.
Take a look at it from a moremodern, modern day approach so
(01:36):
modern.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
I thought for a minute you were saying we had a
couple of listeners.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
I was like, oh damn yeah, we we've had like thanks
to a couple of listenersprobably like a dozen
suggestions, some pretty goodones what are we?
Speaker 3 (01:51):
what are we working with?
Have we got any haters yet?
Because that's when you knowyou're really successful.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Yeah no, I haven't haven't identified the haters
yet so, sammy, have you umwritten your manifesto yet?
Speaker 3 (02:02):
have I written my manifesto?
Going to write a manifesto?
Is that something that you seeyourself doing in the future, or
what even is a manifesto?
Speaker 1 (02:13):
well, yeah, if we look, if we look back on it, so
that's that's a good place tostart, like what is an
architectural manifesto?
And essentially I'll try mybest to define it without using
like chat, gpt or something.
It's purely from kind of memory, but ultimately it was
historically an individual, butthen it kind of shifted into
groups, take on a direction fordesign, art, literature,
(02:40):
architecture, etc.
So you've got things like thedistill movement and like there
are creative demands.
You've got things like theDistil movement and their
creative demands.
You've got Frank Lloyd Wrightand the nature of materials, for
example Le Corbusier'sineffable space.
Those are kind of like classicexamples.
There's a couple of ones thatare considered the greatest or
the most influential and thoseare sort of like Le Corbusier's
(03:04):
towards new architecture andadolph loose's ornament and
crime and they were sort of likethese are these books a
manifesto?
Speaker 2 (03:14):
I guess a book's probably a good way to you know,
really really hone in yourmanifesto yeah, like to be
perfectly honest.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
I don't't know how many of them were actual books
more, but rather like a seriesof lectures and theses and key
ideas and deliverables andstatements.
Really, you know, like you havethose key classic, less is more
type mentalities that wereessentially like those
(03:44):
architects' direction.
It was their manifesto, it waswhat they were wanting to embody
and deliver, didn't Lee Corb?
Speaker 2 (03:51):
have his five points towards new architecture Like
really hone in specific, I guessdeliverables.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
Kind of what manifestos were like 10 points
to our type of architecture, orblah blah yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
So corb's five points of architecture were pelotes,
free facade, free plan, ribbon,windows and a roof garden.
So he was basically saying that,like all architecture should
have had those five points as aminimum your architecture sucks,
unless it looks like mine yeah,whereas then you kind of get,
but then you kind of get, butthen you kind of get like other
(04:26):
people coming in there with likedifferent different views and
different different approachesand you've got like the futurism
movement and where everythinghas to have like a moving
function and you can kind of seein a way like that sort of
steampunky type nature isinfluenced architects like
kundig and things like that.
But I'd be hard pressed to foranybody to kind of come up with,
(04:49):
or I'd be really interested toknow whether anybody's kind of
got like a modern take on amanifesto, because a lot of
these things we're talking aboutthey're sort of like in the
early days of architecture.
I mean, you could even go backall the way to like vitruvius if
you want to go like fullclassical.
But has anybody really come upwith a new approach, a new
(05:10):
direction, a new vision andreally stood on principle for
architecture like in the 21stcentury?
Speaker 2 (05:20):
I'm not sure if they were Wellington-based, but the
architectural group, rememberthose guys did like Courtyard
House up in Karori.
I think they've got one Society, the Individual, techniques,
beauty, politics, economics,philosophy, the Magazine.
I think those are like theirchapters of their one, and I
(05:42):
think our good friend GuyMarrage made one, didn't he?
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Did he make a manifesto or was Guy part of
that movement?
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Oh, was that the Ark?
What was that?
Speaker 1 (05:55):
organisation the Ark.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
House, the Ark House.
Was it the Ark House that had amanifesto?
But again.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
That was like pre-21st century, that was sort
of like turn of the 20th century, you know where.
I think, like that studentmovement was far more prevalent
and I think a lot of this likethese, these directions and
manifestos and movements andthings came from like probably
more of a focus on the academicrealm, whereas now I think now
we're so much more focused ondelivering a real thing rather
(06:25):
than just pure concept.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Yeah, I don't know.
I would hypothesize that themanifesto has just moved to the
About page on your website.
I'm going to Google some Aboutpages and we're going to find
out.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
But that's a pretty wet manifesto.
I don't think anybody's sittingthere really like standing on
principle or looking to likereally instill architectural
change in their about page ontheir website.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
But you're not wrong though it could be like, it's
probably more in the form oflike a blog or something.
Essentially, it's just like awriting about principles that
you believe in, right?
Speaker 1 (07:10):
Yeah, but that might exist.
But almost again to Lisa'spoint from last week's episode,
is that permeating thearchitectural fraternity?
When was the last time you guyspicked up a piece of like a
bulletin or a piece ofarchitectural literature or went
to a film or something and youlooked at what they were
presenting and went, holy shit,that's changed my whole approach
(07:33):
to design or that's changed mylife, kind of thing, like that's
what I feel like manifestos aredesigned to do and like who's
doing that these days?
Speaker 2 (07:43):
I've just jumped on the Hertzlog website.
Their ones, I think, are verymanifesto.
They've got four strong titleswith a paragraph underneath
Obligations beyond the briefPublic and political.
So they're talking about theirrole and what they have to do
(08:03):
within these realms.
Open dialogue Individuals grow.
So they're talking about liketheir role and what they have to
do within these realms.
Open dialogue individuals grow.
So we are committed toproviding professional
development on all levelsapprenticeships, internships,
lifelong learning opportunities,so like.
I think those are like kind ofyour quintessential manifestos
and statements we will do this,we must do this, we must do this
(08:24):
.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
We aim to do this.
Yeah, it's pretty funny though,because the stigma around
manifestos is that you have tokind of be accomplished in some
sort of realm and you're morelikely to kind of write a
manifesto towards the end ofyour career once you've had,
like you know, a whole lifetimeof experience in that realm and
(08:48):
perfecting that craft.
Isn't it a little bit like onthe nose to come out and write a
manifesto straight off the bat,like five years out of uni?
Speaker 1 (08:58):
god guys, I've got some to inspire and communicate
and I've got a vision, you know,like is that a thing?
Well, no, but like you say that, but that's exactly what these
people were doing.
You know, like I feel likethere was so much more I don't
know like gumption for whateverbetter word like back in the day
(09:18):
, like people were like comingstraight out of university and
being like I'm going to changethe world in architecture they
genuinely tried to do that andlike I cannot really think of
anybody that's kind of come inwith a hiss and a roar at a
young age.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
you know, like you said, being not in the twilight
of their career, really lookingto like shake up the
architectural norm other thanmaybe Biaga, yeah well, there
could be a whole bunch out therebut you've never heard of them
because they don't have thatreputation to fall back on or
any kind of establishedreputation, but like their work
(09:54):
is just kind of unknown thatwould be.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
That would be a good cross-reference.
Like when did um these peoplelike legal write his manifesto
versus like in what stage of hiscareer was he?
Was he, yeah, 10 projects in 20, zero, like Herzog's got you
know their website.
I've found the highest number658.
(10:18):
I really like on that websitehow they list um what number
each project is, which isoutrageous 658 projects.
Speaker 3 (10:27):
So apparently Corb was 34 when he wrote Towards New
Architecture.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
Yeah, I was just about to say that.
Speaker 3 (10:36):
Your age.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
How old are you, Gerard?
Yeah, that's my age.
You know, like there we go,Case in point, Like I'd say that
Biago was probably.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
What have you been doing your whole?
Speaker 1 (10:44):
life.
Exactly.
I feel like Biago was probablynot a dissimilar age when he
wrote what I see as being thelast true modern manifesto,
which is yes Is More, which Idon't know if anybody's read.
Speaker 3 (10:55):
Did he write?
Speaker 1 (10:56):
that, though, or did he get people to make that for?
Speaker 3 (10:58):
him.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
It's a Tasian book but it's about the firm big, but
at that time it was so heavilyhis voice.
But the whole premise of thisand this is where it goes beyond
kind of what you're talking toin the Herzog outline what
they're sort of saying ispromises to what they'll deliver
to potential clients, less sothan how they're looking to
saying is promises like to whatthey'll deliver to potential
(11:25):
clients, less so than howthey're looking to like
reimagine architecture, whereas,like the whole outline of yes
is more is essentially there'stwo, two polar opposites in the
architectural profession.
There's the total avant-gardekind of papered, full,
imaginative, hard to realizestuff and then there's the very
nuts and boltsy, square, box,tick, boxy type results.
(11:48):
Okay, I think that's a littlebit black and white, but
essentially what, like the wholeconcept and the whole
development of big is predicatedaround the merging of those two
and how you can haveimaginative responses but that
are still incrediblyprogrammatic and that's like the
whole.
That's basically the wholeshtick, right, it's outlined in
(12:10):
such a clear and concise waythat it really makes you
consider the way that youapproach architecture.
And I'd say that's the lastlike formative piece for me
anyway that actually hasinfluenced the way that I
approach design so do you seekout manifestos to read, to
improve your own skills?
No, because there isn't any.
I mean, that's exactly what I'msaying.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
This is the last one, the first and the last.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
Good point.
Why aren't they stillapplicable?
I think you know they probablyare.
They probably are to a degreeLike, if we're looking at the
distill manifesto, likeadvocation, pure abstraction,
primary colors and geriatricforms, why can't you lean into
that?
And I'd say there's a lot ofpeople that still very much do
you know.
But then I don't know, I feellike they're less.
They're less influential thesedays because people are kind of
(12:57):
just out there to do the thing.
Or am I being a bit cruel to us?
Speaker 3 (13:03):
I think I actually own own that Le Corbusier
towards New Architecture andtried to read it at university
and just didn't reallyunderstand a lot of what he was
talking about.
I should probably go back andtry and reread it now that I've
had a few years practising.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
Yeah, I mean like a decade.
In practice, certainly you'rebecoming a lot more informed.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
Yeah, I'd like a decade in practice certainly
you're becoming a lot moreinformed.
Yeah, you'd hope so anyway.
Maybe not.
I just find sometimes thingslike that are approached better
when you're actually interestedin it.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
Also, I've got to say this all sounds great, but if,
like, who has anything to writeabout, you kind of have to have
a thought process that is, Iguess, has somewhat some level
of depth to it, and you knowwhat I mean.
Like everyone's kind of, Are wesaying we're all too shit-like?
(13:57):
I don't know.
I guess like no, we're justlike we do small architecture.
These guys are like doing likemassive stuff.
They've got like a lot.
I don't know, I don't know,maybe it's just me.
I'd feel like too, likeinsignificant.
You know, I don't know if I'dknow what to it is.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
But I think, gerard, you're right, that's probably
why there's no manifestos,because we all kind of….
Speaker 2 (14:24):
We're all too scared of the importance that it seems
to embody.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
Such and such wrote a manifesto, so I certainly
couldn't, but why not?
Speaker 3 (14:35):
It's more like I probably wouldn't have anything
to write about.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
But then again, when you actually kind of like think
about it you probably do and Ithink what you're more concerned
about being and this isprobably why people aren't like
writing manifestos or looking toreally hammer home new or
alternative architecturalmovements is they're like oh, my
realm or my circle of influenceis too small.
But even if you've got like avery small circle of influence,
(15:01):
I don't know say, gerard, youwrite a manifesto and it's
picked up by like 10 people inwellington or something and
that's it, but it actually has aprofound impact on them.
I'd say that's still successful.
You know that's stillsuccessful.
So we need to be writing likepractice, writing like a bunch
of mini manifestos well, I justdon just don't maybe not
(15:23):
necessarily manifestos, but Ithink maybe people need to.
From an architectural point ofview, maybe like kind of look at
themselves and understand thearchitecture of their design
style or what they're looking toachieve, or maybe outline what
they're hoping to and actuallylike put it to paper Because and
even if it's for yourself, butit's like public access or
something people may takesomething from that.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
I'm getting a slight sense of deja vu.
Did we talk about?
This is kind of like goals foryour practice.
Speaker 1 (15:53):
Different.
I don't think this isnecessarily practice-based,
although it could be.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
These are architecture goals.
So if you're a somewhatdesign-focused architecture
office, these are going to belike your top three points of
your to-do list.
I want to create architecturethat X, Y, Z.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
I think maybe a little bit different.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
I think that's more referencing, kind of like that
Herzog example, that you yeah,but those look more on, I guess,
being on your about page, butones that you write for yourself
, goals that you don't reallyparticularly show anybody.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
Yeah, but I think it's obviously for you
personally, but I think it'salso a call to the profession to
take that direction as well.
You know, like you look at theBauhaus Manifesto, like Gropius
called for the unity of art,craft and technology, you know,
and so it's that call to armsfrom your profession to kind of
approach something in adifferent way and maybe, like
(16:50):
there's a slight blurring of thelines between manifestos and
new architectural movements, Ithink they could probably be
spoken about in the same light.
But you know, like when hasthere been a conscious shift
recently?
You know what I mean.
You think about the consciousshift from modernism to
postmodernism is very clear-cut.
(17:11):
Has there been something likethat recently?
Am I just kind of naive to it?
What are your guys' thoughts?
Speaker 2 (17:19):
What are you guys' thoughts?
Art Deco is one of the mostvisually potent styles of
architecture, isn't it?
I don't know.
I feel like we're in a weirdglobalized architecture sort of
season where everyone's lookingat everyone's Instagram so
(17:39):
everything's kind of slowlyblending into each other.
The same thing which I think isterrible and bad the more you
could not look at Instagram, Ithink, reference things around
you versus somebody's beautifullooking house on Instagram.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
It's an interesting point, gerard.
Yeah, manifesto, yeah, there'syou.
There's your manifesto, yeah,Don't stop looking at Instagram,
but it's actually, but I meanthat could be it.
You know, that could be theextent of it and you're right,
gerard, that global kind ofglobal washing of architectural
styles, so true, and you know,that was really evident and you
(18:17):
can kind of you see it obviouslylike scrolling through
Instagram looking at likeprecedents and all those things.
But it was super evident when Iwas at, you know, the Design
Awards, because everything'spresented in one room at one
time, right, and any single oneof those projects you've got to
plucked out independently andlike cut and paste it and put it
in New Zealand and it wouldn'thave been out of place.
You know what I mean.
(18:38):
Yeah, and I think that's thecase for a lot of architecture
these days.
So maybe that is the manifestois stop looking at your
neighbour and start looking,maybe more inward.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Yeah, creating more of a New Zealand architecture.
Just everything has to becorrugated iron.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
We do have a very distinct, particularly
residential, distinct, style,I'd say, less so commercial, I'd
say, although our commercialarchitecture is by and large
quite plain, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
What do you think about our residential
architecture is distinctly newzealand.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
I think, like the strong, like emphasis on certain
forms, the monopitch and thegable, and use of materiality, a
strong lean into naturalmateriality, I'd say, is
probably some of the key things.
That's distinctly.
Speaker 3 (19:31):
Kiwi, you still just described every building
everywhere, though right.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
I guess it's like what's the difference between
that and Scandinavia?
Good point.
What's the difference between?
Speaker 2 (19:40):
that and Well the difference is Australia.
Speaker 1 (19:43):
Yeah, okay, fair enough.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
Sitting here looking out my window in Copenhagen, I
can tell you the difference isdensity, right, new Zealand's
just still so new.
I was wondering yesterday.
I was like how long is it goingto be?
For how long do you think it'lltake for New Zealand to have
like the level of density thatyou see, like in these European
cities?
You know, is it like 100 yearswhere the recession plans just
(20:11):
keep going more, steeper andsteeper and steeper until
they're basically vertical andthen everyone is just building
next to each other, like overhere, which, so which?
So you know, essentially ourcities do end up as dense as
these cities, or is it just likenever going to happen because
our population is never going toreach that?
(20:31):
interesting, you say that theurban sprawl.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
Really interesting that you say that being because
I've got a little note here thatI wrote down and like one of
the one of the reasons why Ithought that there's like fewer
modern manifestos.
I said it's like the decline ofutopian thinking, so like it's
the belief.
Now, yeah, like there's,there's very little, sorry, a
grand revolutionary, visionaryaction.
Yeah, is that?
Speaker 3 (20:55):
is.
Is that because, like everyone,feels like everything's almost
already been done, not, not, youknow, to an an extent, whereas
years and years ago it was allkind of new and interesting
scheming, or town planning,urban environment layout and
(21:17):
some amazing stuff was a hugething.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
But now it's like well.
Granduos was a goal right.
You know like cities wanted tobe traditionally.
You know like cities wanted tobe the most visible in the world
, and that's why you have placeslike you know London, and like
Hong Kong or New York orwhatever you know that have like
reached for the sky, whereas Idon't think that's a goal
(21:43):
necessarily anymore.
If anything else, we're lookingat life a little bit more
pragmatically, a little bit morenaturally maybe, and
everything's kind of slowed.
That fast rush to grandiosenessis slowed.
Speaker 3 (21:59):
So does that mean that the successful or the
traditionally the successfulmanifestos are of the city scale
, or are they?
You know what I mean?
Are they more grand?
Are they bigger than just kindof like a house?
Speaker 1 (22:13):
I think they could be taken in at any scale.
Really, I think they are allpretty well.
The two we've read throughanyway, I think are very
scalable, like the Bauhaus andLe Corbusier yeah, totally Like
you could take that and like theDistil Manifesto as well, like
(22:34):
that's purely aesthetic concept.
That could be something assmall as a pen or something as
large as a stadium.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
You know, I think scales maybe not so much, the
issue being as more like noone's reading them yeah, well,
yeah or I mean, I have us threesitting around here right now,
like how many manifestos haveyou read?
Speaker 1 (23:00):
well, Well, since architecture school one.
Speaker 3 (23:05):
So I mean, I think we've figured out the issue here
why they're not working becauseno one's reading them.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
I'd argue, zipfel's Atmospheres is a manifesto.
Speaker 3 (23:15):
What about that Chipperfield one?
Was that a manifesto?
Speaker 1 (23:19):
We're just maybe realizing that architects books
that they write are perhapsmanifestos yeah, and I think
there's a it's a, it's a umblurred line between a monograph
, which is more like a profileof a practice, which is what you
were kind of talking to earlier, gerard, and in a manifesto,
which I think is more of like amonograph, is like we're an
(23:40):
architecture practice, likekirsten thompson's books like
this, her recent book, excellentbook.
If no one's read it, pick it up.
But like that's like it's apractice and profile.
But it kind of outlines the waythat her practice has evolved
and what they're looking toachieve and deliver.
And that's less manifesto thansomething like yes is more where
that's more okay, this is whowe are as a practice, but this
(24:05):
is why we're like it andeverybody else should try to be
like this kind of thing.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
I wonder if the previous train of thought was
kind of leading to this kind ofdiminishing of vision.
I guess, whether globally orjust New Zealand, Sometimes
Wellington feels like there's novision and we're just like
putting in, just trying to keepthe place running, just trying
to keep the pipes alive, youknow, just trying to replace the
pipes.
(24:32):
Yeah, I think people are scaredof vision and manifestos
because maybe there's like thisindividualist aspect to it which
people seem scared of at themoment.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
Is that that tall poppy syndrome issue that we've
got, that we've already touchedon?
Speaker 2 (24:46):
I really think it is.
It's kind of ingrained into alot of the processes behind
projects as well.
So all our public buildings arekind of committee projects now,
whereas you're not going to getlike a Sydney Opera House
through a committee.
So I feel like sometimes maybethere's less of a window for
(25:09):
really beautiful individualistworks of architecture where you
might just spark somethingreally special in the hopes of a
committee coming to the sameconclusion.
Speaker 1 (25:19):
Well, it's interesting, gerard, that you
make that point, because I thinkthat statement and actually a
little bit of what we've talkedabout as well, you know, that
tall poppy syndrome and like alittle bit of that application
as well, sort of like woventogether the threads of our sort
of last three conversations andmaybe less so the Zuru one.
But you know, from this season,and maybe it is the fact that
(25:42):
what we're coming to terms withourselves currently through the
making of this podcast, is thatwe're maybe just kind of
following the same path as somany others and that maybe it's
okay and perhaps we should startto just put your hand up, put
your voice out there and be alittle bit more strident and
(26:03):
strong, and whether that bedesign or concepts or whatever,
you know yeah, better way tostand out a little bit yeah,
totally, man, and I think thatthat's a huge, it's huge problem
with us in general.
It kind of goes back to whatlisa said in the last episode
we're really bad at puttingourselves out there.
(26:25):
We need to be better at it.
So why not do it with amanifesto?
Why not do it on like a grand,you know, with a grand statement
?
We're in a grand scale.
Speaker 3 (26:33):
I'll start today, but you're in the right place
taking notes well, you're in theright place for inspiration,
mate.
Speaker 1 (26:39):
It's hard, to hard, to be inspired to write your
grand manifesto and grey aboutto be daylight savings,
wellington, when you're swanningaround overseas in Copenhagen.
Speaker 3 (26:49):
I know, and it's nice and sunny, but hey, it is cold
here.
So you got that going for youover in New Zealand.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (26:57):
You just went and saw the big ski field yesterday I
did see the ski field.
Speaker 3 (27:02):
it's pretty stunning that's a hell of a proof of
concept yeah, just the lifestyleover here in general is like
pretty epic did it embody hismanifesto or his like manifesto.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
Statement of yes is more 100 it's massive but it,
but, but it, but it does.
Right like, okay, he could havejust done a power plant, but he
went.
I'm gonna put a ski field onthe outside of the thing and
there's a climbing wall up theside as well.
Speaker 3 (27:31):
Right like just massive climbing wall like pile
program thank you like.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
Pile program onto something, because why not?
You know yeah, yeah, definitelyI love and I love that that you
know in the flesh it is a realproof of concept it's pretty
interesting though, because wejust came from hamburg in
germany.
Speaker 3 (27:51):
There and it is as you were saying before, gerard I
don't know who was, you know,originally designing these
buildings but like the new partof cobenhagen and the new part
of Hamburg are really actuallylike real similar kind of
architectural styles.
I guess they're not that farapart, but it's kind of
(28:12):
interesting that it's becominglike the global.
Speaker 1 (28:15):
How new though, Like.
Is that post-war or is thatlike new as in 21st?
Speaker 3 (28:20):
century.
No like new as in in within thelast 20 years.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
Yeah, right, so they are kind of that globalised.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
It's all kind of merging that vanillaisation of
architecture globally is stilleverywhere, probably stems from
this side of the world, but it'sdefinitely kind of making its
way around and it is really goodarchitecture, you know, but it
is, as Gerard says, likeeveryone's kind of copying to a
certain degree.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
Are there any less so manifestos, but maybe movements
Like are there any historicalmovements or previous movements
in architecture that you guysstill draw upon regularly?
Speaker 2 (29:02):
finding it hard to go past sort of like just
mid-century forms and furnitureand stuff yeah, it was a time
that was pretty well who?
Speaker 1 (29:13):
got the fundamentals right yeah, they kind of really
nailed it.
I'm the same in a way, but youknow you don't see a lot of
people leaning back into sort oflike classical bend on your
like, doric.
Speaker 3 (29:25):
Ionic and Corinthian column situation anymore.
That part's true and we'vetalked about this a whole bunch
before.
But, man, like the decorativeelements just really were like
the pride of these buildings,you know, and it's just, you
walk around here and everysingle building has that aspect
(29:46):
to it.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
What about postmodern ?
Speaker 3 (29:47):
It was hard on structure, but we talked about
this before and I'd love tobring that back somehow.
It's just so much harder, itseems so much more superficial
with timber, you know, whenyou've got like amazing brick or
stone elements that are justlike so grand.
Speaker 2 (30:05):
Yeah, or pretty, like epic timber churches and stuff
which sort of tie in a lot ofthat.
But I think like that perfectlysegues into that Bauhaus
manifesto, which is like talkingabout how architecture is like
the height of art.
Craftsmen back in the day usedto get to work on buildings and
(30:27):
you wouldn't get any of thatdetail that you saw in Gothic or
classical architecture withoutthese extreme craftsmen or
artists, sculptors that would beworking directly on a building.
You don't really see thatanymore.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
No, you don't in general, but I'd say that with a
lot of civic or publicbuildings, particularly in New
Zealand, we're starting to seethat a lot more Like a CNC cast
mould or something.
Yeah, I guess there's not stuffnot really being hand involved.
Speaker 3 (30:58):
Does that profession still exist, though?
Gerard, definitely I followlots of who would do that?
Speaker 2 (31:05):
well, it's probably more of like a thing that takes
place in Europe, more becausethey've got so many stone
buildings to maintain yeah, buteven Europe has forgotten how to
build a lot of these stonebuildings yeah, but you've just
got to go to the place wherethey all are so like we have
(31:27):
lots of craftsmen.
Speaker 1 (31:29):
It'd be interesting to see whether, post the
completion of a building likethe sagrada familiar and there's
really I can't really think ofany other example that's spanned
the course of time, you know,from a point where the level of
craftsmanship that you'respeaking to gerard, and having
those artists on site moldingeverything, doing everything
(31:49):
physically, to modern day whereeverything's a little bit more
factory reset and that's kind oflike a perfect example of the
merging of those two culturesand like, and the realization of
of um, of that building, postthat I wonder if anything will
come of it.
You know, like will will theskill set that's learned through
(32:10):
that hundred and however manyyears it is that that building's
been under construction.
Do you reckon that willpermeate at all or do you think
that's just a unique case?
Speaker 2 (32:18):
Like.
Are those employees going tocarry on with?
Speaker 1 (32:23):
ample employment opportunities.
Well, and the researchers andyou know the team behind that
building is.
It's insane, and the technologythat they've developed
specifically to complete it.
Is that just going to be lost,or is there a mechanism for it
to be employed throughout modernbuildings?
Speaker 3 (32:43):
Yeah, they just need to start a church, a new church,
just down the road.
Yeah, just start down the road.
Speaker 1 (32:49):
Another 100-year church 200.
Speaker 2 (32:51):
Yeah, just start down the road, another 100-year
church, 200.
Yeah, I wonder what the nutsand bolts of what they've
learned is, because you'reseeing a lot of precast elements
going in.
Are they all carved stone andthen glued together or something
?
Speaker 3 (33:06):
But it's precasting.
Did they learn all this from amanifesto?
Speaker 1 (33:12):
That's what I want.
Well, yeah, I mean gaudy gaudykind of kind of had a manifesto
in a way, right like it was,like you know, all of his stuff
was influenced by the forces ofnature, was essentially his
whole bit.
So I guess that's a manifestoto a degree.
The force of nature on thebuilt environment, you know.
But I don't do you think,gerard, that that like real,
(33:36):
real hands-on, very intricatedetailing, let's call them
almost like the jewelers of theof the building industry type
approach is, that is, is thatwhere the real skill lies?
Obviously it did.
It did traditionally, but inthe modern day, why can't
pre-casting and CNC machiningand 3D printing take that place?
(33:57):
I mean, we're just harnessingnew technology to kind of
deliver the same thing, right?
Speaker 2 (34:00):
Yeah, well, maybe decisions like this, where
you're thinking about going likea CNC route or a handcrafted
route, is perhaps where you needa manifesto.
Speaker 1 (34:11):
Is this the DPP manifesto?
Speaker 2 (34:14):
To help you out in these decision-making scenarios.
The Bauhaus one was very strict.
It was like architects,sculptors, painters, we must all
return to crafts.
And then he, funnily enough, Idon't know if I agree about this
, but he says for art is not aprofession.
Yeah, there is no difference.
For art is not a profession.
Yeah, there is no differencebetween art and the craftsman.
Speaker 3 (34:36):
Gerard, you're still finding that out the hard way,
though, eh.
Speaker 2 (34:39):
I hate it and love it at the same time.
The artist is an exaltedcraftsman.
In rare moments of inspirationtranscending the consciousness
of his will and grace, theheaven may cause his work to
bloom into art.
He makes the argument thatartists should have, should have
a knowledge of craft, which Iappreciate, which I I think
sometimes is lacking is thatwhere your, where your skill set
(35:00):
comes in?
Speaker 1 (35:01):
both you guys really be?
You know, being with yourbuilding background and gerard
with your furniture makingbackground.
Am I the one who's dragging thechain here?
I don't have my crafty, I don'thave my get crafted, make it
hands-on, but I like modelmaking.
Does that count?
Finish making background.
Am I the one who's dragging thechain here?
I don't have my crafty, I don'thave my hands on background.
I like model making.
Does that count?
Get to craft and earn.
I'm playing with Lego.
My daughter's Lego is somewherebehind me.
Speaker 2 (35:20):
Is that enough?
I think so.
Lego is the modern marblesculpting.
Speaker 1 (35:25):
Yeah, just Lego building.
I mean Biaga built an entirebuilding based off Lego building
.
I mean they are going to buildan entire building based off
Lego.
They'll find it in heresomewhere.
Speaker 3 (35:31):
Was that the Lego building?
I mean, you know, yeah.
Speaker 1 (35:38):
The Lego building.
Speaker 3 (35:39):
It is just Lego building Lego, building for Lego
.
That's cool yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:45):
Is that Copenhagen, are you?
Speaker 3 (35:47):
going to go there?
I don't know actually.
Can you guys see that, ben?
I don't know actually.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
Here you go.
Can you guys see that thisisn't the Lego building?
Speaker 2 (35:55):
but that's just Legos to do design development.
Speaker 1 (35:58):
It's really cool.
Speaker 2 (36:00):
I like that style of big MDRDB style architecture,
like the blocking.
It's kind of like Minecrafteating away at something.
Speaker 1 (36:09):
Yeah, I mean it's the pragmatic followed by the form
right, like it's the of, likeminecraft eating away at
something.
Yeah, I mean, it's that, it'sthe pragmatic followed by the
form right, like it's the formfollowing function.
You know, they're taking,they're taking it, they're
taking a programmatic piece andthey're kind of like allotting
to it all of its maximumconstraints and then they're
going all right.
What can we do to this to makeit better?
Basically, it's a very simpleexercise.
(36:30):
It it's push, pull, twist, turn, flip, cut.
Speaker 2 (36:34):
I think the beauty is in the distilling of the idea
and then communicating itbackwards in such a simple way.
I'd be amazed if that was theexact design process.
Speaker 1 (36:45):
Yeah, that's probably the absolute pinnacle of the
architect post-rationalisation.
Speaker 3 (36:52):
I think you need that .
They do keep it quite simple,yeah.
Speaker 2 (36:57):
I think you need those diagrams sometimes to
communicate something tosomebody.
You've got this strange object.
Why are we doing that?
How did you get there?
Speaker 1 (37:04):
And, funnily enough, often your thought process.
I don't know about you guys,but when you're, when you're in
concept design, you'reconstantly designing in the back
of your head.
Sometimes you'll jot it down onpaper but or model, or quickly
like model something or get anidea out, but, like, oftentimes
it's not happening.
But you're generating thatstuff always in the back of your
(37:24):
mind and so, like, postrationalization does make
perfect sense because oftenyou'll come up with a solution
and then and then you'll likebacktrack mentally and be like,
well, how did I get here?
And you know, and that's howyou kind of like build that
story, that narrative behind it.
You're right, you're right.
Very rarely do you go I do this, then I do this, then I do that
then I do this and I.
(37:47):
Maybe that's how AI willapproach things in the future.
Let's not get back onto that.
Speaker 2 (37:51):
Yeah, I got told that first year of uni I did
something out of instinct, kindof almost apologized it to the
tutor.
I was like, oh, I don't knowwhy I did this, I just did this.
He's like, yeah, you do,Somewhere in your brain you've
had a reason.
Speaker 1 (38:07):
Now you just got to go figure out why you did that.
That's good from your tutor.
That's better than some of thetutors that I had who were
basically like, well, where'syour processing, where's your
thinking, where's your precedent?
Like an idea doesn't come fromnothing, justify yourself,
basically.
And like ideas do sometimesjust come from nothing, you can
have a design epiphany, that'sfine.
Speaker 2 (38:25):
Yeah, and like you, are what you eat to a degree, so
your brain's its own little AI.
Yeah, you're influenced, or avolatile bank of knowledge, that
you're blending shit togetherand coming out with something.
Speaker 1 (38:41):
And that kind of lends itself to that
vanillaization of the globalbuilt environment, right when
everything kind of becomespretty normal across the board,
is because we're being fed on aregular basis through, through
all these devices and socialmedia and all this stuff, this
same regurgitation of style andthings, and probably why this
hasn't been like such a stronglike revolt to a, to a certain
(39:05):
style, because there hasn't beenlike a group of people or, you
know, a school of thought that'sbeen in isolation, that hasn't
been influenced by that.
That's like simmering down, youknow, under the surface and all
of a sudden they erupt withthis brand new idea.
I'd love for that to happen,that'd be super interesting.
But I just kind of our ownarchitectural style yeah, should
we just shut off our phones andjust see where we go see?
Speaker 3 (39:26):
where we get to slowly trying AI architecture.
Speaker 2 (39:28):
See where we get to Slowly trying to develop a fat
architecture.
A fat architecture?
Yeah, like Erwin.
Like a fat building.
Oh yeah, some hydroformbuildings yeah, that'd be nice.
Some chubby buildings, cute fatbuildings.
One of my favorite buildings islike biomockery.
We just like a duck building.
Speaker 1 (39:48):
Did you say biomockery or biomimicry?
Speaker 2 (39:53):
Yeah, no mockery, we just like do you say biomockery
or biomimicry?
Yeah, no, not biomimicry,biomockery we.
Your building is just like I'mgonna make a duck, a building
referencing a duck, and it'sjust a duck building it like,
looks like a duck it sounds abit too literal for me is that
like old frank gary's binocularbinocular?
Yeah, it's just that's good man, it's hilarious.
I like it brings.
Speaker 1 (40:09):
Bring some of that to the build environment I feel
like there's a lot of likemidwest.
I feel like there's a lot ofmidwest kind of like american
buildings that kind of lean intothat pretty heavily I wonder if
you could.
Speaker 2 (40:22):
You could do a mockery of that almost.
Speaker 1 (40:25):
Yeah, like I'm mockery, I'm gonna reference
this become by doing incrediblymeta here, but this is it, this
is, this is, but this is.
I'm going to reference a spec.
I'm getting incredibly metahere, but this is it.
This is the kind of thinkingthat you're required to have to
develop a manifesto.
You know, because if we justand you've got to run with it,
like at any point, if you go, ohnah, people will think I'm an
(40:46):
idiot, then your manifesto isnever going to get any legs,
whereas if you just kind of likelean all the way in, then maybe
you'll get somewhere.
Who knows, there's some there.
Speaker 2 (40:56):
There's some wings there, my duck building.
Speaker 1 (40:59):
What about, kind of?
To close, have you guys got anythoughts about where
architecture might go?
You know we've talked a lotabout manifestos, a little bit
about movements, but it'd bereally interesting.
I mean, mean, I don't reallyeven know what movement you'd
call the current one, maybe tothe global globalization
movement yeah, global yeah yeahI mean, I think people sort of
(41:21):
called it the sustainabilitymovement, but I don't
necessarily think that thatholds true across the board yeah
, I don't think many of them areactually sustainable.
They're just using that word.
Yeah, I think it's just thatgreenwashing concept, right?
So where do you thinkarchitecture might go have?
You ever thought about this.
Speaker 2 (41:40):
Yeah, I think I could head down that path a lot
further.
This is kind of why I'm sointerested in art and
interesting ways of form-finding, in the hope that, as people
closer and closer into whatthey're creating, hopefully you
can keep creating interestingthings I think it'll be gusset
(42:01):
or stoke when someone stealsyour, when someone steals your
concepts people steal my ideasall the time, but I just haven't
told them about it.
You know, you see something outin the wild, you're like, oh
shit, that was my idea.
Speaker 1 (42:14):
But is that parallel thinking or is that direct?
Speaker 2 (42:17):
no, no parallel thinking yeah it's when you
think something's your idea, butyou realize you know there's
lots of ideas out there.
It's just like who's going toact on the idea, do you guys?
Speaker 1 (42:26):
find that when you come up with a concept like
maybe a building concept or adetail or like a wee moment or
something, and you're reallyproud of yourself and you
develop it up, and then somebodynext to you or somebody leans
over your shoulder and goes I'veseen that before and then shows
you a precedent and you're likefuck, I thought I was being
original.
Speaker 2 (42:46):
People actually do that to me to take the piss.
I tell them I have an idea, so.
So then, whenever they seesomething on Instagram I've done
that a couple of times it sendsme through something that looks
exactly like a sketch of adrawer.
I'm like, wow, are you serious?
I thought I was original, butno.
Speaker 1 (43:05):
But is that a fear of the movement that we're moving
into?
Is that there's no moreoriginal thought?
Speaker 2 (43:10):
Is there a fear of the movement that we're moving
into Is that there's no moreoriginal thought.
Well, I've referenced thisbefore about I don't think in
this context, but when I was achild I wanted to be an inventor
and I remember being realdisappointed because in that
particular moment I couldn'tthink of a new idea.
I think that's kind of what mywhole existence is is trying to
(43:31):
be an inventor.
So I'm out here in my workshoptrying to create new things I
love that.
It's easy to create a new idea.
You just put yourself into it.
So it's more about like adesign mechanism and tricking
yourself into new things than itis like trying to tense your
brain until you think ofsomething, yeah, and process.
Speaker 1 (43:49):
So, like hydroforming , you lose control in the
process intentionally, so youcome up with something that's
funny because I feel like yourapproach, gerard, and what
you're looking to achieve is andto your credit, to be honest
it's the complete opposite inthe way that the industry is
moving, because I feel like it'sheading in there, like back to
the zero conversation.
It's heading in that zerodirection.
(44:11):
It's heading in that mass scale, mass produced ai, press play,
beat book, minecraft kind ofpeople direction, you know,
rather than it being like reallypersonal and process driven and
like concept heavy and all thatsort of stuff and I don't know.
I feel feel like that's themovement that we might be moving
(44:31):
into.
Speaker 2 (44:31):
Zero.
Speaker 1 (44:33):
Yeah, well, just into what do we call out the end of
this?
You know?
When there's a huge revolt in50 years' time and suddenly
we're all living in mud hutsagain or something.
But you know, what do we lookback on this time?
Speaker 3 (44:47):
as Do we see it as the generation movement, as in
like the generation movement, asin like just mass generation um
, possibility would be that,because of all this new
technology, we kind of start tocreate and find new forms which
I guess are like a lot of peopleare already kind of working on.
Speaker 1 (45:04):
Yeah, true, starting to pop up around the world it's
a nice way of thinking about it,as a positive way of like
looking at the use of technology.
Maybe my view on the technologyis a bit negative, but yeah, I
like that idea.
Speaker 2 (45:16):
Yeah, use it where you can, but I think, yeah, I
kind of see it all as kind ofheading down the same path, but
I think, trying to make anactive decision to go down the
Wolf and Groupius route.
Speaker 1 (45:30):
Yeah, nice.
Speaker 2 (45:31):
Returning to the crafts.
But yeah, we're going to seewhere that road goes, see if it
works.
We could all be wrong.
I could be wrong.
Maybe I'm in my mud hut for noreason.
Speaker 1 (45:44):
So, to finish up, guys and we didn't do it last
week with Lisa but love it orhate it, architectural
manifestos Do you love them andwe didn't do it last week with
Lisa.
Speaker 2 (45:57):
But love it or hate it.
Architectural manifestos Do youlove them or do you hate them?
I think bring it back.
I did used to read Zipthal'sAtmospheres a bit and an
architect that I've been veryinfluenced by, and they're
influenced by a lot ofarchitects like Holtrop and his
processes, so there aredefinitely things that I follow
in other architects that theylike to speak about.
(46:18):
So I think consciously there'sa little bit of manifesto action
in there somewhere.
Speaker 1 (46:23):
Yeah, I agree, I love it.
I think I don't engage with itenough because you kind of get
caught up in your day-to-day alittle bit, but I think the
capacity should be there tointeract with the concept of
manifestos and to delve moreinto maybe there are modern
manifestos we're just not outthere looking for them that we
should be looking at.
(46:43):
So I love it.
I'm going to try and make achange.
Thanks for the suggestion.
Whoever told us to talk aboutthis?
Speaker 3 (46:51):
Yeah, I'm definitely pro as well.
I just have a hard time sayingthat because I haven't read a
manifesto for a long time, so Ifeel it's a bit kind of fake.
But yeah, maybe I do need toread some stuff.
Speaker 1 (47:07):
That's enough, and I think listeners can probably
take this on board as well.
Some stuff, but that's enough,and I think listeners can
probably take this on board aswell.
We're probably all a bit, youknow, we're all a bit guilty of
just falling into the everyday,you know, rather than seeking
that extra bit of knowledge.
So maybe that's it.
Maybe the manifesto is to,maybe the greater manifesto is
(47:27):
to find outside influence, or toincrease outside influence, or
something I don't know.
Speaking of, outside influence.
Speaker 3 (47:35):
If anyone has any good manifesto recs, definitely
send them our way, especiallylike modern.
It'd be interesting to readsome modern ones.
Speaker 1 (47:43):
Yeah, it'd be cool if listeners have got any
suggestions of putting them onthe show notes.
We'd love to know.
Send us in your own or your ownyeah, yeah, I think we should
get show notes?
We'd love to know.
Send us in your own or your own.
Speaker 2 (47:51):
yeah, yeah, I think we should get into that a little
bit more.
Speaker 3 (47:54):
Top manifesto.
Speaker 2 (47:56):
You don't have to publish it and put it on
Instagram for the world to see,but maybe even just distilling
some of your own designintentions and ideas might be a
way of keeping yourself in check, keeping yourself on track.
Speaker 1 (48:09):
And helps you develop as a designer.
That iterative process and thatlearn you know that succeed,
fail kind of cycle succeed, fail, learn, succeed, fail, learn
cycle is so important to todeveloping as a better designer.
Nice thanks, come along, allright guys.
Good chat you.
Our feathered friends see the world differently.
Through birds' eyes, thingsmight look almost psychedelic to
us, with heightened colours andfresh hues forming a surprising
new spectrum.
This hazy, citrus and stonefruit accented IPA, with a
mellow, soft and silky texture,gives a similarly refreshing
change of perspective.
This week's episode is broughtto you by the one and only
(00:23):
Parrot Dog.
Hazy IPA bird's eye Nice.
Welcome back to the DesignPrinciples Podcast.
This week we have the first ofour listener recommendation
episodes.
So over the last couple ofyears we've been asking
listeners to message in onInstagram and email with their
(00:43):
thoughts on what we shoulddiscuss, and we've plucked this
one out of thin air and decidedto give it a crack.
So this week we will bediscussing architectural
manifestos.
Time to dive in.
This week we thought we'd cometo you guys with a listener
(01:14):
recommendation.
So we've had a few listenersemail in with suggestions for
episodes, and one of the onesthat we kind of found the most
interesting was somebody askingabout architectural manifestos
and movements, um, and justwanting us to discuss those.
So I thought we'd, we thoughtwe'd bring that to you, um, and
probably take it.
Take a look at it from a moremodern, modern day approach so
(01:36):
modern.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
I thought for a minute you were saying we had a
couple of listeners.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
I was like, oh damn yeah, we we've had like thanks
to a couple of listenersprobably like a dozen
suggestions, some pretty goodones what are we?
Speaker 3 (01:51):
what are we working with?
Have we got any haters yet?
Because that's when you knowyou're really successful.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Yeah no, I haven't haven't identified the haters
yet so, sammy, have you umwritten your manifesto yet?
Speaker 3 (02:02):
have I written my manifesto?
Going to write a manifesto?
Is that something that you seeyourself doing in the future, or
what even is a manifesto?
Speaker 1 (02:13):
well, yeah, if we look, if we look back on it, so
that's that's a good place tostart, like what is an
architectural manifesto?
And essentially I'll try mybest to define it without using
like chat, gpt or something.
It's purely from kind of memory, but ultimately it was
historically an individual, butthen it kind of shifted into
groups, take on a direction fordesign, art, literature,
(02:40):
architecture, etc.
So you've got things like thedistill movement and like there
are creative demands.
You've got things like theDistil movement and their
creative demands.
You've got Frank Lloyd Wrightand the nature of materials, for
example Le Corbusier'sineffable space.
Those are kind of like classicexamples.
There's a couple of ones thatare considered the greatest or
the most influential and thoseare sort of like Le Corbusier's
(03:04):
towards new architecture andadolph loose's ornament and
crime and they were sort of likethese are these books a
manifesto?
Speaker 2 (03:14):
I guess a book's probably a good way to you know,
really really hone in yourmanifesto yeah, like to be
perfectly honest.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
I don't't know how many of them were actual books
more, but rather like a seriesof lectures and theses and key
ideas and deliverables andstatements.
Really, you know, like you havethose key classic, less is more
type mentalities that wereessentially like those
(03:44):
architects' direction.
It was their manifesto, it waswhat they were wanting to embody
and deliver, didn't Lee Corb?
Speaker 2 (03:51):
have his five points towards new architecture Like
really hone in specific, I guessdeliverables.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
Kind of what manifestos were like 10 points
to our type of architecture, orblah blah yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
So corb's five points of architecture were pelotes,
free facade, free plan, ribbon,windows and a roof garden.
So he was basically saying that,like all architecture should
have had those five points as aminimum your architecture sucks,
unless it looks like mine yeah,whereas then you kind of get,
but then you kind of get, butthen you kind of get like other
(04:26):
people coming in there with likedifferent different views and
different different approachesand you've got like the futurism
movement and where everythinghas to have like a moving
function and you can kind of seein a way like that sort of
steampunky type nature isinfluenced architects like
kundig and things like that.
But I'd be hard pressed to foranybody to kind of come up with,
(04:49):
or I'd be really interested toknow whether anybody's kind of
got like a modern take on amanifesto, because a lot of
these things we're talking aboutthey're sort of like in the
early days of architecture.
I mean, you could even go backall the way to like vitruvius if
you want to go like fullclassical.
But has anybody really come upwith a new approach, a new
(05:10):
direction, a new vision andreally stood on principle for
architecture like in the 21stcentury?
Speaker 2 (05:20):
I'm not sure if they were Wellington-based, but the
architectural group, rememberthose guys did like Courtyard
House up in Karori.
I think they've got one Society, the Individual, techniques,
beauty, politics, economics,philosophy, the Magazine.
I think those are like theirchapters of their one, and I
(05:42):
think our good friend GuyMarrage made one, didn't he?
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Did he make a manifesto or was Guy part of
that movement?
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Oh, was that the Ark?
What was that?
Speaker 1 (05:55):
organisation the Ark.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
House, the Ark House.
Was it the Ark House that had amanifesto?
But again.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
That was like pre-21st century, that was sort
of like turn of the 20th century, you know where.
I think, like that studentmovement was far more prevalent
and I think a lot of this likethese, these directions and
manifestos and movements andthings came from like probably
more of a focus on the academicrealm, whereas now I think now
we're so much more focused ondelivering a real thing rather
(06:25):
than just pure concept.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Yeah, I don't know.
I would hypothesize that themanifesto has just moved to the
About page on your website.
I'm going to Google some Aboutpages and we're going to find
out.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
But that's a pretty wet manifesto.
I don't think anybody's sittingthere really like standing on
principle or looking to likereally instill architectural
change in their about page ontheir website.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
But you're not wrong though it could be like, it's
probably more in the form oflike a blog or something.
Essentially, it's just like awriting about principles that
you believe in, right?
Speaker 1 (07:10):
Yeah, but that might exist.
But almost again to Lisa'spoint from last week's episode,
is that permeating thearchitectural fraternity?
When was the last time you guyspicked up a piece of like a
bulletin or a piece ofarchitectural literature or went
to a film or something and youlooked at what they were
presenting and went, holy shit,that's changed my whole approach
(07:33):
to design or that's changed mylife, kind of thing, like that's
what I feel like manifestos aredesigned to do and like who's
doing that these days?
Speaker 2 (07:43):
I've just jumped on the Hertzlog website.
Their ones, I think, are verymanifesto.
They've got four strong titleswith a paragraph underneath
Obligations beyond the briefPublic and political.
So they're talking about theirrole and what they have to do
(08:03):
within these realms.
Open dialogue Individuals grow.
So they're talking about liketheir role and what they have to
do within these realms.
Open dialogue individuals grow.
So we are committed toproviding professional
development on all levelsapprenticeships, internships,
lifelong learning opportunities,so like.
I think those are like kind ofyour quintessential manifestos
and statements we will do this,we must do this, we must do this
(08:24):
.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
We aim to do this.
Yeah, it's pretty funny though,because the stigma around
manifestos is that you have tokind of be accomplished in some
sort of realm and you're morelikely to kind of write a
manifesto towards the end ofyour career once you've had,
like you know, a whole lifetimeof experience in that realm and
(08:48):
perfecting that craft.
Isn't it a little bit like onthe nose to come out and write a
manifesto straight off the bat,like five years out of uni?
Speaker 1 (08:58):
god guys, I've got some to inspire and communicate
and I've got a vision, you know,like is that a thing?
Well, no, but like you say that, but that's exactly what these
people were doing.
You know, like I feel likethere was so much more I don't
know like gumption for whateverbetter word like back in the day
(09:18):
, like people were like comingstraight out of university and
being like I'm going to changethe world in architecture they
genuinely tried to do that andlike I cannot really think of
anybody that's kind of come inwith a hiss and a roar at a
young age.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
you know, like you said, being not in the twilight
of their career, really lookingto like shake up the
architectural norm other thanmaybe Biaga, yeah well, there
could be a whole bunch out therebut you've never heard of them
because they don't have thatreputation to fall back on or
any kind of establishedreputation, but like their work
(09:54):
is just kind of unknown thatwould be.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
That would be a good cross-reference.
Like when did um these peoplelike legal write his manifesto
versus like in what stage of hiscareer was he?
Was he, yeah, 10 projects in 20, zero, like Herzog's got you
know their website.
I've found the highest number658.
(10:18):
I really like on that websitehow they list um what number
each project is, which isoutrageous 658 projects.
Speaker 3 (10:27):
So apparently Corb was 34 when he wrote Towards New
Architecture.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
Yeah, I was just about to say that.
Speaker 3 (10:36):
Your age.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
How old are you, Gerard?
Yeah, that's my age.
You know, like there we go,Case in point, Like I'd say that
Biago was probably.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
What have you been doing your whole?
Speaker 1 (10:44):
life.
Exactly.
I feel like Biago was probablynot a dissimilar age when he
wrote what I see as being thelast true modern manifesto,
which is yes Is More, which Idon't know if anybody's read.
Speaker 3 (10:55):
Did he write?
Speaker 1 (10:56):
that, though, or did he get people to make that for?
Speaker 3 (10:58):
him.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
It's a Tasian book but it's about the firm big, but
at that time it was so heavilyhis voice.
But the whole premise of thisand this is where it goes beyond
kind of what you're talking toin the Herzog outline what
they're sort of saying ispromises to what they'll deliver
to potential clients, less sothan how they're looking to
saying is promises like to whatthey'll deliver to potential
(11:25):
clients, less so than howthey're looking to like
reimagine architecture, whereas,like the whole outline of yes
is more is essentially there'stwo, two polar opposites in the
architectural profession.
There's the total avant-gardekind of papered, full,
imaginative, hard to realizestuff and then there's the very
nuts and boltsy, square, box,tick, boxy type results.
(11:48):
Okay, I think that's a littlebit black and white, but
essentially what, like the wholeconcept and the whole
development of big is predicatedaround the merging of those two
and how you can haveimaginative responses but that
are still incrediblyprogrammatic and that's like the
whole.
That's basically the wholeshtick, right, it's outlined in
(12:10):
such a clear and concise waythat it really makes you
consider the way that youapproach architecture.
And I'd say that's the lastlike formative piece for me
anyway that actually hasinfluenced the way that I
approach design so do you seekout manifestos to read, to
improve your own skills?
No, because there isn't any.
I mean, that's exactly what I'msaying.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
This is the last one, the first and the last.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
Good point.
Why aren't they stillapplicable?
I think you know they probablyare.
They probably are to a degreeLike, if we're looking at the
distill manifesto, likeadvocation, pure abstraction,
primary colors and geriatricforms, why can't you lean into
that?
And I'd say there's a lot ofpeople that still very much do
you know.
But then I don't know, I feellike they're less.
They're less influential thesedays because people are kind of
(12:57):
just out there to do the thing.
Or am I being a bit cruel to us?
Speaker 3 (13:03):
I think I actually own own that Le Corbusier
towards New Architecture andtried to read it at university
and just didn't reallyunderstand a lot of what he was
talking about.
I should probably go back andtry and reread it now that I've
had a few years practising.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
Yeah, I mean like a decade.
In practice, certainly you'rebecoming a lot more informed.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
Yeah, I'd like a decade in practice certainly
you're becoming a lot moreinformed.
Yeah, you'd hope so anyway.
Maybe not.
I just find sometimes thingslike that are approached better
when you're actually interestedin it.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
Also, I've got to say this all sounds great, but if,
like, who has anything to writeabout, you kind of have to have
a thought process that is, Iguess, has somewhat some level
of depth to it, and you knowwhat I mean.
Like everyone's kind of, Are wesaying we're all too shit-like?
(13:57):
I don't know.
I guess like no, we're justlike we do small architecture.
These guys are like doing likemassive stuff.
They've got like a lot.
I don't know, I don't know,maybe it's just me.
I'd feel like too, likeinsignificant.
You know, I don't know if I'dknow what to it is.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
But I think, gerard, you're right, that's probably
why there's no manifestos,because we all kind of….
Speaker 2 (14:24):
We're all too scared of the importance that it seems
to embody.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
Such and such wrote a manifesto, so I certainly
couldn't, but why not?
Speaker 3 (14:35):
It's more like I probably wouldn't have anything
to write about.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
But then again, when you actually kind of like think
about it you probably do and Ithink what you're more concerned
about being and this isprobably why people aren't like
writing manifestos or looking toreally hammer home new or
alternative architecturalmovements is they're like oh, my
realm or my circle of influenceis too small.
But even if you've got like avery small circle of influence,
(15:01):
I don't know say, gerard, youwrite a manifesto and it's
picked up by like 10 people inwellington or something and
that's it, but it actually has aprofound impact on them.
I'd say that's still successful.
You know that's stillsuccessful.
So we need to be writing likepractice, writing like a bunch
of mini manifestos well, I justdon just don't maybe not
(15:23):
necessarily manifestos, but Ithink maybe people need to.
From an architectural point ofview, maybe like kind of look at
themselves and understand thearchitecture of their design
style or what they're looking toachieve, or maybe outline what
they're hoping to and actuallylike put it to paper Because and
even if it's for yourself, butit's like public access or
something people may takesomething from that.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
I'm getting a slight sense of deja vu.
Did we talk about?
This is kind of like goals foryour practice.
Speaker 1 (15:53):
Different.
I don't think this isnecessarily practice-based,
although it could be.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
These are architecture goals.
So if you're a somewhatdesign-focused architecture
office, these are going to belike your top three points of
your to-do list.
I want to create architecturethat X, Y, Z.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
I think maybe a little bit different.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
I think that's more referencing, kind of like that
Herzog example, that you yeah,but those look more on, I guess,
being on your about page, butones that you write for yourself
, goals that you don't reallyparticularly show anybody.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
Yeah, but I think it's obviously for you
personally, but I think it'salso a call to the profession to
take that direction as well.
You know, like you look at theBauhaus Manifesto, like Gropius
called for the unity of art,craft and technology, you know,
and so it's that call to armsfrom your profession to kind of
approach something in adifferent way and maybe, like
(16:50):
there's a slight blurring of thelines between manifestos and
new architectural movements, Ithink they could probably be
spoken about in the same light.
But you know, like when hasthere been a conscious shift
recently?
You know what I mean.
You think about the consciousshift from modernism to
postmodernism is very clear-cut.
(17:11):
Has there been something likethat recently?
Am I just kind of naive to it?
What are your guys' thoughts?
Speaker 2 (17:19):
What are you guys' thoughts?
Art Deco is one of the mostvisually potent styles of
architecture, isn't it?
I don't know.
I feel like we're in a weirdglobalized architecture sort of
season where everyone's lookingat everyone's Instagram so
(17:39):
everything's kind of slowlyblending into each other.
The same thing which I think isterrible and bad the more you
could not look at Instagram, Ithink, reference things around
you versus somebody's beautifullooking house on Instagram.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
It's an interesting point, gerard.
Yeah, manifesto, yeah, there'syou.
There's your manifesto, yeah,Don't stop looking at Instagram,
but it's actually, but I meanthat could be it.
You know, that could be theextent of it and you're right,
gerard, that global kind ofglobal washing of architectural
styles, so true, and you know,that was really evident and you
(18:17):
can kind of you see it obviouslylike scrolling through
Instagram looking at likeprecedents and all those things.
But it was super evident when Iwas at, you know, the Design
Awards, because everything'spresented in one room at one
time, right, and any single oneof those projects you've got to
plucked out independently andlike cut and paste it and put it
in New Zealand and it wouldn'thave been out of place.
You know what I mean.
(18:38):
Yeah, and I think that's thecase for a lot of architecture
these days.
So maybe that is the manifestois stop looking at your
neighbour and start looking,maybe more inward.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Yeah, creating more of a New Zealand architecture.
Just everything has to becorrugated iron.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
We do have a very distinct, particularly
residential, distinct, style,I'd say, less so commercial, I'd
say, although our commercialarchitecture is by and large
quite plain, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
What do you think about our residential
architecture is distinctly newzealand.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
I think, like the strong, like emphasis on certain
forms, the monopitch and thegable, and use of materiality, a
strong lean into naturalmateriality, I'd say, is
probably some of the key things.
That's distinctly.
Speaker 3 (19:31):
Kiwi, you still just described every building
everywhere, though right.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
I guess it's like what's the difference between
that and Scandinavia?
Good point.
What's the difference between?
Speaker 2 (19:40):
that and Well the difference is Australia.
Speaker 1 (19:43):
Yeah, okay, fair enough.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
Sitting here looking out my window in Copenhagen, I
can tell you the difference isdensity, right, new Zealand's
just still so new.
I was wondering yesterday.
I was like how long is it goingto be?
For how long do you think it'lltake for New Zealand to have
like the level of density thatyou see, like in these European
cities?
You know, is it like 100 yearswhere the recession plans just
(20:11):
keep going more, steeper andsteeper and steeper until
they're basically vertical andthen everyone is just building
next to each other, like overhere, which, so which?
So you know, essentially ourcities do end up as dense as
these cities, or is it just likenever going to happen because
our population is never going toreach that?
(20:31):
interesting, you say that theurban sprawl.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
Really interesting that you say that being because
I've got a little note here thatI wrote down and like one of
the one of the reasons why Ithought that there's like fewer
modern manifestos.
I said it's like the decline ofutopian thinking, so like it's
the belief.
Now, yeah, like there's,there's very little, sorry, a
grand revolutionary, visionaryaction.
Yeah, is that?
Speaker 3 (20:55):
is.
Is that because, like everyone,feels like everything's almost
already been done, not, not, youknow, to an an extent, whereas
years and years ago it was allkind of new and interesting
scheming, or town planning,urban environment layout and
(21:17):
some amazing stuff was a hugething.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
But now it's like well.
Granduos was a goal right.
You know like cities wanted tobe traditionally.
You know like cities wanted tobe the most visible in the world
, and that's why you have placeslike you know London, and like
Hong Kong or New York orwhatever you know that have like
reached for the sky, whereas Idon't think that's a goal
(21:43):
necessarily anymore.
If anything else, we're lookingat life a little bit more
pragmatically, a little bit morenaturally maybe, and
everything's kind of slowed.
That fast rush to grandiosenessis slowed.
Speaker 3 (21:59):
So does that mean that the successful or the
traditionally the successfulmanifestos are of the city scale
, or are they?
You know what I mean?
Are they more grand?
Are they bigger than just kindof like a house?
Speaker 1 (22:13):
I think they could be taken in at any scale.
Really, I think they are allpretty well.
The two we've read throughanyway, I think are very
scalable, like the Bauhaus andLe Corbusier yeah, totally Like
you could take that and like theDistil Manifesto as well, like
(22:34):
that's purely aesthetic concept.
That could be something assmall as a pen or something as
large as a stadium.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
You know, I think scales maybe not so much, the
issue being as more like noone's reading them yeah, well,
yeah or I mean, I have us threesitting around here right now,
like how many manifestos haveyou read?
Speaker 1 (23:00):
well, Well, since architecture school one.
Speaker 3 (23:05):
So I mean, I think we've figured out the issue here
why they're not working becauseno one's reading them.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
I'd argue, zipfel's Atmospheres is a manifesto.
Speaker 3 (23:15):
What about that Chipperfield one?
Was that a manifesto?
Speaker 1 (23:19):
We're just maybe realizing that architects books
that they write are perhapsmanifestos yeah, and I think
there's a it's a, it's a umblurred line between a monograph
, which is more like a profileof a practice, which is what you
were kind of talking to earlier, gerard, and in a manifesto,
which I think is more of like amonograph, is like we're an
(23:40):
architecture practice, likekirsten thompson's books like
this, her recent book, excellentbook.
If no one's read it, pick it up.
But like that's like it's apractice and profile.
But it kind of outlines the waythat her practice has evolved
and what they're looking toachieve and deliver.
And that's less manifesto thansomething like yes is more where
that's more okay, this is whowe are as a practice, but this
(24:05):
is why we're like it andeverybody else should try to be
like this kind of thing.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
I wonder if the previous train of thought was
kind of leading to this kind ofdiminishing of vision.
I guess, whether globally orjust New Zealand, Sometimes
Wellington feels like there's novision and we're just like
putting in, just trying to keepthe place running, just trying
to keep the pipes alive, youknow, just trying to replace the
pipes.
(24:32):
Yeah, I think people are scaredof vision and manifestos
because maybe there's like thisindividualist aspect to it which
people seem scared of at themoment.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
Is that that tall poppy syndrome issue that we've
got, that we've already touchedon?
Speaker 2 (24:46):
I really think it is.
It's kind of ingrained into alot of the processes behind
projects as well.
So all our public buildings arekind of committee projects now,
whereas you're not going to getlike a Sydney Opera House
through a committee.
So I feel like sometimes maybethere's less of a window for
(25:09):
really beautiful individualistworks of architecture where you
might just spark somethingreally special in the hopes of a
committee coming to the sameconclusion.
Speaker 1 (25:19):
Well, it's interesting, gerard, that you
make that point, because I thinkthat statement and actually a
little bit of what we've talkedabout as well, you know, that
tall poppy syndrome and like alittle bit of that application
as well, sort of like woventogether the threads of our sort
of last three conversations andmaybe less so the Zuru one.
But you know, from this season,and maybe it is the fact that
(25:42):
what we're coming to terms withourselves currently through the
making of this podcast, is thatwe're maybe just kind of
following the same path as somany others and that maybe it's
okay and perhaps we should startto just put your hand up, put
your voice out there and be alittle bit more strident and
(26:03):
strong, and whether that bedesign or concepts or whatever,
you know yeah, better way tostand out a little bit yeah,
totally, man, and I think thatthat's a huge, it's huge problem
with us in general.
It kind of goes back to whatlisa said in the last episode
we're really bad at puttingourselves out there.
(26:25):
We need to be better at it.
So why not do it with amanifesto?
Why not do it on like a grand,you know, with a grand statement
?
We're in a grand scale.
Speaker 3 (26:33):
I'll start today, but you're in the right place
taking notes well, you're in theright place for inspiration,
mate.
Speaker 1 (26:39):
It's hard, to hard, to be inspired to write your
grand manifesto and grey aboutto be daylight savings,
wellington, when you're swanningaround overseas in Copenhagen.
Speaker 3 (26:49):
I know, and it's nice and sunny, but hey, it is cold
here.
So you got that going for youover in New Zealand.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (26:57):
You just went and saw the big ski field yesterday I
did see the ski field.
Speaker 3 (27:02):
it's pretty stunning that's a hell of a proof of
concept yeah, just the lifestyleover here in general is like
pretty epic did it embody hismanifesto or his like manifesto.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
Statement of yes is more 100 it's massive but it,
but, but it, but it does.
Right like, okay, he could havejust done a power plant, but he
went.
I'm gonna put a ski field onthe outside of the thing and
there's a climbing wall up theside as well.
Speaker 3 (27:31):
Right like just massive climbing wall like pile
program thank you like.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
Pile program onto something, because why not?
You know yeah, yeah, definitelyI love and I love that that you
know in the flesh it is a realproof of concept it's pretty
interesting though, because wejust came from hamburg in
germany.
Speaker 3 (27:51):
There and it is as you were saying before, gerard I
don't know who was, you know,originally designing these
buildings but like the new partof cobenhagen and the new part
of Hamburg are really actuallylike real similar kind of
architectural styles.
I guess they're not that farapart, but it's kind of
(28:12):
interesting that it's becominglike the global.
Speaker 1 (28:15):
How new though, Like.
Is that post-war or is thatlike new as in 21st?
Speaker 3 (28:20):
century.
No like new as in in within thelast 20 years.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
Yeah, right, so they are kind of that globalised.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
It's all kind of merging that vanillaisation of
architecture globally is stilleverywhere, probably stems from
this side of the world, but it'sdefinitely kind of making its
way around and it is really goodarchitecture, you know, but it
is, as Gerard says, likeeveryone's kind of copying to a
certain degree.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
Are there any less so manifestos, but maybe movements
Like are there any historicalmovements or previous movements
in architecture that you guysstill draw upon regularly?
Speaker 2 (29:02):
finding it hard to go past sort of like just
mid-century forms and furnitureand stuff yeah, it was a time
that was pretty well who?
Speaker 1 (29:13):
got the fundamentals right yeah, they kind of really
nailed it.
I'm the same in a way, but youknow you don't see a lot of
people leaning back into sort oflike classical bend on your
like, doric.
Speaker 3 (29:25):
Ionic and Corinthian column situation anymore.
That part's true and we'vetalked about this a whole bunch
before.
But, man, like the decorativeelements just really were like
the pride of these buildings,you know, and it's just, you
walk around here and everysingle building has that aspect
(29:46):
to it.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
What about postmodern ?
Speaker 3 (29:47):
It was hard on structure, but we talked about
this before and I'd love tobring that back somehow.
It's just so much harder, itseems so much more superficial
with timber, you know, whenyou've got like amazing brick or
stone elements that are justlike so grand.
Speaker 2 (30:05):
Yeah, or pretty, like epic timber churches and stuff
which sort of tie in a lot ofthat.
But I think like that perfectlysegues into that Bauhaus
manifesto, which is like talkingabout how architecture is like
the height of art.
Craftsmen back in the day usedto get to work on buildings and
(30:27):
you wouldn't get any of thatdetail that you saw in Gothic or
classical architecture withoutthese extreme craftsmen or
artists, sculptors that would beworking directly on a building.
You don't really see thatanymore.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
No, you don't in general, but I'd say that with a
lot of civic or publicbuildings, particularly in New
Zealand, we're starting to seethat a lot more Like a CNC cast
mould or something.
Yeah, I guess there's not stuffnot really being hand involved.
Speaker 3 (30:58):
Does that profession still exist, though?
Gerard, definitely I followlots of who would do that?
Speaker 2 (31:05):
well, it's probably more of like a thing that takes
place in Europe, more becausethey've got so many stone
buildings to maintain yeah, buteven Europe has forgotten how to
build a lot of these stonebuildings yeah, but you've just
got to go to the place wherethey all are so like we have
(31:27):
lots of craftsmen.
Speaker 1 (31:29):
It'd be interesting to see whether, post the
completion of a building likethe sagrada familiar and there's
really I can't really think ofany other example that's spanned
the course of time, you know,from a point where the level of
craftsmanship that you'respeaking to gerard, and having
those artists on site moldingeverything, doing everything
(31:49):
physically, to modern day whereeverything's a little bit more
factory reset and that's kind oflike a perfect example of the
merging of those two culturesand like, and the realization of
of um, of that building, postthat I wonder if anything will
come of it.
You know, like will will theskill set that's learned through
(32:10):
that hundred and however manyyears it is that that building's
been under construction.
Do you reckon that willpermeate at all or do you think
that's just a unique case?
Speaker 2 (32:18):
Like.
Are those employees going tocarry on with?
Speaker 1 (32:23):
ample employment opportunities.
Well, and the researchers andyou know the team behind that
building is.
It's insane, and the technologythat they've developed
specifically to complete it.
Is that just going to be lost,or is there a mechanism for it
to be employed throughout modernbuildings?
Speaker 3 (32:43):
Yeah, they just need to start a church, a new church,
just down the road.
Yeah, just start down the road.
Speaker 1 (32:49):
Another 100-year church 200.
Speaker 2 (32:51):
Yeah, just start down the road, another 100-year
church, 200.
Yeah, I wonder what the nutsand bolts of what they've
learned is, because you'reseeing a lot of precast elements
going in.
Are they all carved stone andthen glued together or something
?
Speaker 3 (33:06):
But it's precasting.
Did they learn all this from amanifesto?
Speaker 1 (33:12):
That's what I want.
Well, yeah, I mean gaudy gaudykind of kind of had a manifesto
in a way, right like it was,like you know, all of his stuff
was influenced by the forces ofnature, was essentially his
whole bit.
So I guess that's a manifestoto a degree.
The force of nature on thebuilt environment, you know.
But I don't do you think,gerard, that that like real,
(33:36):
real hands-on, very intricatedetailing, let's call them
almost like the jewelers of theof the building industry type
approach is, that is, is thatwhere the real skill lies?
Obviously it did.
It did traditionally, but inthe modern day, why can't
pre-casting and CNC machiningand 3D printing take that place?
(33:57):
I mean, we're just harnessingnew technology to kind of
deliver the same thing, right?
Speaker 2 (34:00):
Yeah, well, maybe decisions like this, where
you're thinking about going likea CNC route or a handcrafted
route, is perhaps where you needa manifesto.
Speaker 1 (34:11):
Is this the DPP manifesto?
Speaker 2 (34:14):
To help you out in these decision-making scenarios.
The Bauhaus one was very strict.
It was like architects,sculptors, painters, we must all
return to crafts.
And then he, funnily enough, Idon't know if I agree about this
, but he says for art is not aprofession.
Yeah, there is no difference.
For art is not a profession.
Yeah, there is no differencebetween art and the craftsman.
Speaker 3 (34:36):
Gerard, you're still finding that out the hard way,
though, eh.
Speaker 2 (34:39):
I hate it and love it at the same time.
The artist is an exaltedcraftsman.
In rare moments of inspirationtranscending the consciousness
of his will and grace, theheaven may cause his work to
bloom into art.
He makes the argument thatartists should have, should have
a knowledge of craft, which Iappreciate, which I I think
sometimes is lacking is thatwhere your, where your skill set
(35:00):
comes in?
Speaker 1 (35:01):
both you guys really be?
You know, being with yourbuilding background and gerard
with your furniture makingbackground.
Am I the one who's dragging thechain here?
I don't have my crafty, I don'thave my get crafted, make it
hands-on, but I like modelmaking.
Does that count?
Finish making background.
Am I the one who's dragging thechain here?
I don't have my crafty, I don'thave my hands on background.
I like model making.
Does that count?
Get to craft and earn.
I'm playing with Lego.
My daughter's Lego is somewherebehind me.
Speaker 2 (35:20):
Is that enough?
I think so.
Lego is the modern marblesculpting.
Speaker 1 (35:25):
Yeah, just Lego building.
I mean Biaga built an entirebuilding based off Lego building
.
I mean they are going to buildan entire building based off
Lego.
They'll find it in heresomewhere.
Speaker 3 (35:31):
Was that the Lego building?
I mean, you know, yeah.
Speaker 1 (35:38):
The Lego building.
Speaker 3 (35:39):
It is just Lego building Lego, building for Lego
.
That's cool yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:45):
Is that Copenhagen, are you?
Speaker 3 (35:47):
going to go there?
I don't know actually.
Can you guys see that, ben?
I don't know actually.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
Here you go.
Can you guys see that thisisn't the Lego building?
Speaker 2 (35:55):
but that's just Legos to do design development.
Speaker 1 (35:58):
It's really cool.
Speaker 2 (36:00):
I like that style of big MDRDB style architecture,
like the blocking.
It's kind of like Minecrafteating away at something.
Speaker 1 (36:09):
Yeah, I mean it's the pragmatic followed by the form
right, like it's the of, likeminecraft eating away at
something.
Yeah, I mean, it's that, it'sthe pragmatic followed by the
form right, like it's the formfollowing function.
You know, they're taking,they're taking it, they're
taking a programmatic piece andthey're kind of like allotting
to it all of its maximumconstraints and then they're
going all right.
What can we do to this to makeit better?
Basically, it's a very simpleexercise.
(36:30):
It it's push, pull, twist, turn, flip, cut.
Speaker 2 (36:34):
I think the beauty is in the distilling of the idea
and then communicating itbackwards in such a simple way.
I'd be amazed if that was theexact design process.
Speaker 1 (36:45):
Yeah, that's probably the absolute pinnacle of the
architect post-rationalisation.
Speaker 3 (36:52):
I think you need that .
They do keep it quite simple,yeah.
Speaker 2 (36:57):
I think you need those diagrams sometimes to
communicate something tosomebody.
You've got this strange object.
Why are we doing that?
How did you get there?
Speaker 1 (37:04):
And, funnily enough, often your thought process.
I don't know about you guys,but when you're, when you're in
concept design, you'reconstantly designing in the back
of your head.
Sometimes you'll jot it down onpaper but or model, or quickly
like model something or get anidea out, but, like, oftentimes
it's not happening.
But you're generating thatstuff always in the back of your
(37:24):
mind and so, like, postrationalization does make
perfect sense because oftenyou'll come up with a solution
and then and then you'll likebacktrack mentally and be like,
well, how did I get here?
And you know, and that's howyou kind of like build that
story, that narrative behind it.
You're right, you're right.
Very rarely do you go I do this, then I do this, then I do that
then I do this and I.
(37:47):
Maybe that's how AI willapproach things in the future.
Let's not get back onto that.
Speaker 2 (37:51):
Yeah, I got told that first year of uni I did
something out of instinct, kindof almost apologized it to the
tutor.
I was like, oh, I don't knowwhy I did this, I just did this.
He's like, yeah, you do,Somewhere in your brain you've
had a reason.
Speaker 1 (38:07):
Now you just got to go figure out why you did that.
That's good from your tutor.
That's better than some of thetutors that I had who were
basically like, well, where'syour processing, where's your
thinking, where's your precedent?
Like an idea doesn't come fromnothing, justify yourself,
basically.
And like ideas do sometimesjust come from nothing, you can
have a design epiphany, that'sfine.
Speaker 2 (38:25):
Yeah, and like you, are what you eat to a degree, so
your brain's its own little AI.
Yeah, you're influenced, or avolatile bank of knowledge, that
you're blending shit togetherand coming out with something.
Speaker 1 (38:41):
And that kind of lends itself to that
vanillaization of the globalbuilt environment, right when
everything kind of becomespretty normal across the board,
is because we're being fed on aregular basis through, through
all these devices and socialmedia and all this stuff, this
same regurgitation of style andthings, and probably why this
hasn't been like such a stronglike revolt to a, to a certain
(39:05):
style, because there hasn't beenlike a group of people or, you
know, a school of thought that'sbeen in isolation, that hasn't
been influenced by that.
That's like simmering down, youknow, under the surface and all
of a sudden they erupt withthis brand new idea.
I'd love for that to happen,that'd be super interesting.
But I just kind of our ownarchitectural style yeah, should
we just shut off our phones andjust see where we go see?
Speaker 3 (39:26):
where we get to slowly trying AI architecture.
Speaker 2 (39:28):
See where we get to Slowly trying to develop a fat
architecture.
A fat architecture?
Yeah, like Erwin.
Like a fat building.
Oh yeah, some hydroformbuildings yeah, that'd be nice.
Some chubby buildings, cute fatbuildings.
One of my favorite buildings islike biomockery.
We just like a duck building.
Speaker 1 (39:48):
Did you say biomockery or biomimicry?
Speaker 2 (39:53):
Yeah, no mockery, we just like do you say biomockery
or biomimicry?
Yeah, no, not biomimicry,biomockery we.
Your building is just like I'mgonna make a duck, a building
referencing a duck, and it'sjust a duck building it like,
looks like a duck it sounds abit too literal for me is that
like old frank gary's binocularbinocular?
Yeah, it's just that's good man, it's hilarious.
I like it brings.
Speaker 1 (40:09):
Bring some of that to the build environment I feel
like there's a lot of likemidwest.
I feel like there's a lot ofmidwest kind of like american
buildings that kind of lean intothat pretty heavily I wonder if
you could.
Speaker 2 (40:22):
You could do a mockery of that almost.
Speaker 1 (40:25):
Yeah, like I'm mockery, I'm gonna reference
this become by doing incrediblymeta here, but this is it, this
is, this is, but this is.
I'm going to reference a spec.
I'm getting incredibly metahere, but this is it.
This is the kind of thinkingthat you're required to have to
develop a manifesto.
You know, because if we justand you've got to run with it,
like at any point, if you go, ohnah, people will think I'm an
(40:46):
idiot, then your manifesto isnever going to get any legs,
whereas if you just kind of likelean all the way in, then maybe
you'll get somewhere.
Who knows, there's some there.
Speaker 2 (40:56):
There's some wings there, my duck building.
Speaker 1 (40:59):
What about, kind of?
To close, have you guys got anythoughts about where
architecture might go?
You know we've talked a lotabout manifestos, a little bit
about movements, but it'd bereally interesting.
I mean, mean, I don't reallyeven know what movement you'd
call the current one, maybe tothe global globalization
movement yeah, global yeah yeahI mean, I think people sort of
(41:21):
called it the sustainabilitymovement, but I don't
necessarily think that thatholds true across the board yeah
, I don't think many of them areactually sustainable.
They're just using that word.
Yeah, I think it's just thatgreenwashing concept, right?
So where do you thinkarchitecture might go have?
You ever thought about this.
Speaker 2 (41:40):
Yeah, I think I could head down that path a lot
further.
This is kind of why I'm sointerested in art and
interesting ways of form-finding, in the hope that, as people
closer and closer into whatthey're creating, hopefully you
can keep creating interestingthings I think it'll be gusset
(42:01):
or stoke when someone stealsyour, when someone steals your
concepts people steal my ideasall the time, but I just haven't
told them about it.
You know, you see something outin the wild, you're like, oh
shit, that was my idea.
Speaker 1 (42:14):
But is that parallel thinking or is that direct?
Speaker 2 (42:17):
no, no parallel thinking yeah it's when you
think something's your idea, butyou realize you know there's
lots of ideas out there.
It's just like who's going toact on the idea, do you guys?
Speaker 1 (42:26):
find that when you come up with a concept like
maybe a building concept or adetail or like a wee moment or
something, and you're reallyproud of yourself and you
develop it up, and then somebodynext to you or somebody leans
over your shoulder and goes I'veseen that before and then shows
you a precedent and you're likefuck, I thought I was being
original.
Speaker 2 (42:46):
People actually do that to me to take the piss.
I tell them I have an idea, so.
So then, whenever they seesomething on Instagram I've done
that a couple of times it sendsme through something that looks
exactly like a sketch of adrawer.
I'm like, wow, are you serious?
I thought I was original, butno.
Speaker 1 (43:05):
But is that a fear of the movement that we're moving
into?
Is that there's no moreoriginal thought?
Speaker 2 (43:10):
Is there a fear of the movement that we're moving
into Is that there's no moreoriginal thought.
Well, I've referenced thisbefore about I don't think in
this context, but when I was achild I wanted to be an inventor
and I remember being realdisappointed because in that
particular moment I couldn'tthink of a new idea.
I think that's kind of what mywhole existence is is trying to
(43:31):
be an inventor.
So I'm out here in my workshoptrying to create new things I
love that.
It's easy to create a new idea.
You just put yourself into it.
So it's more about like adesign mechanism and tricking
yourself into new things than itis like trying to tense your
brain until you think ofsomething, yeah, and process.
Speaker 1 (43:49):
So, like hydroforming , you lose control in the
process intentionally, so youcome up with something that's
funny because I feel like yourapproach, gerard, and what
you're looking to achieve is andto your credit, to be honest
it's the complete opposite inthe way that the industry is
moving, because I feel like it'sheading in there, like back to
the zero conversation.
It's heading in that zerodirection.
(44:11):
It's heading in that mass scale, mass produced ai, press play,
beat book, minecraft kind ofpeople direction, you know,
rather than it being like reallypersonal and process driven and
like concept heavy and all thatsort of stuff and I don't know.
I feel feel like that's themovement that we might be moving
(44:31):
into.
Speaker 2 (44:31):
Zero.
Speaker 1 (44:33):
Yeah, well, just into what do we call out the end of
this?
You know?
When there's a huge revolt in50 years' time and suddenly
we're all living in mud hutsagain or something.
But you know, what do we lookback on this time?
Speaker 3 (44:47):
as Do we see it as the generation movement, as in
like the generation movement, asin like just mass generation um
, possibility would be that,because of all this new
technology, we kind of start tocreate and find new forms which
I guess are like a lot of peopleare already kind of working on.
Speaker 1 (45:04):
Yeah, true, starting to pop up around the world it's
a nice way of thinking about it,as a positive way of like
looking at the use of technology.
Maybe my view on the technologyis a bit negative, but yeah, I
like that idea.
Speaker 2 (45:16):
Yeah, use it where you can, but I think, yeah, I
kind of see it all as kind ofheading down the same path, but
I think, trying to make anactive decision to go down the
Wolf and Groupius route.
Speaker 1 (45:30):
Yeah, nice.
Speaker 2 (45:31):
Returning to the crafts.
But yeah, we're going to seewhere that road goes, see if it
works.
We could all be wrong.
I could be wrong.
Maybe I'm in my mud hut for noreason.
Speaker 1 (45:44):
So, to finish up, guys and we didn't do it last
week with Lisa but love it orhate it, architectural
manifestos Do you love them andwe didn't do it last week with
Lisa.
Speaker 2 (45:57):
But love it or hate it.
Architectural manifestos Do youlove them or do you hate them?
I think bring it back.
I did used to read Zipthal'sAtmospheres a bit and an
architect that I've been veryinfluenced by, and they're
influenced by a lot ofarchitects like Holtrop and his
processes, so there aredefinitely things that I follow
in other architects that theylike to speak about.
(46:18):
So I think consciously there'sa little bit of manifesto action
in there somewhere.
Speaker 1 (46:23):
Yeah, I agree, I love it.
I think I don't engage with itenough because you kind of get
caught up in your day-to-day alittle bit, but I think the
capacity should be there tointeract with the concept of
manifestos and to delve moreinto maybe there are modern
manifestos we're just not outthere looking for them that we
should be looking at.
(46:43):
So I love it.
I'm going to try and make achange.
Thanks for the suggestion.
Whoever told us to talk aboutthis?
Speaker 3 (46:51):
Yeah, I'm definitely pro as well.
I just have a hard time sayingthat because I haven't read a
manifesto for a long time, so Ifeel it's a bit kind of fake.
But yeah, maybe I do need toread some stuff.
Speaker 1 (47:07):
That's enough, and I think listeners can probably
take this on board as well.
Some stuff, but that's enough,and I think listeners can
probably take this on board aswell.
We're probably all a bit, youknow, we're all a bit guilty of
just falling into the everyday,you know, rather than seeking
that extra bit of knowledge.
So maybe that's it.
Maybe the manifesto is to,maybe the greater manifesto is
(47:27):
to find outside influence, or toincrease outside influence, or
something I don't know.
Speaking of, outside influence.
Speaker 3 (47:35):
If anyone has any good manifesto recs, definitely
send them our way, especiallylike modern.
It'd be interesting to readsome modern ones.
Speaker 1 (47:43):
Yeah, it'd be cool if listeners have got any
suggestions of putting them onthe show notes.
We'd love to know.
Send us in your own or your ownyeah, yeah, I think we should
get show notes?
We'd love to know.
Send us in your own or your own.
Speaker 2 (47:51):
yeah, yeah, I think we should get into that a little
bit more.
Speaker 3 (47:54):
Top manifesto.
Speaker 2 (47:56):
You don't have to publish it and put it on
Instagram for the world to see,but maybe even just distilling
some of your own designintentions and ideas might be a
way of keeping yourself in check, keeping yourself on track.
Speaker 1 (48:09):
And helps you develop as a designer.
That iterative process and thatlearn you know that succeed,
fail kind of cycle succeed, fail, learn, succeed, fail, learn
cycle is so important to todeveloping as a better designer.
Nice thanks, come along, allright guys.
Good chat you.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!