April 15, 2024 • 58 mins
Remember those all-nighters during university, where concepts and craft merged into design projects that felt like extensions of ourselves? We take you back to those formative days, where our design philosophies were born amidst the rigors of conceptual training and critical thinking. Join us as we contrast the nostalgia of academia with the realities of professional practice, navigating the push and pull between creative freedom and real-world constraints.
Step into our studio as we dissect the evolution of our design process, from groundbreaking theses to the profound influence of architectural talks on our professional development. We shed light on how our craft, much like pottery, demands commitment to iterative processes and adaptability. The episode is a toast to the hands-on experiments that sculpt our architectural skills, and a reflection on whether our most instinctual designs remain our purest expressions, or if we truly refine our craft through experience.
Have your thoughts ever danced around the subjectivity of architecture? We scrutinize the creative legacies of luminaries like Frank Gehry, Peter Zumthor, and Anne Holtrop, and consider how architectural firms can spur innovation beyond waiting for the perfect brief. We wrap up on an uplifting note from Gerard's recent chair exhibition, urging fellow creatives to leap over the barriers they've built around their work. So, grab your favorite sketchbook and join us for a conversation that's as much about the beauty of design as it is about the journey that shapes it.
0:12 - Design Education and Practice Perspectives
Step into our studio as we dissect the evolution of our design process, from groundbreaking theses to the profound influence of architectural talks on our professional development. We shed light on how our craft, much like pottery, demands commitment to iterative processes and adaptability. The episode is a toast to the hands-on experiments that sculpt our architectural skills, and a reflection on whether our most instinctual designs remain our purest expressions, or if we truly refine our craft through experience.
Have your thoughts ever danced around the subjectivity of architecture? We scrutinize the creative legacies of luminaries like Frank Gehry, Peter Zumthor, and Anne Holtrop, and consider how architectural firms can spur innovation beyond waiting for the perfect brief. We wrap up on an uplifting note from Gerard's recent chair exhibition, urging fellow creatives to leap over the barriers they've built around their work. So, grab your favorite sketchbook and join us for a conversation that's as much about the beauty of design as it is about the journey that shapes it.
0:12 - Design Education and Practice Perspectives
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 really encourages us to keep going and the ideas and feedback we get from the listeners is awesome!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
Hello and welcome.
You're back with the DesignPrincipal podcast with myself,
gerard from Gerard DabrowskiWorkshop, ben Bear Architecture,
sam from Aret.
Today we're trying to ventureinto the topic of design.
It's a big, large, weird,wonderful conversation which is
kind of a consistent thread,namely at the Design Principles
(00:34):
podcast.
So today we're going to talkabout it in slightly more focus,
starting off with sort of likea chronological overview, I
guess, of how we went througheducation and sort of our own
stories and what we focus on andthings that we want to focus on
, I guess.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Nice, do you want to kick us off, then?
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
I guess we all went to university together in the
same class, so that's goodcontext for everyone listening.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
Victoria University, Wellington.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Good old days, simple times, one might say.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Take me back.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Yeah.
So, Ben, what do you reckonuniversity sort of sets you up
for in terms of designapproaches?
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Yeah, I loved it.
I had a lot of fun.
I was coming out of a buildingapprenticeship so when I started
I was slightly older thaneveryone else, maybe 20.
So yeah, it had been four yearsor something since I'd been at
school and just really enjoyedthe challenge and the design
(01:42):
side of things.
I guess it just got me thinkingabout how to be creative again
kind of lose that as a young age.
So, yeah, I had a good time.
I learned a lot.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Yeah, I remember it being like heavily conceptual
from the start.
It took me half a year to sortof figure out the expectation of
the ideas that were expected.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
It's not.
It's interesting because, well,I think that's also Vic's
approach, in the sense that it'squite a conceptually focused
school, whereas Unitec, forinstance, is more technically
focused.
But I think one thing itteaches you probably the main
thing it teaches you is how tothink critically.
That's what I felt.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
Yeah, university architecture, university
students are famously critical.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
Yeah, yeah, definitely.
And a lot of feedback was youknow you kind of get from those
universities probably Vicespecially is they don't really
prepare you for practice andthat's all.
That's all kind of you knowunderstandable.
However, do you really want tobe prepared for practice?
(02:58):
I guess like there's someinteresting things that would
have been great to know, maybeon the more business side of
things, but in terms of likedesign, it's really just about
getting those creative juicesflowing and coming up with your
own design process.
You know so when you you areexpected to develop a concept,
(03:21):
you kind of have some idea ofhow to start and how to go about
it.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
So I guess the fundamentals were there
interesting what you're saying,ben, about.
Well, you know, it teaches youhow to how to design.
And then, obviously, talkingabout moving into practice, and
I think university it teachesyou good design skills, it
teaches you to think criticallyand it gives you the opportunity
of freedom.
Uh, you know there's verylittle parameters and then for
(03:47):
many of us not all, but for manyof us you leave university and
you go and work in a firm ofvarying scales and that design I
guess freedom is quashed alittle bit, depending on what
role you move into I've saidfirm and then all you almost
have to retrain yourself how todesign again.
And, gerard, I think, based onmy conversation points that
(04:09):
you've outlined for today,that's going to be a big talking
point for you.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
Yeah, it's kind of like a roll of the dice for a
lot of people what autonomy theyget within their practice or
what sort of reign they get.
University is super theoreticaland like allows you to think of
crazy awesome, exciting ideas.
But it's kind of also I'vefound it kind of suffers from
lack of parameters and sometimeslike parameters are seen as
(04:38):
like a negative thing.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Oh no, I'm too strained in, but I think more
often than not, parameters arewhat leads to like exciting
design maneuvers, like waysaround things it was good for
certainly good for deadlinesanyway yeah, by having
parameters or not havingparameters nah, nah, just like
university in general, I feellike my memory of university is
(05:03):
just like so many deadlines andeverything kind of being less
left to the last minute and andput together in a hurry to get
across the line and all yourpresentations.
You've had like no sleep thenight before, or only a few
hours, and everyone wasbasically in the same same boat,
which was kind of hilarious.
(05:24):
Considering the amount of workwe actually had to do was sweet
in comparison to now yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Each year you look back and you're like, oh, that
was pretty manageable.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
It sounds like oh, I wish I could do it again, so I
could clean it up.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
To be fair, those last-minute deadline rushes
still continue into professionalpractice.
Maybe I think it's just ourcharacter is that we leave
everything to the last minute?
Speaker 1 (05:50):
yeah, well, the old adage you know if you leave it
to the last minute, it onlytakes a minute.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Well, I kind of know that about myself now.
That's why I set the deadlineswith such a tight time frame, so
it forces me into that lastminute.
Get it done.
Speaker 1 (06:05):
Stress yeah, if you do it, then it's done get it
done, then it's done timemanagement's a whole another uh
podcast that we should dosometime I kind of need to set
deadlines, otherwise like, yeah,you kind of need that bit of
urgency, a little carrot and aSpeaking of deadlines, Gerard,
how's that door going for Rob Is?
(06:29):
That powder coat mate.
Oh good, Sweet, I was theretoday.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
It's on the critical path, mate, so we've got to get
that thing in.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
It's one of the tidiest things I've built.
Oh cool, nice.
Like usually, I don't use afile, I'm just.
You know all power tools, butI've been I've been filing that.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
That's not.
You helped me build my house.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
That's not what I want to hear, and my chairs and
tables, oh yeah, but you ground,you grounded those.
That's why they're so good.
Easily the best.
Uh, finishing on some of mychildren.
You're hired, mate.
You're here full time for thenext week.
Yeah, I think another thingthat, like university attempts
(07:16):
to like educate you, I keepsaying like history, and um sort
of looking at other architectsas reference points or which,
yeah, there's two conversationsthere history and then looking
at other artist models.
I guess History is one that Iwasn't overly interested in in
(07:38):
architecture school, butnowadays it's something I'm
getting super interested in.
I think there's like such awealth of reference points that
you can look to to inform yourarchitecture and contextualize
your architecture.
Every site has its own tangiblehistory, and it might even be
(07:58):
the family history of yourclient or your history.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
I wonder if it's the way, gerard, that they teach
history at university.
It's a long time ago now, but Ifeel like when they were
teaching it it was veryclassically focused or formally
focused, kind of looking atactual built form and looking at
stylistic history and thingslike that, rather than you're
talking about a little bit moreof a non-tangible history, which
(08:26):
I think is probably moreimportant yeah, and some of it
was probably just a bit dry.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
To be fair, get a little sleep.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
I'm trying to think if I've got any of like the old
history books sitting above meand in my office here, but I
think I might have came inpretty handy when I was in rome,
because I could name all fivecolumns still.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
That's about all I got out of five steps ahead of
me.
Heritage architect right there,I think, like that.
The other one is in designclass.
They'll tell you to go get abunch of precedents and when I
was tutoring at university, Isaw some shocking examples of
(09:15):
plagiarism.
It's like direct carbon copy ofZipfor's mine buildings
plastered onto another site.
Well, I guess it's a good placeto go through the plagiarism
education route whilst you're inschool, rather than smashing
out a building and realisingit's the exact copy of somebody
(09:35):
else's.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
It's interesting, though.
I've definitely heardprofessionals say that there are
no new ideas.
There's just ways that youbuild upon ones from the past,
which I think is quite aninteresting take, and you know,
there's architects out therethat have built their careers
off that concept.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
Yeah, and architects build their careers off.
You know trying to rebuttalthat concept.
Exactly, yeah, do you guysremember that building?
And uh, topo, it's like apretty much carbon copy of one
of the patchwork projects yes, Iremember that that lit up on
(10:15):
instagram for a while, butdirect copy pretty crazy, but
like a poorly executed copy.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
Do you know if there was any acceptance there, or was
it with the people fromPatchwork?
Did they agree to them to usethat same concept, or do you
reckon it was?
Speaker 1 (10:37):
just a story.
No, it was controversial.
It was being said on Instagram,right, but I think the people
it was like a little lodge thing, but they took down their
instagram page at the time.
Maybe they stuck it back upinteresting.
But yeah, it's like a prettybold move.
I well, new zealand maybe justhas a loose relationship with
(10:58):
respecting design in the firstplace, but to go and copy
somebody's buildings is prettyextreme I guess it's a benefit
of us being bound by a code ofethics.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
Right, we can't do that professionally, but we're
not the only people thatcontribute to the built
environment in New Zealand andother people aren't beholden to
such high standards.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
Can't imagine.
Speaker 3 (11:21):
It was an architect.
That project no high standards.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
Can't imagine it was an architect that project.
No, ben, how did your thesisbuild project?
Because that was some prettyearly sort of design build
experience.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
Yeah, that was kind of that kind of came from the
thesis subject, which was, youknow, efficiency in design or
digital manufacturing and myexperience in construction,
which kind of pointed out howinefficient traditional
construction is, and so that waskind of process-led.
(11:58):
So I kind of worked a littlebit backwards on that.
I wasn't really like, okay,cool, there's this opportunity
to design the 65 square meterstudio, let's, you know, let's
design it and then figure outhow to make it.
I actually spent a lot of timetrying to figure out how to make
(12:19):
the building efficiently beforethe job kind of fell on my lap
and we had designed it, and so Ikind of worked backwards on
that and designed it to suit theconstruction methodology.
And also that was the first CLTbuilding in the country.
(12:40):
That was for residential anyway, I'm not sure about commercial.
So it was kind of like anuntested material and that
material allowed for, you know,cnc manufacturing, which was
awesome.
So that became a part of theprocess and the design kind of
came into fruition from that.
(13:03):
So kind of a little bitbackwards.
I guess that's what's greatabout university it allows you
especially, like the thesis hereallows you just to test a whole
bunch of crazy stuff and figureout a way to put it together,
but I remember spending a heckof a long time on the actual
details and making sure it goestogether together as clean as
(13:26):
and as efficient as possible, asopposed to like making sure
that it's the most beautiful,elegant building in the world, I
guess.
So in terms of aestheticsalthough, like you know don't
get me wrong I was really happywith the design outcome and it.
I went through the standarddesign process of site
(13:48):
inspection and you know thatsort of thing sun orientation,
all those good things.
So the design definitely wasn'tlacking.
It was more driven by theprocess though, which I guess in
a lot of ways has has kind ofbecome a lot of my design ethos
(14:09):
even to this day thatpracticality in construction.
I like cleanliness and I likedetails that really, really work
.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
It's interesting being that it's interesting
being that something that youdeveloped that long ago a decade
ago or longer now ago thatyou're still implementing.
I was going to ask you that Doyou still design in that manner?
And maybe you don't design infirst principles in that manner,
but it clearly seems like it'sstill a large focus of you in
(14:39):
your design approach.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
Yeah, it definitely is.
I really enjoy that sort ofsimplicity in the design.
But it's kind of got into apoint now, with a little bit
more experience, that I knowthere's really not much I can't
build or, you know, get to thatlevel of of practicality.
So it's it's kind of lessprominent.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Now I'm really focusing on my design process
more of it in a traditionalsense, to try and build up those
skills a little bit more so Ican kind of combine them a
little bit more successfullyyeah, I think that was like a
pretty epic little project andquite a beautiful silhouette, to
be fair, and I think it's oneof those maybe slightly rarer
(15:25):
projects that nowadays thatblends like a line of inquiry,
like a conceptual thinking ofeven if that is around
construction, it's at the timestill conceptual and it kind of
blends that mind frame ofuniversity conceptual with
practice practicality, which is,yeah, like a pretty good
exemplar of like a good designprocess yeah, that's an
(15:50):
interesting point.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
I never really thought of it that way, but I
think we all went to um kirstenthompson's lecture the other day
.
She talked a lot about thatline of inquiry and it's so,
it's such, and I found, I justfound, found her design process
that she has is just so muchmore in depth than what I'm
(16:11):
currently capable of and itdefinitely makes me feel like a
kind of like a surfacearchitecture or designer, you
know.
So there's just so much more.
Yeah, I think there's just somuch more.
Speaker 3 (16:26):
Yeah, I think there's just so much more to do in that
area I think everybody leftthat architecture, that sorry
that talk, been feeling likethey could be a better architect
.
To be fair, yeah, for listenersout there, I'm pretty sure it
was recorded.
If you look at the FortunaLecture 2024 with Kirsten
Thompson, give that a view, it'spretty mind-blowing yeah.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
Yeah she's done some epic work Also she was awarded
the Australian gold medal, soshe's a pretty epic architect,
yeah deservingly so.
Yeah, and you do that quite abit yourself, don't you Gerard?
Deservingly so.
Yeah, and you do that quite abit yourself, don't you Gerard?
I mean, even the piccolo waskind of from a similar sort of
(17:10):
thing.
Your brief was like a mix artwith architecture.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
It seems to come more natural to you.
I don't know about that.
I think the line of inquirything is quite big for me.
Like when I first went intopractice I was, we were just
that practice.
We're just sort of makingbuildings.
There's no like deeper thing.
You're searching for no biggerwave that you're picking out of
(17:39):
the set.
So like I quite like to focuson projects that are
contributing something to what Ifind valuable within my
practice.
So, like the piccolo, I've beenlooking into instinctive
(18:00):
architecture, like pottery.
Sometimes you like you've cutout a bit of clay and you throw
it on your wheel and you mightchange your mind.
Or it's instinctive and there'stactility and you're working
with the material and you'remolding it as you go.
So the idea with the pixel wasthat, yes, everything's for free
(18:20):
and there's very strict, theseare your materials.
So I had to scrounge forage formaterials, but the idea was
that I wasn't really going todraw anything, I was just going
to materials.
But the idea was that I wasn'treally going to draw anything, I
was just going to startbuilding.
I kind of broke that rule anddid a, did a thumbnail, but it's
was.
It was a thumbnail, so there'sno details on a notepad I broke
(18:47):
the cardinal's cardinal rule.
But yeah, that kind of birthedout of this idea around an
instinctive decision making,trying to train yourself to
design came out of like afrustration with the first
office there not being any likearchitectural intent other than
(19:10):
enclosure and maybe some looseaesthetic.
We want to make somethingpretty, but for me I wanted like
a like a deeper line of inquiry.
Like your house and designingbackwards via construction is a
far deeper line of inquiry thanjust aesthetic or fulfilling a
(19:30):
program brief and may I just askwhy do you find that so
important?
I think it focuses.
I think I'm pretty big onviewing my work as a body of
work.
So my furniture or myarchitecture, I want it all to
well, it's all mine, so I bringmyself to it.
(19:53):
So I think design is inherentlypart of the designer and I
think to detach ourselves fullyfrom what we're designing so
that's one very clear thread inall my work is that my work and
being a sole practitioner thatsits in a shed by themselves and
chips away, it becomes like atsome point it would be a deep
(20:17):
thought.
You catch me just thinking yeah,I do a lot of thinking when I
first got my little workshop, Iused to just sit there and think
, and I had to like I'd havethis motto don't think, do,
because otherwise I'd just sitthere and like look at the chair
(20:40):
that I was making.
So I used to be a lot slowerand thoughtful.
Now, when I make furniture,it's like all right, let's make
a chair bam.
Speaker 3 (20:47):
Do you find that instinctive, kind of more
knee-jerk response Like?
Better is not necessarily theright term, but maybe, I don't
know, does it breed moreinteresting things, more
interesting designs?
Yes.
Speaker 1 (21:06):
I don't know.
Ask a satan in 20 years Becauseit's.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
I think you can definitely overthink things
right in design in general andthere's always a point where and
you never quite know where itis but there's that point of
you've gone too far with certaindesigns.
You know you can spend way toolong on them and you can almost
ruin them by overthinking thehell out of that.
Working on stage two of myhouse and I've redesigned that
thing like 11 times now and it'sgetting to the point where I'm
like just commit to something,you know what I mean like just
(21:37):
do it and just go, that's itdone yeah don't change your mind
yeah, definitely not that cutand dry, but there's a.
Speaker 1 (21:42):
There's a wonderful little window in there somewhere
.
Speaker 3 (21:45):
I guess there's that sweet spot, but it's really hard
to find where does theiterative process lie within
that?
Speaker 2 (21:52):
you know obviously your furniture, for example.
You have a quick idea, maybe aquick sketch, you go and build
the thing and then the next oneis probably the next iteration
of the last one.
That's the iterative processfor furniture in some way.
But what about for architecture, for example?
(22:14):
Sean Godsell, he is adamantthat he comes up with a concept
and then he tries to stick withthat initial concept as much as
possible.
Is there any room for iterationprior to, you know,
construction or completion, orthroughout the process?
Speaker 3 (22:33):
Or is it building to building, are you saying?
Speaker 1 (22:35):
Yeah, yeah, I think my theory on that is probably
more back to that sort ofpottery analogy as you get
closer to finishing the pot,you're kind of moulding down
into a finer level of detail andyou're making smaller design
moves.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
Right.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
But if you're then going to build half a house,
crush it, start again.
I think that's a differentkettle of fish Interesting yeah.
I think, if I just give a littlebit more context to how that
intuitive design thought camearound for me, I think it was
like at the initial jobeverything was very linear,
which is pretty common andexpected within architecture,
(23:13):
like clients need to know whatthey're building, councils need
to know what they're building,etc.
Etc.
But within me there's like thisdesire to think of a more
interesting or alternative way.
Maybe I am somebody who likesto reinvent wheels slightly.
So my first chair that I builtkind of came out of that
(23:33):
frustration.
I brought a shipping containerand started a tiny little
workshop in lyle bay.
In the first year I challengedmyself not to not to draw
anything.
There's another rule that Ibroke slightly was a couple of
sketches, but this chair that Imade is on my website.
I think it's cow and basket cameout of four little pull apart
(23:55):
canvas, steel sort of fold awaychairs and I chopped them up and
then just kind of held them inplace and tack welded them
together.
I hadn't welded before.
I had to go to bunnings and buya little welder.
That's how I learned how toweld, but out of that process
came a couple of shedbears.
In a chat with a good friend ofmine, pat, who makes awesome
(24:17):
push bikes, and we were talkingabout if you could train
yourself to make good designdecisions by following first
instinct principles, like if you, this is what I'm going to do
then, and then you start with itWithin the context of furniture
and small-scale projects whereyou're not ruining anybody's
lives but you can finish theproject, look back, critique and
(24:40):
then on your next one.
Then you follow Ideally.
Hopefully you make better andbetter decisions.
I kind of worked on that forprobably five years before I now
probably weigh things up a bitmore.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
Do you reckon, though , gerard, that, working through
that first instinct just designit, learn from the last one,
sorry, and it will apply to thenext one evolve you sort of hard
on a visual thing, but it'slike a weaving stream, right,
and you're kind of meanderingyour way down trying to find,
like that, that main body ofwater.
(25:16):
Do you think you've just said,five years on, now you're a
little bit more, I guess,focused?
Do you think that all of thatiterative work has eventually
now molded itself into like agood design approach and
philosophy that you can nowapply more confidently?
Speaker 1 (25:34):
Yeah, definitely Like .
I don't think I was a terribledesigner at university, but my
main designing learning camewhen I got the workshop and
worked on that.
I kind of thought of it for along time as the gym for design.
If you could smash out a fewchairs within half a year or
something, then that's a lotmore design learning that you've
(25:56):
just given yourself than onebuilding and a two-year-long
process.
I just thought the feedbackloop of architecture is so long
that it's really hard to well,there's just a lag time for
feedback before you realise youdid something good or bad, yeah.
And then I think much like howBen's probably building
apprenticeship led him to have agood enough awareness of
(26:21):
construction to be able todesign backwards, whereas most
university kids probablywouldn't be able to pull that
off.
I think building stuff in theworkshop with furniture allowed
me to play and experiment withmaterials and maybe understand
how they come together slightlybetter.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
It's not quite a building, but and is there a
correlation between that, whatyou've learned through that
process of developing andbuilding furniture, to say, your
architecture now?
Speaker 1 (26:53):
Yeah, I think as I go I've kind of been in this
conversation with myself on artand architecture, so like a
chair becomes too chair-like forme, so then I counter it with a
chair.
that's very helpful when youcan't sit on it and then it's
like so I think with anarchitecture as much of an
(27:17):
explorer.
So you're wanting to createsomething beautiful that works
for your client and that theycan be stoked with, but at the
same time you're trying to Ipersonally am trying to
experiment a little bit and comeup with new ways of doing
things.
(27:37):
Like Sam was saying, maybethat's impossible and we're
using the same old toolkit, butmuch like designing a chair over
and over again.
There's so much fun to be hadin designing something over and
over again, so I don't think I'dever get bored of the toolkit.
And it's interesting becausethat something over and over
again, so I don't think I'd everget bored of the toolkit.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
And it's interesting because that designing over and
over again thing even if you'redesigning the same thing over
and over again, which a lot ofus end up doing through the
iterative process, be it projectto project or within a project
every single time you put pen topaper or maybe not in your case
, gerard or even just thinkabout a design, you're always
(28:15):
tackling it slightly differently.
You're not redoing the samething every single time.
So even those little minutechanges or adjustments can lead
themselves to a good iterativeprocess.
I've found oh, definitely.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
That's probably the epitome of iteration there.
Speaker 3 (28:32):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
And we'll get better and better at these things, or
maybe we'll look back and thefirst one we made was the most
pure and most beautiful.
Everything else was Well that'sso true, right.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
Like you know you talk about that like just design
, immediately, first principles,instinctive design, and you
know there's always that oldadage, you know there's always
that old adage, you know yourfirst answer is always right.
Maybe that is the case and youjust spend a long time hopefully
not a whole career makingeverything slightly worse Maybe.
Speaker 1 (29:06):
I think to develop this thinking self-critique is
massively important and critiquewhere you can find it and trust
it.
I think for anybody, if you canfind somebody that you respect
that will offer you critique isinvaluable, I think, to your own
design development, because sooften universities kind ofened
(29:32):
the rein on the crit.
Speaker 3 (29:34):
But I think that's where we learn so much, when
somebody with more knowledgethan you can sort of feed into
your, into your life, likeyou're getting more out of it
out of that than they are, evenif it's hurting your feelings
well, yeah, I mean at universityyou can be reduced to tears by
in a critique, but in theprofessional realm it doesn't
(29:54):
really happen anymore, not andlike not saying that it's a good
or bad thing, but there isn'treally that mechanism for really
involved, truthful and criticalresponse within the design
process in practice.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
You, you know what I mean, yeah, I think Kirsten in
her lecture mentioned that heroffice does design crits and I
think probably a handful ofoffices do that internally and
it's probably super beneficialwithin their work.
You're out of by yourself, yeah, in your shed how about you say
(30:35):
yourself, sam, have you?
Speaker 2 (30:37):
have you got like a an interesting process, or is it
more just experience thatyou've acquired over time?
Speaker 3 (30:46):
yeah, we're sort of it's interesting hearing both
you guys talk and my process, Iguess, or I guess our practices
process now sort of falls intothe camp of two things that you
guys have discussed.
I mean, we've got, we're reallychampioning, a certain product
(31:06):
or a material which helps withmodular construction, and so
we're using that as or thatmodule, like a 1200 by 2400
module, as a design driver andseeing how far we can push that
and how creative we can be witha material size that's universal
and therefore means that underconstruction is going to be
(31:26):
super low waste.
So that sort of like I guessleans into what you've talked
about, ben, with your process,and then also gerard, I think I
don't know if I've met, if it'snecessarily an instinctive
decision, but I've found that inthe last sort of three or four
(31:46):
buildings that I've designed orcompleted, there's a clear
lineage through them and Iwouldn't say that they look the
same, but they're definitelysiblings, if you know what I
mean and my approach each timevery different sites, very
different constraints from termsof budget and constructability
(32:09):
and things like that, butultimately the outcome's very
similar and, just for want of abetter term, I'd like to really
summarize it in sort of the mostbasic form is.
I've just looked at stacking,really, and just the way that
you can stack elements together,be that entire building modules
(32:32):
or be that materials, andstacking has kind of been like a
big focus and it's clearlyvisible through the last sort of
several designs that I've done.
But I still haven't landed onwhat works 100% and I think
we're all very young designersand it will take a long time, a
whole career, to realize whatyour golden egg is.
Speaker 1 (32:57):
Yeah, often only done in absolute hindsight, probably
by somebody else, exactly right.
Speaker 3 (33:03):
I don't think you'll ever know, because you're always
going to be seeking somethingelse or seeking something
different.
Or you know right at the startof the podcast we talked about
precedent and outside you knowexternal influence and every
you'll see something that willpique your interest.
Or you know a design thatyou'll want to know more about
(33:24):
and you'll go into into it indepth and find out what the
processes were behind that, andthen you adopt some of that into
your own design and thereforeit's going to influence it.
So it's a complete, it's aconstantly evolving practice
it's a little bit like surfing.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
You know, we're out there in search of something, in
search of the next wave.
That's that little need inthere to like keep searching and
keep looking, I think is a coretenet to design, in my opinion.
Speaker 3 (33:53):
Yeah, it's funny.
It'd be interesting to see whatyour thoughts are on this.
But, having designed my ownhouse, you like to think that
the design that you've done foryour own house where you're your
, you have your own brief andyou're kind of unconstrained in
a way means that you'd be ableto put all of your design
(34:15):
learning together and produceyour best design.
Speaker 2 (34:18):
But it's definitely not the case like, yeah, but
you're always testing a littlebit more with your own stuff
because you can get away with it, you know.
But yeah, it's definitely notthe case for me as well,
unfortunately.
There's a whole bunch of stuffI would go back and change.
However, I think somehow I'mnot sure how, but I think like
(34:44):
one of the hard things aboutarchitecture is you don't really
generally get to spend a hellof a lot of time on site.
So for your own house, like formine especially and I lived
there for years before I built ahouse on it so I knew exactly
where everything was, where theprominent wind direction was the
(35:07):
trees, the contours, what Icould get away with moving the
sun, especially in a place likeWellington, I guess, like mine,
kind of what Gerard was talkingabout just came out
instinctively, just based on theamount of time that I'd
actually spent on that site.
(35:28):
So like, if I would go back, Iwouldn't actually change the
general design of my house, itwould just be some of that
fine-tuning stuff, polishing itaround the edges.
But yeah, so that's not a bigdeal, but it is quite
interesting going through theprocess now where you don't
really get to spend a hell of alot of time on site.
(35:50):
You know you might do like aquick site investigation, take
some photos etc.
But you it's so much harder toreally just get those
instinctive thoughts and andabout the site when you, when
you haven't actually likeexperienced it for even a day,
you know.
So yeah, I think that's quiteinteresting.
(36:13):
It's hard to design photos or asite analysis.
Speaker 1 (36:17):
Your house is like.
In terms of sunshine it'spretty epic, like such a nice
space to hang out in and thetimber ceiling and the beams.
Speaker 2 (36:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (36:28):
Down to the details of your hidden steel plates to
make your portal frame.
I think it's a pretty wellexecuted house.
Speaker 2 (36:38):
Thanks, mate.
Speaker 1 (36:39):
Props, props.
Speaker 2 (36:40):
Props given, it's the hour to build it.
Speaker 1 (36:43):
Yeah, that's why it's so good.
Exactly, I think education hasa little misstep, I think in
that it perhaps teaches you tonot do things instinctively.
One of the key learning momentsI had in uni was when a tutor
(37:06):
was like I'm not sure why I didthis, I just did it.
And he was like you do, you'vedone it.
You've done it for a reason.
You just don't know what thereason is.
It's within you somewhere.
And that's when I started tochange my view on design a
little bit and start to have alittle bit more courage to back
myself and think about what myinput was, versus looking for
(37:33):
external influence from amid-century architect that I
really liked and picking bitsout of their building to put in
mine.
Speaker 3 (37:41):
It's interesting.
Sorry, Joe, continue.
Speaker 1 (37:47):
Oh, that's kind of it really, just learning to back
yourself a little bit and thenthen from there you start to
build up your own body of workand start to figure out your
design identity.
I guess what you're interestedin, yeah.
Speaker 3 (38:01):
It's interesting you make that comment about having
to justify yourself or justify adesign decision, because I
don't know about you guys, butI've so often just done
something, and be it an epiphany, be it just sort of some
deep-seated influence that'smanifested somehow or whatever,
(38:23):
or even just doodling on a pieceof paper, and all of a sudden
you're like, oh, that looks likeit works, and but every single
time, particularly when it comesto presenting to clients, I've
always felt that I've had tojustify that somehow, and be
that try and connect it to siteor try and connect it to a
precedent or try and connect itto some line of thinking, and so
(38:44):
often you're trying topost-rationalize something that
just really has no backing.
It's like doing a maths testand getting the right answer but
having no working behind it.
I don't think there's anythingwrong with that.
I I completely agree.
Speaker 2 (38:56):
In fact, I'd definitely prefer that than you
know turn up to site and findthis shell and be like oh, the
contours of the shell mimic thesite and that's why I've created
this circular ceiling structurebut also that's also a
(39:16):
beautiful way to design.
Speaker 3 (39:18):
It's just not the only way to design.
I guess it's kind of what we'regetting to in the crux of this
conversation.
Right is that there is no rightanswer, there's just lots of
different approaches Ipersonally find that can be very
cringy sometimes.
Speaker 2 (39:34):
I will never be the type of person that says any of
that shit to a client, so thisshow I think.
Speaker 3 (39:44):
Can you remember?
Oh, it's a great, it's a greatvideo.
It's a video of frank garydesigning and he's basically
like sitting in a chair and he'sgot some lackey scrunching up
bits of paper for him andsticking them on a thing and
he's like, oh, now cut that up,now pull that off, now scrunch
that bit of paper up, yeah,that'll do kind of approach.
(40:05):
It's interesting.
It's just a different way oftackling a problem, right, yeah,
some very clear.
And I mean it's interesting.
It's just a different way oftackling a problem, right, yeah?
Speaker 2 (40:11):
Bianca makes some very clear and you know, design
changes kind of like that, in asimilar way though his, I think
are a lot more kind of practicalbut also just using a heck of a
lot of common sense.
Speaker 1 (40:31):
So it can be done successfully as well.
Yeah, I think university taughteveryone in our year anyway to
to hate frank gary.
There's a massive likemisunderstanding there because
the guy has got some of thegnarliest, most complex
buildings built.
Yeah, like he's got them acrossthe gnarliest, most complex
buildings built, he's got themacross the line.
(40:52):
That guy must be one hell of acommunicator in a meeting.
Speaker 3 (40:55):
Yeah, I think he's remarkable.
I think the buildings areremarkable.
They're not necessarily toeveryone's taste but it's
incredible architecture.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
The commitment to process and then the technical
understanding to get that built.
I mean they used to developsoftware around that bloody
office.
That's just truly.
Epic RSS.
And then the technicalunderstanding to get that built.
I mean they used to developsoftware around that bloody
office.
That's just truly epic.
Basically the reason Rhinoexists, right, yeah, the guy's
wild.
I think influence from otherarchitects is a big thing for me
(41:27):
because I view myself and mypractice and it's like what sort
of work am I trying to do?
What you know, these themesthat we're talking about, quite
influenced by other architects,which I much like everyone, I
think.
I kind of think at the momentthere's a whole generation of
mini Zimthors making like verybeautiful, elegant, elegant,
(41:48):
elemental architecture, sort ofall across Australia and New
Zealand, I think at the moment.
Speaker 2 (41:54):
Yeah Well, is anyone influenced by another
architect's or firm's process,as opposed to just their
building?
Speaker 1 (42:05):
Yes, much like Zumthor being elemental and very
refined material architect, Ithink Thomas sorry, ann Holtrop
is another one makingbeautifully refined buildings
that are super material andprocess rich, and somebody that
(42:28):
I've taken like big influencefrom within, like the material
exploration side of things.
So that's just playing withmaterials is something that's
becoming massive for me andHoltrop, like, for example, made
a column.
I think it was a fabric sleevethat then cast the column inside
(42:51):
.
Speaker 2 (42:52):
Yeah, I've seen that, that's awesome.
Speaker 1 (42:53):
More fabric quality to it.
Speaker 2 (42:57):
It's a product now.
Did you know that?
Speaker 3 (43:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (43:03):
Epic One of the most interesting architects, I think,
of the time at the moment andthe exploration with glass
casting and then aluminiumcasting, then making these wall
concrete panels by just diggingin the ground seemingly
(43:23):
haphazardly and then castinglike a very crisp panel over top
of it and just tilting it up,and then that texture becoming
the finished face of the wall.
Yeah well, so that's awesome.
I think that that process andthat connection to material and
structure is super important howmuch do you think that?
Speaker 3 (43:46):
and, yeah, how much do you think that you need the
right clients to be able to kindof embark on that
experimentation, or do you thinkthat it's the practice, a
practice's responsibility toexperiment sort of on their own
time?
That's something that we'vediscussed in our practice is
like one of our business goalsfor this year, or practice goals
(44:08):
for this year, is to spend moretime on rmd, basically, and
just yeah, design processes andthings.
Speaker 1 (44:14):
But yeah, I think 100 practice like it has to be an
intention or a goal of yours tooutwork these things rather than
waiting for a client to comeand say hey, I want you to do
something extravagant withconcrete till panels.
Speaker 3 (44:29):
You need to go and find that yourself is what you
get yeah, so you start designingit in yeah yeah, you get an
overly specific brief asking fora concrete panel carved in the
ground.
But I look dirty yeah, but Iargue that's been a shortcoming
of ours has been not affordingourselves that time to be
experimental and sort of wait,hoping for a, for a project that
(44:52):
will let you do that, yeah, andif we realize that and be like
oh shit, we've kind of doneourselves a discredit here.
We need to be more proactive.
But I feel like that'ssomething, gerard, that you've
been doing for a while now yeah,off the theory that you get the
work you're seen doing.
Speaker 1 (45:07):
So that's one of the reasons why I take time to
document everything that I do.
Is that adds to this body ofwork that hopefully the right
people that like to explore andcome up with strange ideas see.
And then you attract those typeof clients.
That's the theory.
Ask me in 20 years whether thatworks.
(45:29):
You attract those type ofclients.
That's the theory.
Ask me in 20 years whether thatworks.
I think the notion that I'mwaiting for the perfect client
is also a big driving force inthe way I do things.
That was the attitude of theprevious office and so I thought
if I could flip that businessmodel and be kind of particular
about the work I did with theidea that you might get the work
(45:52):
you're seeing doing AmbitiousAgain, we'll see.
But yeah, I think it's the roleof the architect to explore
what they're inherentlyinterested in, even if it's a
retaining wall in a garden, andthat's what you're getting to.
Speaker 2 (46:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (46:12):
And then I guess it's a retaining wall in the garden
and that's what you're gettingto, yeah things out.
And then I guess it's a matterof being confident in being able
to implement that into anyproject.
Like you said, start small, forclients, I'm sure and then
build bigger and bigger andbigger, right, yeah?
you need to be confident inyourself to employ that into
designs, because so often I feellike we're reticent too,
(46:33):
because we're like, oh, theymight not like that, maybe tried
is it acceptable to take theother route and just build, just
get a lot built?
Of course I mean everything'sacceptable.
These are just different waysof skinning a cat.
Speaker 1 (46:54):
There's a few ways to skin the old cat, a few ways to
skin a stone, yeah, yeah, Ithink one allows you to start
now and one allows you to maybestart in 10 years.
For me, experimentation andplaying is super important to me
(47:15):
, so I kind of put that abovemaking money at this stage of my
career.
There's a quote from a littlevideo Daniel Liebenskin did Vice
to the Young.
That I've taken far tooseriously and implemented far
too rigorously in my life wasthat do what you love and take
(47:36):
risks while you're young and youwill never be a loser.
I used to repeat it in theoffice that I was sharing a
space in over and over againYou'll never be a loser.
Speaker 2 (47:49):
Made me no sense, I don't see why it can't be one
and the same.
I don't see why you can't makemoney and have fun creating the
type of architecture you want tocreate.
Speaker 3 (48:01):
I think that comes back down to the confidence in
your ability as well.
Right, you know you need to beable to and this is sorry to
harken back to the KirstenThompson lecture, but this is
something that she really drovehome was you need to be able to
promote yourself well, and notjust yourself, but the role of
(48:23):
the architect well, and youreally need to kind of go into
bat for each other in the builtrealm, and there's far too much
that's done out there that isgeneric and boring because
architects aren't involved.
But it's our role to make thebuilt environment interesting
and therefore, like we should beinvolved at all stages.
(48:45):
So, yeah, we could definitelystill make money and be creative
and experimental.
Speaker 1 (48:56):
Yeah, architects definitely need to advocate for
architecture a little bit morevocally.
I think thomas heatherwick'shumanize campaign have just
launched a for studies byscientists people into the
correlation between your brainself-esteem well-being and the
correlation between your brainself-esteem well-being and the
quality of your builtenvironment.
I don't know if that's overlybeen done in such a direct way
(49:19):
before, so that'll be aninteresting thing to get a quote
on what's the outcome Hopefullypositive.
Speaker 3 (49:30):
The formal studies have just been like last week or
something on there I think wecould all I think we could all
agree, without the study beingeven being undertaken, that your
environment, the environment inwhich you exist, and be that
your home, be that your workenvironment, social environment,
whatever does directlyinfluence your health, both
(49:53):
mentally and physically.
Speaker 1 (49:54):
Yeah, it would be a pretty awesome study.
We should do something on thatcampaign at some point.
Speaker 2 (50:00):
Yeah, that sounds good.
Hey, Sam, just going back towhat you were talking about
before regarding the R&D, whatkind of things have you been
thinking about?
Speaker 3 (50:11):
Well, I guess this comes back to this sort of I've
talked about it before thiscitrus concept, where last year
we were frustrated and concernedabout the lack of work coming
in and we're like we need tofront foot this.
And we're like, well, what'ssomething that's super important
to us as a practice and we seeas being critical, and
(50:36):
particularly the residentialbuilt environment, and that's
high performance and quality,but also efficiency.
And so that's where we came upwith the idea to take 1200 by 24
module and then just try anddesign buildings purely based on
that 100.
So you're essentially lookingat zero wastage.
So that's been an r&d processfor us and for us and we've
(50:58):
we've designed six buildings,full packages, prospectus,
everything.
We've put in huge amounts ofwork in that realm for zero
financial gain so far.
But but what that's enabled usto do is it's enabled us to be
super experimental and we'velearned a lot in that process.
We've learned, holy shit, youcan do a lot with a simple
(51:19):
module and formally andaesthetically you're not really
that constrained, you just haveto be clever.
So that's been a really goodprocess.
And then I think what we've juststarted doing a little bit more
, something that we've alwayswanted to do but never afforded
ourselves the time to do, ismodel, just 3d model and just
play.
I mean, gerard, I'm sure thatyou do that a lot, but so often
(51:42):
in practice, concept design,work, what have you?
It's not people don't.
People don't model like theydid at university or or whatever
.
And I think that's because it'sseen people don't.
People don't model like theydid at university or or whatever
.
And I think that's because it'sseen as taking a long time.
Are you talking?
about like messing or what inparticular yep, messing
materiality details, you knowlike one-to-one scale stuff,
(52:05):
anything just be more.
Just focus on like moretangible and physical 3d design
development we so quickly moveinto like a computer or a
digital realm or what have you.
Speaker 2 (52:17):
When's the last time you built a model like a
physical model?
Me, yeah, maybe like two weeksago.
Oh nice, that's good I score.
Speaker 3 (52:26):
I don't want to yes, I need to build more models, but
before then it was probably twoyears, and that's because I've
made a conscious decision to tryand do it more, you know.
Speaker 2 (52:37):
What do you go for, like polystyrene or clay?
What's your media?
Speaker 3 (52:43):
What's your media of choice?
I'm just a classic white cardkind of guy.
Ah yep, victoria nice.
Speaker 1 (52:49):
What mill are we talking about?
Speaker 3 (52:51):
We're talking like 1.2.
Speaker 1 (52:55):
How sharp's your scalpel?
Speaker 3 (52:57):
Here's some card.
Oh yeah, good, yeah, buddy.
Speaker 2 (53:01):
Yeah.
Okay and did you find it useful?
Speaker 3 (53:05):
Absolutely Like formerly.
I was able to test so manydifferent things that would have
spent me ages trying to workout how to draw or model on a
computer very quickly, likewithin half an hour, 45 minutes.
It was a roof form that I wastrying to work out and I was
trying to work out theproportions of it and the angles
(53:25):
of it and within like like 45minutes I'd maybe done 10, 12
different iterations and landedon one that looked correct.
And then, basically, I tooksomething that was this big and
went and scaled it up to thesize of a building.
Speaker 1 (53:40):
Quick one-to-one mock-up.
Speaker 2 (53:41):
What about you, Gerard?
Do you do any mock-up modeling?
Speaker 3 (53:46):
Steel, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (53:49):
Fold the steel.
I have made some steel, uharchitectural models, oh awesome
.
Speaker 1 (54:06):
That's also like a big, a big site mesh.
So I think only till that tarpits project where they all had
council and everyone had awhinge and wanted more actual
renders.
Previous to that he would onlytake photos of models and put a
little bit of photoshopping tochuck a couple of people in
(54:27):
there or something cool.
So their office make massive,massive models.
So like their internal rendersare photographs of models, so
then you can like kind of get amore natural light quality and
that's awesome yeah, I thinkthat's a pretty epic way to work
.
I think I haven't haven't goneto that extent.
Speaker 3 (54:51):
R&D man, afford yourself the time.
Speaker 1 (54:53):
Yeah hard.
Speaker 2 (54:55):
What about you, Ben?
Definitely inspired by that.
Yeah, and Makers obviously usedto do a bit more but had a nice
workshop, so not so much at themoment.
Speaker 1 (55:05):
You used to do lots of one-to-one mock-ups, didn't
you?
They just happen to havebuilding consents on them.
Yeah, yeah, I'll make you amodel we used to get into making
them out of just CNCing them.
Speaker 2 (55:19):
It seemed like a fun thing to do when you've got a
CNC machine and no clientscoming in.
That was definitely earlystages, but nah, nah, I haven't
for a while.
But I've been thinking a lotabout it recently and I think
I'm going to do one.
I think I'm going to do one.
I'm going to do one within thenext two weeks by the time the
(55:45):
next episode comes out.
Speaker 3 (55:47):
I'm not all done.
Show and tell for the nextepisode is your little model, oh
, okay.
Speaker 2 (55:54):
That's a lot of pressure.
My niece actually has someplaster, so maybe I bust that
out Nice.
Speaker 1 (56:03):
I think just using your hands is pretty epic.
There's a lot to be benefitedfrom that.
Perhaps after university you gothrough practice and economics
get in the way and you have tosmash stuff out pretty quickly,
unless your office has amodel-making budget.
(56:23):
But I think making is epic andto making is the design gym.
Speaker 2 (56:31):
Yeah, what's your saying.
Busy fingers.
Speaker 1 (56:34):
What is it?
Oh, there was a little quotewhich sort of validated my whole
thing was Renzo Piano, the OGbuilding workshop guy, had this
quote happy hands, happy mind,Nice, yeah, that's good.
If you're building stuff, thenit's ultimately good for your
morale self-esteem.
Speaker 3 (56:54):
Is that a good place to end things?
Yeah, I've got a model to makeyeah.
Speaker 1 (56:59):
I think I just want a little sum up of.
Speaker 3 (57:01):
Yeah, go for it, mate .
Speaker 1 (57:05):
That people should give things a go, give it a
crack Again.
We've just done a chairexhibition in Christchurch with
object space a pretty awesomething to be included in.
But within that you have chatswith some people and they're
like, oh, I could never design achair or you need to design all
(57:27):
these other bits of furniturebefore you design a chair.
But something like that isessentially a small building.
I think people shouldn't feelthat barrier and they should
just give things a crack and youmight surprise yourself.
Speaker 2 (57:42):
Just get into it let's get it done, then it's
done.
Cool, if you do it, then it'sdone.
Speaking of doing it, don'tforget to hit that subscribe
button and leave a review orleave a comment.
Even better, feel free just tosend a comment, and if you have
(58:04):
anything interesting that youwant us to talk about, we'd love
to know about it.
Speaker 3 (58:09):
Send it to our address that they're sending
this to info atdesignprinciplespodcom or hit
our dms at designprinciplespodon ig easy, I would love to hear
from you that's the pod.
Thank you see y'all.
(58:29):
Thank you.
Hello and welcome.
You're back with the DesignPrincipal podcast with myself,
gerard from Gerard DabrowskiWorkshop, ben Bear Architecture,
sam from Aret.
Today we're trying to ventureinto the topic of design.
It's a big, large, weird,wonderful conversation which is
kind of a consistent thread,namely at the Design Principles
(00:34):
podcast.
So today we're going to talkabout it in slightly more focus,
starting off with sort of likea chronological overview, I
guess, of how we went througheducation and sort of our own
stories and what we focus on andthings that we want to focus on
, I guess.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Nice, do you want to kick us off, then?
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
I guess we all went to university together in the
same class, so that's goodcontext for everyone listening.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
Victoria University, Wellington.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Good old days, simple times, one might say.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Take me back.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Yeah.
So, Ben, what do you reckonuniversity sort of sets you up
for in terms of designapproaches?
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Yeah, I loved it.
I had a lot of fun.
I was coming out of a buildingapprenticeship so when I started
I was slightly older thaneveryone else, maybe 20.
So yeah, it had been four yearsor something since I'd been at
school and just really enjoyedthe challenge and the design
(01:42):
side of things.
I guess it just got me thinkingabout how to be creative again
kind of lose that as a young age.
So, yeah, I had a good time.
I learned a lot.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Yeah, I remember it being like heavily conceptual
from the start.
It took me half a year to sortof figure out the expectation of
the ideas that were expected.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
It's not.
It's interesting because, well,I think that's also Vic's
approach, in the sense that it'squite a conceptually focused
school, whereas Unitec, forinstance, is more technically
focused.
But I think one thing itteaches you probably the main
thing it teaches you is how tothink critically.
That's what I felt.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
Yeah, university architecture, university
students are famously critical.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
Yeah, yeah, definitely.
And a lot of feedback was youknow you kind of get from those
universities probably Vicespecially is they don't really
prepare you for practice andthat's all.
That's all kind of you knowunderstandable.
However, do you really want tobe prepared for practice?
(02:58):
I guess like there's someinteresting things that would
have been great to know, maybeon the more business side of
things, but in terms of likedesign, it's really just about
getting those creative juicesflowing and coming up with your
own design process.
You know so when you you areexpected to develop a concept,
(03:21):
you kind of have some idea ofhow to start and how to go about
it.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
So I guess the fundamentals were there
interesting what you're saying,ben, about.
Well, you know, it teaches youhow to how to design.
And then, obviously, talkingabout moving into practice, and
I think university it teachesyou good design skills, it
teaches you to think criticallyand it gives you the opportunity
of freedom.
Uh, you know there's verylittle parameters and then for
(03:47):
many of us not all, but for manyof us you leave university and
you go and work in a firm ofvarying scales and that design I
guess freedom is quashed alittle bit, depending on what
role you move into I've saidfirm and then all you almost
have to retrain yourself how todesign again.
And, gerard, I think, based onmy conversation points that
(04:09):
you've outlined for today,that's going to be a big talking
point for you.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
Yeah, it's kind of like a roll of the dice for a
lot of people what autonomy theyget within their practice or
what sort of reign they get.
University is super theoreticaland like allows you to think of
crazy awesome, exciting ideas.
But it's kind of also I'vefound it kind of suffers from
lack of parameters and sometimeslike parameters are seen as
(04:38):
like a negative thing.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Oh no, I'm too strained in, but I think more
often than not, parameters arewhat leads to like exciting
design maneuvers, like waysaround things it was good for
certainly good for deadlinesanyway yeah, by having
parameters or not havingparameters nah, nah, just like
university in general, I feellike my memory of university is
(05:03):
just like so many deadlines andeverything kind of being less
left to the last minute and andput together in a hurry to get
across the line and all yourpresentations.
You've had like no sleep thenight before, or only a few
hours, and everyone wasbasically in the same same boat,
which was kind of hilarious.
(05:24):
Considering the amount of workwe actually had to do was sweet
in comparison to now yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Each year you look back and you're like, oh, that
was pretty manageable.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
It sounds like oh, I wish I could do it again, so I
could clean it up.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
To be fair, those last-minute deadline rushes
still continue into professionalpractice.
Maybe I think it's just ourcharacter is that we leave
everything to the last minute?
Speaker 1 (05:50):
yeah, well, the old adage you know if you leave it
to the last minute, it onlytakes a minute.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Well, I kind of know that about myself now.
That's why I set the deadlineswith such a tight time frame, so
it forces me into that lastminute.
Get it done.
Speaker 1 (06:05):
Stress yeah, if you do it, then it's done get it
done, then it's done timemanagement's a whole another uh
podcast that we should dosometime I kind of need to set
deadlines, otherwise like, yeah,you kind of need that bit of
urgency, a little carrot and aSpeaking of deadlines, Gerard,
how's that door going for Rob Is?
(06:29):
That powder coat mate.
Oh good, Sweet, I was theretoday.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
It's on the critical path, mate, so we've got to get
that thing in.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
It's one of the tidiest things I've built.
Oh cool, nice.
Like usually, I don't use afile, I'm just.
You know all power tools, butI've been I've been filing that.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
That's not.
You helped me build my house.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
That's not what I want to hear, and my chairs and
tables, oh yeah, but you ground,you grounded those.
That's why they're so good.
Easily the best.
Uh, finishing on some of mychildren.
You're hired, mate.
You're here full time for thenext week.
Yeah, I think another thingthat, like university attempts
(07:16):
to like educate you, I keepsaying like history, and um sort
of looking at other architectsas reference points or which,
yeah, there's two conversationsthere history and then looking
at other artist models.
I guess History is one that Iwasn't overly interested in in
(07:38):
architecture school, butnowadays it's something I'm
getting super interested in.
I think there's like such awealth of reference points that
you can look to to inform yourarchitecture and contextualize
your architecture.
Every site has its own tangiblehistory, and it might even be
(07:58):
the family history of yourclient or your history.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
I wonder if it's the way, gerard, that they teach
history at university.
It's a long time ago now, but Ifeel like when they were
teaching it it was veryclassically focused or formally
focused, kind of looking atactual built form and looking at
stylistic history and thingslike that, rather than you're
talking about a little bit moreof a non-tangible history, which
(08:26):
I think is probably moreimportant yeah, and some of it
was probably just a bit dry.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
To be fair, get a little sleep.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
I'm trying to think if I've got any of like the old
history books sitting above meand in my office here, but I
think I might have came inpretty handy when I was in rome,
because I could name all fivecolumns still.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
That's about all I got out of five steps ahead of
me.
Heritage architect right there,I think, like that.
The other one is in designclass.
They'll tell you to go get abunch of precedents and when I
was tutoring at university, Isaw some shocking examples of
(09:15):
plagiarism.
It's like direct carbon copy ofZipfor's mine buildings
plastered onto another site.
Well, I guess it's a good placeto go through the plagiarism
education route whilst you're inschool, rather than smashing
out a building and realisingit's the exact copy of somebody
(09:35):
else's.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
It's interesting, though.
I've definitely heardprofessionals say that there are
no new ideas.
There's just ways that youbuild upon ones from the past,
which I think is quite aninteresting take, and you know,
there's architects out therethat have built their careers
off that concept.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
Yeah, and architects build their careers off.
You know trying to rebuttalthat concept.
Exactly, yeah, do you guysremember that building?
And uh, topo, it's like apretty much carbon copy of one
of the patchwork projects yes, Iremember that that lit up on
(10:15):
instagram for a while, butdirect copy pretty crazy, but
like a poorly executed copy.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
Do you know if there was any acceptance there, or was
it with the people fromPatchwork?
Did they agree to them to usethat same concept, or do you
reckon it was?
Speaker 1 (10:37):
just a story.
No, it was controversial.
It was being said on Instagram,right, but I think the people
it was like a little lodge thing, but they took down their
instagram page at the time.
Maybe they stuck it back upinteresting.
But yeah, it's like a prettybold move.
I well, new zealand maybe justhas a loose relationship with
(10:58):
respecting design in the firstplace, but to go and copy
somebody's buildings is prettyextreme I guess it's a benefit
of us being bound by a code ofethics.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
Right, we can't do that professionally, but we're
not the only people thatcontribute to the built
environment in New Zealand andother people aren't beholden to
such high standards.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
Can't imagine.
Speaker 3 (11:21):
It was an architect.
That project no high standards.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
Can't imagine it was an architect that project.
No, ben, how did your thesisbuild project?
Because that was some prettyearly sort of design build
experience.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
Yeah, that was kind of that kind of came from the
thesis subject, which was, youknow, efficiency in design or
digital manufacturing and myexperience in construction,
which kind of pointed out howinefficient traditional
construction is, and so that waskind of process-led.
(11:58):
So I kind of worked a littlebit backwards on that.
I wasn't really like, okay,cool, there's this opportunity
to design the 65 square meterstudio, let's, you know, let's
design it and then figure outhow to make it.
I actually spent a lot of timetrying to figure out how to make
(12:19):
the building efficiently beforethe job kind of fell on my lap
and we had designed it, and so Ikind of worked backwards on
that and designed it to suit theconstruction methodology.
And also that was the first CLTbuilding in the country.
(12:40):
That was for residential anyway, I'm not sure about commercial.
So it was kind of like anuntested material and that
material allowed for, you know,cnc manufacturing, which was
awesome.
So that became a part of theprocess and the design kind of
came into fruition from that.
(13:03):
So kind of a little bitbackwards.
I guess that's what's greatabout university it allows you
especially, like the thesis hereallows you just to test a whole
bunch of crazy stuff and figureout a way to put it together,
but I remember spending a heckof a long time on the actual
details and making sure it goestogether together as clean as
(13:26):
and as efficient as possible, asopposed to like making sure
that it's the most beautiful,elegant building in the world, I
guess.
So in terms of aestheticsalthough, like you know don't
get me wrong I was really happywith the design outcome and it.
I went through the standarddesign process of site
(13:48):
inspection and you know thatsort of thing sun orientation,
all those good things.
So the design definitely wasn'tlacking.
It was more driven by theprocess though, which I guess in
a lot of ways has has kind ofbecome a lot of my design ethos
(14:09):
even to this day thatpracticality in construction.
I like cleanliness and I likedetails that really, really work
.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
It's interesting being that it's interesting
being that something that youdeveloped that long ago a decade
ago or longer now ago thatyou're still implementing.
I was going to ask you that Doyou still design in that manner?
And maybe you don't design infirst principles in that manner,
but it clearly seems like it'sstill a large focus of you in
(14:39):
your design approach.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
Yeah, it definitely is.
I really enjoy that sort ofsimplicity in the design.
But it's kind of got into apoint now, with a little bit
more experience, that I knowthere's really not much I can't
build or, you know, get to thatlevel of of practicality.
So it's it's kind of lessprominent.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Now I'm really focusing on my design process
more of it in a traditionalsense, to try and build up those
skills a little bit more so Ican kind of combine them a
little bit more successfullyyeah, I think that was like a
pretty epic little project andquite a beautiful silhouette, to
be fair, and I think it's oneof those maybe slightly rarer
(15:25):
projects that nowadays thatblends like a line of inquiry,
like a conceptual thinking ofeven if that is around
construction, it's at the timestill conceptual and it kind of
blends that mind frame ofuniversity conceptual with
practice practicality, which is,yeah, like a pretty good
exemplar of like a good designprocess yeah, that's an
(15:50):
interesting point.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
I never really thought of it that way, but I
think we all went to um kirstenthompson's lecture the other day
.
She talked a lot about thatline of inquiry and it's so,
it's such, and I found, I justfound, found her design process
that she has is just so muchmore in depth than what I'm
(16:11):
currently capable of and itdefinitely makes me feel like a
kind of like a surfacearchitecture or designer, you
know.
So there's just so much more.
Yeah, I think there's just somuch more.
Speaker 3 (16:26):
Yeah, I think there's just so much more to do in that
area I think everybody leftthat architecture, that sorry
that talk, been feeling likethey could be a better architect
.
To be fair, yeah, for listenersout there, I'm pretty sure it
was recorded.
If you look at the FortunaLecture 2024 with Kirsten
Thompson, give that a view, it'spretty mind-blowing yeah.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
Yeah she's done some epic work Also she was awarded
the Australian gold medal, soshe's a pretty epic architect,
yeah deservingly so.
Yeah, and you do that quite abit yourself, don't you Gerard?
Deservingly so.
Yeah, and you do that quite abit yourself, don't you Gerard?
I mean, even the piccolo waskind of from a similar sort of
(17:10):
thing.
Your brief was like a mix artwith architecture.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
It seems to come more natural to you.
I don't know about that.
I think the line of inquirything is quite big for me.
Like when I first went intopractice I was, we were just
that practice.
We're just sort of makingbuildings.
There's no like deeper thing.
You're searching for no biggerwave that you're picking out of
(17:39):
the set.
So like I quite like to focuson projects that are
contributing something to what Ifind valuable within my
practice.
So, like the piccolo, I've beenlooking into instinctive
(18:00):
architecture, like pottery.
Sometimes you like you've cutout a bit of clay and you throw
it on your wheel and you mightchange your mind.
Or it's instinctive and there'stactility and you're working
with the material and you'remolding it as you go.
So the idea with the pixel wasthat, yes, everything's for free
(18:20):
and there's very strict, theseare your materials.
So I had to scrounge forage formaterials, but the idea was
that I wasn't really going todraw anything, I was just going
to materials.
But the idea was that I wasn'treally going to draw anything, I
was just going to startbuilding.
I kind of broke that rule anddid a, did a thumbnail, but it's
was.
It was a thumbnail, so there'sno details on a notepad I broke
(18:47):
the cardinal's cardinal rule.
But yeah, that kind of birthedout of this idea around an
instinctive decision making,trying to train yourself to
design came out of like afrustration with the first
office there not being any likearchitectural intent other than
(19:10):
enclosure and maybe some looseaesthetic.
We want to make somethingpretty, but for me I wanted like
a like a deeper line of inquiry.
Like your house and designingbackwards via construction is a
far deeper line of inquiry thanjust aesthetic or fulfilling a
(19:30):
program brief and may I just askwhy do you find that so
important?
I think it focuses.
I think I'm pretty big onviewing my work as a body of
work.
So my furniture or myarchitecture, I want it all to
well, it's all mine, so I bringmyself to it.
(19:53):
So I think design is inherentlypart of the designer and I
think to detach ourselves fullyfrom what we're designing so
that's one very clear thread inall my work is that my work and
being a sole practitioner thatsits in a shed by themselves and
chips away, it becomes like atsome point it would be a deep
(20:17):
thought.
You catch me just thinking yeah,I do a lot of thinking when I
first got my little workshop, Iused to just sit there and think
, and I had to like I'd havethis motto don't think, do,
because otherwise I'd just sitthere and like look at the chair
(20:40):
that I was making.
So I used to be a lot slowerand thoughtful.
Now, when I make furniture,it's like all right, let's make
a chair bam.
Speaker 3 (20:47):
Do you find that instinctive, kind of more
knee-jerk response Like?
Better is not necessarily theright term, but maybe, I don't
know, does it breed moreinteresting things, more
interesting designs?
Yes.
Speaker 1 (21:06):
I don't know.
Ask a satan in 20 years Becauseit's.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
I think you can definitely overthink things
right in design in general andthere's always a point where and
you never quite know where itis but there's that point of
you've gone too far with certaindesigns.
You know you can spend way toolong on them and you can almost
ruin them by overthinking thehell out of that.
Working on stage two of myhouse and I've redesigned that
thing like 11 times now and it'sgetting to the point where I'm
like just commit to something,you know what I mean like just
(21:37):
do it and just go, that's itdone yeah don't change your mind
yeah, definitely not that cutand dry, but there's a.
Speaker 1 (21:42):
There's a wonderful little window in there somewhere
.
Speaker 3 (21:45):
I guess there's that sweet spot, but it's really hard
to find where does theiterative process lie within
that?
Speaker 2 (21:52):
you know obviously your furniture, for example.
You have a quick idea, maybe aquick sketch, you go and build
the thing and then the next oneis probably the next iteration
of the last one.
That's the iterative processfor furniture in some way.
But what about for architecture, for example?
(22:14):
Sean Godsell, he is adamantthat he comes up with a concept
and then he tries to stick withthat initial concept as much as
possible.
Is there any room for iterationprior to, you know,
construction or completion, orthroughout the process?
Speaker 3 (22:33):
Or is it building to building, are you saying?
Speaker 1 (22:35):
Yeah, yeah, I think my theory on that is probably
more back to that sort ofpottery analogy as you get
closer to finishing the pot,you're kind of moulding down
into a finer level of detail andyou're making smaller design
moves.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
Right.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
But if you're then going to build half a house,
crush it, start again.
I think that's a differentkettle of fish Interesting yeah.
I think, if I just give a littlebit more context to how that
intuitive design thought camearound for me, I think it was
like at the initial jobeverything was very linear,
which is pretty common andexpected within architecture,
(23:13):
like clients need to know whatthey're building, councils need
to know what they're building,etc.
Etc.
But within me there's like thisdesire to think of a more
interesting or alternative way.
Maybe I am somebody who likesto reinvent wheels slightly.
So my first chair that I builtkind of came out of that
(23:33):
frustration.
I brought a shipping containerand started a tiny little
workshop in lyle bay.
In the first year I challengedmyself not to not to draw
anything.
There's another rule that Ibroke slightly was a couple of
sketches, but this chair that Imade is on my website.
I think it's cow and basket cameout of four little pull apart
(23:55):
canvas, steel sort of fold awaychairs and I chopped them up and
then just kind of held them inplace and tack welded them
together.
I hadn't welded before.
I had to go to bunnings and buya little welder.
That's how I learned how toweld, but out of that process
came a couple of shedbears.
In a chat with a good friend ofmine, pat, who makes awesome
(24:17):
push bikes, and we were talkingabout if you could train
yourself to make good designdecisions by following first
instinct principles, like if you, this is what I'm going to do
then, and then you start with itWithin the context of furniture
and small-scale projects whereyou're not ruining anybody's
lives but you can finish theproject, look back, critique and
(24:40):
then on your next one.
Then you follow Ideally.
Hopefully you make better andbetter decisions.
I kind of worked on that forprobably five years before I now
probably weigh things up a bitmore.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
Do you reckon, though , gerard, that, working through
that first instinct just designit, learn from the last one,
sorry, and it will apply to thenext one evolve you sort of hard
on a visual thing, but it'slike a weaving stream, right,
and you're kind of meanderingyour way down trying to find,
like that, that main body ofwater.
(25:16):
Do you think you've just said,five years on, now you're a
little bit more, I guess,focused?
Do you think that all of thatiterative work has eventually
now molded itself into like agood design approach and
philosophy that you can nowapply more confidently?
Speaker 1 (25:34):
Yeah, definitely Like .
I don't think I was a terribledesigner at university, but my
main designing learning camewhen I got the workshop and
worked on that.
I kind of thought of it for along time as the gym for design.
If you could smash out a fewchairs within half a year or
something, then that's a lotmore design learning that you've
(25:56):
just given yourself than onebuilding and a two-year-long
process.
I just thought the feedbackloop of architecture is so long
that it's really hard to well,there's just a lag time for
feedback before you realise youdid something good or bad, yeah.
And then I think much like howBen's probably building
apprenticeship led him to have agood enough awareness of
(26:21):
construction to be able todesign backwards, whereas most
university kids probablywouldn't be able to pull that
off.
I think building stuff in theworkshop with furniture allowed
me to play and experiment withmaterials and maybe understand
how they come together slightlybetter.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
It's not quite a building, but and is there a
correlation between that, whatyou've learned through that
process of developing andbuilding furniture, to say, your
architecture now?
Speaker 1 (26:53):
Yeah, I think as I go I've kind of been in this
conversation with myself on artand architecture, so like a
chair becomes too chair-like forme, so then I counter it with a
chair.
that's very helpful when youcan't sit on it and then it's
like so I think with anarchitecture as much of an
(27:17):
explorer.
So you're wanting to createsomething beautiful that works
for your client and that theycan be stoked with, but at the
same time you're trying to Ipersonally am trying to
experiment a little bit and comeup with new ways of doing
things.
(27:37):
Like Sam was saying, maybethat's impossible and we're
using the same old toolkit, butmuch like designing a chair over
and over again.
There's so much fun to be hadin designing something over and
over again, so I don't think I'dever get bored of the toolkit.
And it's interesting becausethat something over and over
again, so I don't think I'd everget bored of the toolkit.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
And it's interesting because that designing over and
over again thing even if you'redesigning the same thing over
and over again, which a lot ofus end up doing through the
iterative process, be it projectto project or within a project
every single time you put pen topaper or maybe not in your case
, gerard or even just thinkabout a design, you're always
(28:15):
tackling it slightly differently.
You're not redoing the samething every single time.
So even those little minutechanges or adjustments can lead
themselves to a good iterativeprocess.
I've found oh, definitely.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
That's probably the epitome of iteration there.
Speaker 3 (28:32):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
And we'll get better and better at these things, or
maybe we'll look back and thefirst one we made was the most
pure and most beautiful.
Everything else was Well that'sso true, right.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
Like you know you talk about that like just design
, immediately, first principles,instinctive design, and you
know there's always that oldadage, you know there's always
that old adage, you know yourfirst answer is always right.
Maybe that is the case and youjust spend a long time hopefully
not a whole career makingeverything slightly worse Maybe.
Speaker 1 (29:06):
I think to develop this thinking self-critique is
massively important and critiquewhere you can find it and trust
it.
I think for anybody, if you canfind somebody that you respect
that will offer you critique isinvaluable, I think, to your own
design development, because sooften universities kind ofened
(29:32):
the rein on the crit.
Speaker 3 (29:34):
But I think that's where we learn so much, when
somebody with more knowledgethan you can sort of feed into
your, into your life, likeyou're getting more out of it
out of that than they are, evenif it's hurting your feelings
well, yeah, I mean at universityyou can be reduced to tears by
in a critique, but in theprofessional realm it doesn't
(29:54):
really happen anymore, not andlike not saying that it's a good
or bad thing, but there isn'treally that mechanism for really
involved, truthful and criticalresponse within the design
process in practice.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
You, you know what I mean, yeah, I think Kirsten in
her lecture mentioned that heroffice does design crits and I
think probably a handful ofoffices do that internally and
it's probably super beneficialwithin their work.
You're out of by yourself, yeah, in your shed how about you say
(30:35):
yourself, sam, have you?
Speaker 2 (30:37):
have you got like a an interesting process, or is it
more just experience thatyou've acquired over time?
Speaker 3 (30:46):
yeah, we're sort of it's interesting hearing both
you guys talk and my process, Iguess, or I guess our practices
process now sort of falls intothe camp of two things that you
guys have discussed.
I mean, we've got, we're reallychampioning, a certain product
(31:06):
or a material which helps withmodular construction, and so
we're using that as or thatmodule, like a 1200 by 2400
module, as a design driver andseeing how far we can push that
and how creative we can be witha material size that's universal
and therefore means that underconstruction is going to be
(31:26):
super low waste.
So that sort of like I guessleans into what you've talked
about, ben, with your process,and then also gerard, I think I
don't know if I've met, if it'snecessarily an instinctive
decision, but I've found that inthe last sort of three or four
(31:46):
buildings that I've designed orcompleted, there's a clear
lineage through them and Iwouldn't say that they look the
same, but they're definitelysiblings, if you know what I
mean and my approach each timevery different sites, very
different constraints from termsof budget and constructability
(32:09):
and things like that, butultimately the outcome's very
similar and, just for want of abetter term, I'd like to really
summarize it in sort of the mostbasic form is.
I've just looked at stacking,really, and just the way that
you can stack elements together,be that entire building modules
(32:32):
or be that materials, andstacking has kind of been like a
big focus and it's clearlyvisible through the last sort of
several designs that I've done.
But I still haven't landed onwhat works 100% and I think
we're all very young designersand it will take a long time, a
whole career, to realize whatyour golden egg is.
Speaker 1 (32:57):
Yeah, often only done in absolute hindsight, probably
by somebody else, exactly right.
Speaker 3 (33:03):
I don't think you'll ever know, because you're always
going to be seeking somethingelse or seeking something
different.
Or you know right at the startof the podcast we talked about
precedent and outside you knowexternal influence and every
you'll see something that willpique your interest.
Or you know a design thatyou'll want to know more about
(33:24):
and you'll go into into it indepth and find out what the
processes were behind that, andthen you adopt some of that into
your own design and thereforeit's going to influence it.
So it's a complete, it's aconstantly evolving practice
it's a little bit like surfing.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
You know, we're out there in search of something, in
search of the next wave.
That's that little need inthere to like keep searching and
keep looking, I think is a coretenet to design, in my opinion.
Speaker 3 (33:53):
Yeah, it's funny.
It'd be interesting to see whatyour thoughts are on this.
But, having designed my ownhouse, you like to think that
the design that you've done foryour own house where you're your
, you have your own brief andyou're kind of unconstrained in
a way means that you'd be ableto put all of your design
(34:15):
learning together and produceyour best design.
Speaker 2 (34:18):
But it's definitely not the case like, yeah, but
you're always testing a littlebit more with your own stuff
because you can get away with it, you know.
But yeah, it's definitely notthe case for me as well,
unfortunately.
There's a whole bunch of stuffI would go back and change.
However, I think somehow I'mnot sure how, but I think like
(34:44):
one of the hard things aboutarchitecture is you don't really
generally get to spend a hellof a lot of time on site.
So for your own house, like formine especially and I lived
there for years before I built ahouse on it so I knew exactly
where everything was, where theprominent wind direction was the
(35:07):
trees, the contours, what Icould get away with moving the
sun, especially in a place likeWellington, I guess, like mine,
kind of what Gerard was talkingabout just came out
instinctively, just based on theamount of time that I'd
actually spent on that site.
(35:28):
So like, if I would go back, Iwouldn't actually change the
general design of my house, itwould just be some of that
fine-tuning stuff, polishing itaround the edges.
But yeah, so that's not a bigdeal, but it is quite
interesting going through theprocess now where you don't
really get to spend a hell of alot of time on site.
(35:50):
You know you might do like aquick site investigation, take
some photos etc.
But you it's so much harder toreally just get those
instinctive thoughts and andabout the site when you, when
you haven't actually likeexperienced it for even a day,
you know.
So yeah, I think that's quiteinteresting.
(36:13):
It's hard to design photos or asite analysis.
Speaker 1 (36:17):
Your house is like.
In terms of sunshine it'spretty epic, like such a nice
space to hang out in and thetimber ceiling and the beams.
Speaker 2 (36:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (36:28):
Down to the details of your hidden steel plates to
make your portal frame.
I think it's a pretty wellexecuted house.
Speaker 2 (36:38):
Thanks, mate.
Speaker 1 (36:39):
Props, props.
Speaker 2 (36:40):
Props given, it's the hour to build it.
Speaker 1 (36:43):
Yeah, that's why it's so good.
Exactly, I think education hasa little misstep, I think in
that it perhaps teaches you tonot do things instinctively.
One of the key learning momentsI had in uni was when a tutor
(37:06):
was like I'm not sure why I didthis, I just did it.
And he was like you do, you'vedone it.
You've done it for a reason.
You just don't know what thereason is.
It's within you somewhere.
And that's when I started tochange my view on design a
little bit and start to have alittle bit more courage to back
myself and think about what myinput was, versus looking for
(37:33):
external influence from amid-century architect that I
really liked and picking bitsout of their building to put in
mine.
Speaker 3 (37:41):
It's interesting.
Sorry, Joe, continue.
Speaker 1 (37:47):
Oh, that's kind of it really, just learning to back
yourself a little bit and thenthen from there you start to
build up your own body of workand start to figure out your
design identity.
I guess what you're interestedin, yeah.
Speaker 3 (38:01):
It's interesting you make that comment about having
to justify yourself or justify adesign decision, because I
don't know about you guys, butI've so often just done
something, and be it an epiphany, be it just sort of some
deep-seated influence that'smanifested somehow or whatever,
(38:23):
or even just doodling on a pieceof paper, and all of a sudden
you're like, oh, that looks likeit works, and but every single
time, particularly when it comesto presenting to clients, I've
always felt that I've had tojustify that somehow, and be
that try and connect it to siteor try and connect it to a
precedent or try and connect itto some line of thinking, and so
(38:44):
often you're trying topost-rationalize something that
just really has no backing.
It's like doing a maths testand getting the right answer but
having no working behind it.
I don't think there's anythingwrong with that.
I I completely agree.
Speaker 2 (38:56):
In fact, I'd definitely prefer that than you
know turn up to site and findthis shell and be like oh, the
contours of the shell mimic thesite and that's why I've created
this circular ceiling structurebut also that's also a
(39:16):
beautiful way to design.
Speaker 3 (39:18):
It's just not the only way to design.
I guess it's kind of what we'regetting to in the crux of this
conversation.
Right is that there is no rightanswer, there's just lots of
different approaches Ipersonally find that can be very
cringy sometimes.
Speaker 2 (39:34):
I will never be the type of person that says any of
that shit to a client, so thisshow I think.
Speaker 3 (39:44):
Can you remember?
Oh, it's a great, it's a greatvideo.
It's a video of frank garydesigning and he's basically
like sitting in a chair and he'sgot some lackey scrunching up
bits of paper for him andsticking them on a thing and
he's like, oh, now cut that up,now pull that off, now scrunch
that bit of paper up, yeah,that'll do kind of approach.
(40:05):
It's interesting.
It's just a different way oftackling a problem, right, yeah,
some very clear.
And I mean it's interesting.
It's just a different way oftackling a problem, right, yeah?
Speaker 2 (40:11):
Bianca makes some very clear and you know, design
changes kind of like that, in asimilar way though his, I think
are a lot more kind of practicalbut also just using a heck of a
lot of common sense.
Speaker 1 (40:31):
So it can be done successfully as well.
Yeah, I think university taughteveryone in our year anyway to
to hate frank gary.
There's a massive likemisunderstanding there because
the guy has got some of thegnarliest, most complex
buildings built.
Yeah, like he's got them acrossthe gnarliest, most complex
buildings built, he's got themacross the line.
(40:52):
That guy must be one hell of acommunicator in a meeting.
Speaker 3 (40:55):
Yeah, I think he's remarkable.
I think the buildings areremarkable.
They're not necessarily toeveryone's taste but it's
incredible architecture.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
The commitment to process and then the technical
understanding to get that built.
I mean they used to developsoftware around that bloody
office.
That's just truly.
Epic RSS.
And then the technicalunderstanding to get that built.
I mean they used to developsoftware around that bloody
office.
That's just truly epic.
Basically the reason Rhinoexists, right, yeah, the guy's
wild.
I think influence from otherarchitects is a big thing for me
(41:27):
because I view myself and mypractice and it's like what sort
of work am I trying to do?
What you know, these themesthat we're talking about, quite
influenced by other architects,which I much like everyone, I
think.
I kind of think at the momentthere's a whole generation of
mini Zimthors making like verybeautiful, elegant, elegant,
(41:48):
elemental architecture, sort ofall across Australia and New
Zealand, I think at the moment.
Speaker 2 (41:54):
Yeah Well, is anyone influenced by another
architect's or firm's process,as opposed to just their
building?
Speaker 1 (42:05):
Yes, much like Zumthor being elemental and very
refined material architect, Ithink Thomas sorry, ann Holtrop
is another one makingbeautifully refined buildings
that are super material andprocess rich, and somebody that
(42:28):
I've taken like big influencefrom within, like the material
exploration side of things.
So that's just playing withmaterials is something that's
becoming massive for me andHoltrop, like, for example, made
a column.
I think it was a fabric sleevethat then cast the column inside
(42:51):
.
Speaker 2 (42:52):
Yeah, I've seen that, that's awesome.
Speaker 1 (42:53):
More fabric quality to it.
Speaker 2 (42:57):
It's a product now.
Did you know that?
Speaker 3 (43:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (43:03):
Epic One of the most interesting architects, I think,
of the time at the moment andthe exploration with glass
casting and then aluminiumcasting, then making these wall
concrete panels by just diggingin the ground seemingly
(43:23):
haphazardly and then castinglike a very crisp panel over top
of it and just tilting it up,and then that texture becoming
the finished face of the wall.
Yeah well, so that's awesome.
I think that that process andthat connection to material and
structure is super important howmuch do you think that?
Speaker 3 (43:46):
and, yeah, how much do you think that you need the
right clients to be able to kindof embark on that
experimentation, or do you thinkthat it's the practice, a
practice's responsibility toexperiment sort of on their own
time?
That's something that we'vediscussed in our practice is
like one of our business goalsfor this year, or practice goals
(44:08):
for this year, is to spend moretime on rmd, basically, and
just yeah, design processes andthings.
Speaker 1 (44:14):
But yeah, I think 100 practice like it has to be an
intention or a goal of yours tooutwork these things rather than
waiting for a client to comeand say hey, I want you to do
something extravagant withconcrete till panels.
Speaker 3 (44:29):
You need to go and find that yourself is what you
get yeah, so you start designingit in yeah yeah, you get an
overly specific brief asking fora concrete panel carved in the
ground.
But I look dirty yeah, but Iargue that's been a shortcoming
of ours has been not affordingourselves that time to be
experimental and sort of wait,hoping for a, for a project that
(44:52):
will let you do that, yeah, andif we realize that and be like
oh shit, we've kind of doneourselves a discredit here.
We need to be more proactive.
But I feel like that'ssomething, gerard, that you've
been doing for a while now yeah,off the theory that you get the
work you're seen doing.
Speaker 1 (45:07):
So that's one of the reasons why I take time to
document everything that I do.
Is that adds to this body ofwork that hopefully the right
people that like to explore andcome up with strange ideas see.
And then you attract those typeof clients.
That's the theory.
Ask me in 20 years whether thatworks.
(45:29):
You attract those type ofclients.
That's the theory.
Ask me in 20 years whether thatworks.
I think the notion that I'mwaiting for the perfect client
is also a big driving force inthe way I do things.
That was the attitude of theprevious office and so I thought
if I could flip that businessmodel and be kind of particular
about the work I did with theidea that you might get the work
(45:52):
you're seeing doing AmbitiousAgain, we'll see.
But yeah, I think it's the roleof the architect to explore
what they're inherentlyinterested in, even if it's a
retaining wall in a garden, andthat's what you're getting to.
Speaker 2 (46:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (46:12):
And then I guess it's a retaining wall in the garden
and that's what you're gettingto, yeah things out.
And then I guess it's a matterof being confident in being able
to implement that into anyproject.
Like you said, start small, forclients, I'm sure and then
build bigger and bigger andbigger, right, yeah?
you need to be confident inyourself to employ that into
designs, because so often I feellike we're reticent too,
(46:33):
because we're like, oh, theymight not like that, maybe tried
is it acceptable to take theother route and just build, just
get a lot built?
Of course I mean everything'sacceptable.
These are just different waysof skinning a cat.
Speaker 1 (46:54):
There's a few ways to skin the old cat, a few ways to
skin a stone, yeah, yeah, Ithink one allows you to start
now and one allows you to maybestart in 10 years.
For me, experimentation andplaying is super important to me
(47:15):
, so I kind of put that abovemaking money at this stage of my
career.
There's a quote from a littlevideo Daniel Liebenskin did Vice
to the Young.
That I've taken far tooseriously and implemented far
too rigorously in my life wasthat do what you love and take
(47:36):
risks while you're young and youwill never be a loser.
I used to repeat it in theoffice that I was sharing a
space in over and over againYou'll never be a loser.
Speaker 2 (47:49):
Made me no sense, I don't see why it can't be one
and the same.
I don't see why you can't makemoney and have fun creating the
type of architecture you want tocreate.
Speaker 3 (48:01):
I think that comes back down to the confidence in
your ability as well.
Right, you know you need to beable to and this is sorry to
harken back to the KirstenThompson lecture, but this is
something that she really drovehome was you need to be able to
promote yourself well, and notjust yourself, but the role of
(48:23):
the architect well, and youreally need to kind of go into
bat for each other in the builtrealm, and there's far too much
that's done out there that isgeneric and boring because
architects aren't involved.
But it's our role to make thebuilt environment interesting
and therefore, like we should beinvolved at all stages.
(48:45):
So, yeah, we could definitelystill make money and be creative
and experimental.
Speaker 1 (48:56):
Yeah, architects definitely need to advocate for
architecture a little bit morevocally.
I think thomas heatherwick'shumanize campaign have just
launched a for studies byscientists people into the
correlation between your brainself-esteem well-being and the
correlation between your brainself-esteem well-being and the
quality of your builtenvironment.
I don't know if that's overlybeen done in such a direct way
(49:19):
before, so that'll be aninteresting thing to get a quote
on what's the outcome Hopefullypositive.
Speaker 3 (49:30):
The formal studies have just been like last week or
something on there I think wecould all I think we could all
agree, without the study beingeven being undertaken, that your
environment, the environment inwhich you exist, and be that
your home, be that your workenvironment, social environment,
whatever does directlyinfluence your health, both
(49:53):
mentally and physically.
Speaker 1 (49:54):
Yeah, it would be a pretty awesome study.
We should do something on thatcampaign at some point.
Speaker 2 (50:00):
Yeah, that sounds good.
Hey, Sam, just going back towhat you were talking about
before regarding the R&D, whatkind of things have you been
thinking about?
Speaker 3 (50:11):
Well, I guess this comes back to this sort of I've
talked about it before thiscitrus concept, where last year
we were frustrated and concernedabout the lack of work coming
in and we're like we need tofront foot this.
And we're like, well, what'ssomething that's super important
to us as a practice and we seeas being critical, and
(50:36):
particularly the residentialbuilt environment, and that's
high performance and quality,but also efficiency.
And so that's where we came upwith the idea to take 1200 by 24
module and then just try anddesign buildings purely based on
that 100.
So you're essentially lookingat zero wastage.
So that's been an r&d processfor us and for us and we've
(50:58):
we've designed six buildings,full packages, prospectus,
everything.
We've put in huge amounts ofwork in that realm for zero
financial gain so far.
But but what that's enabled usto do is it's enabled us to be
super experimental and we'velearned a lot in that process.
We've learned, holy shit, youcan do a lot with a simple
(51:19):
module and formally andaesthetically you're not really
that constrained, you just haveto be clever.
So that's been a really goodprocess.
And then I think what we've juststarted doing a little bit more
, something that we've alwayswanted to do but never afforded
ourselves the time to do, ismodel, just 3d model and just
play.
I mean, gerard, I'm sure thatyou do that a lot, but so often
(51:42):
in practice, concept design,work, what have you?
It's not people don't.
People don't model like theydid at university or or whatever
.
And I think that's because it'sseen people don't.
People don't model like theydid at university or or whatever
.
And I think that's because it'sseen as taking a long time.
Are you talking?
about like messing or what inparticular yep, messing
materiality details, you knowlike one-to-one scale stuff,
(52:05):
anything just be more.
Just focus on like moretangible and physical 3d design
development we so quickly moveinto like a computer or a
digital realm or what have you.
Speaker 2 (52:17):
When's the last time you built a model like a
physical model?
Me, yeah, maybe like two weeksago.
Oh nice, that's good I score.
Speaker 3 (52:26):
I don't want to yes, I need to build more models, but
before then it was probably twoyears, and that's because I've
made a conscious decision to tryand do it more, you know.
Speaker 2 (52:37):
What do you go for, like polystyrene or clay?
What's your media?
Speaker 3 (52:43):
What's your media of choice?
I'm just a classic white cardkind of guy.
Ah yep, victoria nice.
Speaker 1 (52:49):
What mill are we talking about?
Speaker 3 (52:51):
We're talking like 1.2.
Speaker 1 (52:55):
How sharp's your scalpel?
Speaker 3 (52:57):
Here's some card.
Oh yeah, good, yeah, buddy.
Speaker 2 (53:01):
Yeah.
Okay and did you find it useful?
Speaker 3 (53:05):
Absolutely Like formerly.
I was able to test so manydifferent things that would have
spent me ages trying to workout how to draw or model on a
computer very quickly, likewithin half an hour, 45 minutes.
It was a roof form that I wastrying to work out and I was
trying to work out theproportions of it and the angles
(53:25):
of it and within like like 45minutes I'd maybe done 10, 12
different iterations and landedon one that looked correct.
And then, basically, I tooksomething that was this big and
went and scaled it up to thesize of a building.
Speaker 1 (53:40):
Quick one-to-one mock-up.
Speaker 2 (53:41):
What about you, Gerard?
Do you do any mock-up modeling?
Speaker 3 (53:46):
Steel, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (53:49):
Fold the steel.
I have made some steel, uharchitectural models, oh awesome
.
Speaker 1 (54:06):
That's also like a big, a big site mesh.
So I think only till that tarpits project where they all had
council and everyone had awhinge and wanted more actual
renders.
Previous to that he would onlytake photos of models and put a
little bit of photoshopping tochuck a couple of people in
(54:27):
there or something cool.
So their office make massive,massive models.
So like their internal rendersare photographs of models, so
then you can like kind of get amore natural light quality and
that's awesome yeah, I thinkthat's a pretty epic way to work
.
I think I haven't haven't goneto that extent.
Speaker 3 (54:51):
R&D man, afford yourself the time.
Speaker 1 (54:53):
Yeah hard.
Speaker 2 (54:55):
What about you, Ben?
Definitely inspired by that.
Yeah, and Makers obviously usedto do a bit more but had a nice
workshop, so not so much at themoment.
Speaker 1 (55:05):
You used to do lots of one-to-one mock-ups, didn't
you?
They just happen to havebuilding consents on them.
Yeah, yeah, I'll make you amodel we used to get into making
them out of just CNCing them.
Speaker 2 (55:19):
It seemed like a fun thing to do when you've got a
CNC machine and no clientscoming in.
That was definitely earlystages, but nah, nah, I haven't
for a while.
But I've been thinking a lotabout it recently and I think
I'm going to do one.
I think I'm going to do one.
I'm going to do one within thenext two weeks by the time the
(55:45):
next episode comes out.
Speaker 3 (55:47):
I'm not all done.
Show and tell for the nextepisode is your little model, oh
, okay.
Speaker 2 (55:54):
That's a lot of pressure.
My niece actually has someplaster, so maybe I bust that
out Nice.
Speaker 1 (56:03):
I think just using your hands is pretty epic.
There's a lot to be benefitedfrom that.
Perhaps after university you gothrough practice and economics
get in the way and you have tosmash stuff out pretty quickly,
unless your office has amodel-making budget.
(56:23):
But I think making is epic andto making is the design gym.
Speaker 2 (56:31):
Yeah, what's your saying.
Busy fingers.
Speaker 1 (56:34):
What is it?
Oh, there was a little quotewhich sort of validated my whole
thing was Renzo Piano, the OGbuilding workshop guy, had this
quote happy hands, happy mind,Nice, yeah, that's good.
If you're building stuff, thenit's ultimately good for your
morale self-esteem.
Speaker 3 (56:54):
Is that a good place to end things?
Yeah, I've got a model to makeyeah.
Speaker 1 (56:59):
I think I just want a little sum up of.
Speaker 3 (57:01):
Yeah, go for it, mate .
Speaker 1 (57:05):
That people should give things a go, give it a
crack Again.
We've just done a chairexhibition in Christchurch with
object space a pretty awesomething to be included in.
But within that you have chatswith some people and they're
like, oh, I could never design achair or you need to design all
(57:27):
these other bits of furniturebefore you design a chair.
But something like that isessentially a small building.
I think people shouldn't feelthat barrier and they should
just give things a crack and youmight surprise yourself.
Speaker 2 (57:42):
Just get into it let's get it done, then it's
done.
Cool, if you do it, then it'sdone.
Speaking of doing it, don'tforget to hit that subscribe
button and leave a review orleave a comment.
Even better, feel free just tosend a comment, and if you have
(58:04):
anything interesting that youwant us to talk about, we'd love
to know about it.
Speaker 3 (58:09):
Send it to our address that they're sending
this to info atdesignprinciplespodcom or hit
our dms at designprinciplespodon ig easy, I would love to hear
from you that's the pod.
Thank you see y'all.
(58:29):
Thank 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!