The Architects' Voice: Advocating for the Role of the Architect

Send us a text

What happens when the people who shape our cities, schools, and homes are missing from the public conversation about our built environment? Award-winning architect Lisa Webb joins us to unpack architecture's growing crisis of relevance in New Zealand.

Following her thought-provoking piece in the NZIA Bulletin, Lisa shares her concerns about architects becoming increasingly sidelined in discussions about housing, climate resilience, and community building. "We have a lack of voice, a lack of mandate, and a lack of mana," she observes, pointing to recent political attacks on the profession that went largely unchallenged.

We explore the disconnect between how architects communicate their value (often through beautiful images) versus what clients and communities truly value about architectural services. As one colleague noted, "Pretty pictures are scrollable but have no real sense of the agency the architect brought to bear." This insight leads us to discuss meaningful alternatives – sharing client testimonials, documenting transformed lives, and telling the stories behind successful projects.

The conversation reveals a profession at a crossroads: highly trained professionals with unique holistic oversight capabilities who nonetheless struggle to assert their relevance. We discuss how smaller practices in particular face challenges being heard, while questioning whether the profession's traditional reluctance toward marketing has become self-defeating in today's media landscape.

Lisa challenges listeners to move beyond waiting for someone else to advocate for architecture. Whether through greater engagement with the NZIA, strategic marketing, or simply telling better stories about what architects actually do, the path forward requires collective action from a profession that designs not just buildings, but lives.

Key Links:

- https://www.studiolwa.co.nz/

- https://www.nzia.co.nz/member-area/resources/news/2025/architecture-in-crisis-why-our-relevance-is-fading/

- https://www.nzia.co.nz/member-area/resources/news/2025/a-response-to-architecture-in-crisis/

Chapters:

0:00 - Introduction to Lisa Webb

6:00 - The Problem with Architectural Advocacy

16:40 - Lost Voices in the Housing Crisis

26:30 - Architecture as Service vs. Product

35:25 - Marketing Architecture: Breaking Taboos

43:45 - Finding Power in the Profession

54:30 - Collective Action and Moving Forward

Follow us on @designpriciplespod on Instagram.
If you wish to contact us hit our DMs or email us on [e-mail]

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
This week's episode is brought to you by Parrot Dog
Limited Releases, an ongoingseries of occasional one-off
beer releases inspired by thenice ideas captured in the Lyle
Bay Brewery.
Limited Release 25 is a doubleIPA brewed with a crisp, dry
pale malt base and absolutelyloaded with intense US and NZ
hop varieties, providing punchy,citrus, stone fruit and white

(00:23):
wine characters along with thefirm bitterness Nice.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
Welcome back to the Design Principles Podcast.
You're here with myself, gerard, ben and Sam.
Today we are joined by LisaWebb of Studio LWA, the winner
of the 2021 Ian Athfield Awardfor Housing.
She's based in Auckland andcreates some very intentional
and considered architecture.
I particularly like her use ofsection and sunlight and section

(00:52):
specifically.
We architects generally do likea thoughtful use of section.
In this podcast, we discuss theimportance of the NZAA and its
role in advocating for thearchitectural profession.
While we don't want to pile on,we do want to have a good,
constructive conversation aroundhow our profession is viewed by

(01:13):
New Zealanders and how can weengage more with the
non-architect world, ultimately,for the good of us all.
We ask what is currently beingdone to advocate for
architecture, our level ofinvolvement in the public
discourse.
We ask are we absentingourselves from the public
discussion and what can we do toimprove the profession's

(01:36):
involvement and standing in NewZealand and potentially bring us
back into the fold?
I hope you enjoy ourconversation with Lisa.
I got onto Lisa by SamanthaZontag from Sundane Architects.

Speaker 3 (02:04):
All right.

Speaker 2 (02:06):
Yeah, we were having a passionate rant myself, her
and her husband just aboutmarketing and whatever, and then
she sent me your email, so it'skind of a continuation of our
rant.

Speaker 3 (02:21):
Yeah, actually it was a conversation that I had with
her before Christmas.
It was one of the sort ofcrystallizing conversations I
had.
She was talking about how shewas going to take the time she
had over Christmas, you know,with a sort of not a huge amount
of workflow, to write a bookletabout what architects bring to
the table and how they do thingsdifferently from group home
providers, or drafts people orknow architectural designers or

(02:44):
that kind of she was talkingabout.
You know how do I explain to myclients endlessly that we add
value to the picture and Ithought, oh, that sounds like
something someone else could dofor all of them.

Speaker 1 (02:56):
She doesn't have to do all the mahi, but if she's,
if she's done it, sam pleaseshare it Exactly, but it really
hit on the nail for me.

Speaker 3 (03:05):
One.
One of the problems which, youknow, I sort of feel like the
thing that I'm worried about isthe sort of younger, the younger
architectural practices outthere, and I think a lot of the
bigger practices you know, whosevoices are heard, don't deal
with the same sort of stuff thatyou do when you're smaller and
starting out.
You know so the endless amountof energy that you put into

(03:26):
advocating for yourself anddescribing what you do and why
you're worth paying for and allthat kind of stuff.

Speaker 4 (03:31):
So I thought that was , you know, that was one of the
things that kind of drove me towrite the bulletin piece yeah,
that's awesome and, as a bit ofcontext for you, we basically
established this podcast for avery similar reason, which is
kind of creating more awarenessjust around design in general.

Speaker 1 (03:48):
So there's definitely some crossovers there as well
yeah, I think we found that andyou sort of alluded to this as
well in your piece and it's afrustration that we've voiced
quite often on the podcast thata lot of architectural content
and architects in general andthe awards is targeted back at
ourselves, which is lovely forself-support but not great for

(04:11):
building a good client base.
So, yeah, it was a big purposefor starting this podcast is to
sort of demystify, debunk kindof like, just make these sort of
discussions and awareness alittle bit more accessible to
ourselves, the architecturalprofession, but also the general
public, and I'd say ourlistener base is pretty varied,

(04:34):
which is a good indication thatwe do have non-architects tuning
in and trying to find out more.

Speaker 2 (04:40):
I guess on the back of that, the three of us as well
are young practicers.
We're pretty early in our.
We all have our own companiesto some degree.
Out more, I guess, on the theback of that, the three of us as
well are young practices.
We're pretty early in our.
We all have our own companiesto some degree.
But like the marketing and howto get clients and how how you
run the practice, sometimes youfeel like you're, I work alone
by myself in a in my office, soI don't really have people
around me.

(05:00):
So it's nice when you actuallyhave these chats with somebody
and you kind of realize you're,you're not alone and everyone
else has frustrations aroundmarketing and like what is what
is going on?
Why is why is this so hard?
Am I allowed to market?
Yeah, yeah, that's, that's ahilarious question, isn't it?

Speaker 3 (05:19):
yeah, for so long I thought you weren't allowed
shall I give you my thoughtsyeah please fire away you want
me to introduce myself for thepodcast, or how do you do that?

Speaker 4 (05:29):
long I thought you weren't allowed.
Shall I give you my thoughts?
Yeah, please Fire away.
Do you want me to introducemyself for the podcast, or how
do you do that?

Speaker 3 (05:35):
Yeah, we will do an introduction at the beginning,
but I guess, yeah, just as aquick overview, that would be
awesome.
Yeah, so kia ora kato kato ko.
Lisa Weberhoe.
I'm an architect based inAuckland and I have my own
practice and I was thinking it'sprobably important to note that
I graduated in the mid-90s, sojust to give a bit of
generational expertise and alsojust awareness of, you know,
I've seen this before and I wasthinking, when you invited me,

(05:58):
how to sort of approach mythoughts, which have been a
little bit sort of, you know,high energy, shall we say this
whole subject.
So I was thinking back in 2014,the NZIA did a practice series,

(06:21):
a sort of series of lectures,and one of the lecturers was a
woman from LA who was a PRspecialist and her company
specializes in PR for architectsand her name was Julie Taylor
and she came out and Idistinctly remember her standing
at the podium in the lecturetheater and she had a copy of
the Herald newspaper.
Basically all she did was liftup the newspaper and say okay,
this is what came to me in myhotel room this morning Story

(06:44):
about a major infrastructureproject.
Where's the comment from thearchitect?
Then she turned the page andshe said artist's impression of
what looks like anarchitecturally designed
building, who's there?
And something about, you know,education and schooling.
Well, where's the comment fromthe architect?
And just basically, page afterpage after page in the Herald.
She ripped us a new one, toldus how useless we were and we

(07:06):
all walked out of the lecture.
Well, I walked out of thelecture thinking, yes, you know,
we're going to do somethingabout this, we're going to
acknowledge that this is aproblem.
We're going to start, you know,thinking about how we present
ourselves to the public and howwe sort of stand up for
ourselves and communicate thevalue that we bring.
And, of course, you know, inthe 10 years I realised since
that lecture, pretty muchnothing has happened.

(07:28):
We don't seem to have moved thedial very far.
And then, in 2021, I put myhouse into the awards, and it
was the first project I've everentered into an awards programme
and I won, and I won the RCNAsfield Award for housing.

(07:48):
Congratulations, I've seen that.

Speaker 1 (07:50):
It's very impressive.

Speaker 3 (07:52):
It was a bit of a shock, but one of the things
that happened out of that wasthat it was during COVID.
So they shot a video of megetting the award and I'm still
getting clients coming inreferencing that video Like it's
out there in the world.
I have sort of clear sort ofunderstanding of the value that

(08:13):
that piece of videography hascreated for my business and, you
know, it really underscores tome the importance of
storytelling, like tellingstories and hearing the voices
from our clients and all thatsort of stuff that people are
sort of suggesting doing more of.
So there was that and then acouple of years ago some friends
of mine, Tom Gill and Hala,finished the co-house in Surrey

(08:36):
Crescent, If you guys arefamiliar with that project.

Speaker 4 (08:39):
Yep, I've been to that.
It's awesome.

Speaker 3 (08:40):
Yeah, really like an intense achievement.
You know, shepherding a wholegroup of people with different
ideas and different sort ofbreeds together to create
something collaboratively andsomething that basically an
apartment in the co-house forthe similar value of a
developer-led apartment acrossthe road.
You get the same kind ofapartment but you also get the

(09:02):
use of a shared guest space.
You get a garden house.
You get a garden so you'reliving on greenery and
vegetables and all that sort ofstuff.
And then you go there andthere's this wonderful rabble of
kids running around and peoplesort of living you know best
lives.
It seems to me and compelling.
We did, we did it with adeveloper client of mine and
like the difference betweenseeing the sad woman in the

(09:25):
flesh you know townhousedeveloper apartment sort of
folding her nappies on her ownand then going over there and
seeing all these kids and the,you know, having that sense of
community and takes a villageand all that stuff.
Like I knew I knew which one Ipreferred.
But when it was reviewed it wasreviewed sort of architecturally
and it was found to be sort ofwanting with respect to sort of

(09:45):
poetry and a little bit more,you know, maybe prosaic than the
reviewer was kind of expecting.
So there was kind of talkaround why isn't there a meadow?
You know, why are therevegetables?
Why isn't there a meadow?
And I sort of realized that,you know, it really started me
thinking about this issue.
Why do we not have a voice inthe housing crisis?

(10:06):
Why are we not taken seriously?
Why are we privileging meadowsover vegetables and kids having
space to run around?
It was a moment where I justrealized that I feel like we're
looking at the wrong things.
Does that make sense?

Speaker 4 (10:23):
Yeah, definitely.
That whole expectation aboutwhat a property, especially in
the residential sector, likewhat a property should consist
of and what, what you know whatamenities it should have and
what spaces it should have, isjust crazy in my opinion.
Any kind of european styleprojects with medium density or

(10:44):
anything like that in thiscountry just gets shunned
straight away because, uh, youknow, it doesn't have a private
yard or a private this orprivate that.

Speaker 3 (10:54):
Yeah, it's just very interesting I just sort of feel
like they had, they had, theyhad made a real achievement and
it wasn't really acknowledged bythe community.
Because you know we werelooking at.

Speaker 4 (11:04):
You know gutter, details and all the stuff that
maybe isn't the most importantthing to be looking at yeah,
they created a community, areally well-functioning
community, and everyone there,just you know, loves it and
loves the design and it works sowell for them.

Speaker 1 (11:21):
But you compare that to a similar type of project and
, yeah, I mean like it's just anindividual in their individual
house and I think this is thisis the one of the cornerstone
issues, right is thatarchitecture is thought of as a
built, as a building, or thebuilt element only, and it
doesn't necessarily take intoconsideration the way that it's

(11:43):
embodied you know, client andhuman interaction, all of those
sort of things, and it's'tnecessarily take into
consideration the way that it'sembodied, you know, client and
human interaction, all of thosesort of things, and it's the
story of architecture thatreally makes something
successful.
The building can be frommediocre to exceptional, but if
it has an exceptional storybehind it, it's an exceptional
piece of architecture.
In my opinion anyway, and Ithink that's often lost Lacey to
your point.

(12:04):
You know, in my opinion anyway,and I think that's often lost
Lacey to your point, you know,with some critique or through
the award system or anything, isthat narrative is often not
presented, and I think that iswhere maybe the public's not
maybe misconception, butmisunderstanding of what we do
as architects lands is that wedon't just design buildings but
we design your life really, thatwe don't just design buildings

(12:25):
but we design your life really.
So, ultimately, I think that'sa point that's never really been
succinctly brought across.
I don't really know how to doit, because it's so intangible
as well, I've had some ideas.
Fire away, please yeah, fireaway.

Speaker 3 (12:41):
Yeah.
So this is sort of a drum thatI've been banging for years,
like literally since 2014.
Every time I had a chance totalk to an architect, I'd be
like you know, what do you thinkabout this?
And I think there was alwaysthis sense of oh, you know,
you're trying to make us likethe stick man on the pack and
save ad.
But last year, of course, Istarted talking to people and
all of a sudden, there was muchmore of a sort of engagement

(13:03):
about these issues.
You know, there was a sort of aconfluence of a whole lot of
issues that came together around.
Obviously, the economy's thebig one In a political situation
.
I personally found it reallydifficult to hear Erica Stanford
get on the podium and say thereason all the school projects
have been cancelled is becauseof and I'm quoting fancy
architects.
That was really challenging,and I'm quoting fancy architects

(13:25):
.
That was really challenging.
And the thing is, that's fine,that's your job to deflect blood
from yourself, but it's our jobto stand up for ourselves and
say, well, actually, this iswhat we bring to a school
project.
And I mean, I know that myselfbecause I've been to.
I've been on a, I've done twotours of jury duty.
I've been to some, you know, acouple of really amazing schools

(13:45):
one in Nelson that SheppardRout did, where the teacher
literally chased me down thestairs saying you know, you need
to understand how happy we areto be teaching here and how much
you know happier the kids areand how better they're learning.
Like these are all lovelystories that are just not being
communicated and, quite frankly,could be communicated, yeah.
So then I started thinking aboutwell, you know what are the

(14:08):
issues?
And it sort of feels to me outof all of this like, if you
distill it down, we aresuffering from a lack of power
in our society, we have a lackof voice and we have a lack of
mandate and we have a lack ofmana.
We are sort of struggling as acommunity and I was talking to
my friend about it this morningand she said you'd better be a
bit more optimistic than that.

(14:30):
But if I look at sort of theissues of the day right, climate
change, adaptation andresilience I've written myself a
list Climate change, adaptationand resilience, infrastructure,
housing, crisis, communitybuilding, the developers leading
the government strategies.
Every time you hear Chris Pinkon the TV, you know that, say
developers told him.

(14:50):
You know the scaffolding'sreally expensive or you know
this H1 stuff has to go.
You know that they're listeningto.
You know one part of ourconstruction industry and not
all of us, not all of us.
So I wrote the piece in thebulletin on the 14th of February
and from that you know I gotquite a lot of responses.

(15:12):
One of my friends, mike Hartleydo you know him?
He hit the nail on the head andthis is a very Mike Hartley
statement.
He said pretty pictures arevery scrollable but have no real
sense of the agency that thearchitect brought to bear in the
project to make it theperfectly tailored solution to a
unique problem which hits thatissue that you were describing,

(15:34):
which is that we provide aservice but we are judged on the
product.
Yep no-transcript stories likethe stuff, sam, that you were

(16:07):
talking about.
You know the, the happy stories, the kids learning well, the
clients who enjoy their, their,projects.
You know, like, if you want tolook at developer-led strategy
strategies on the housing crisis, and you know weigh that up,
all you need to do is drive downthe northern or the
northwestern motorway and seethe developer-led projects and

(16:29):
then go to Hobsonville and seethe difference that architect
involvement makes literally topeople's lives.
But we are not, again, we'renot communicating that very well
.
Yeah, it's interesting.

Speaker 1 (16:42):
You listed a raft of things, issues of the present
day and I think one thing thatreally stands out to me is,
across that entire list, there'sreally only one entity that I
see that has a professionaloversight across all of those
things, and that's us.
And that's us.

(17:08):
And I think that that ismisunderstood and not presented
well enough by ourselves and byour profession, because you look
at it and you look at things inisolation.
Let's look at maybe let's lookat the environment aspect of it,
or we look to climatestrategists or green building
councils or something, but whoelse works in that realm?
Architects?
You look at the developer-ledstuff okay, you've got people
williams court building a lot ofbuildings but who can do it

(17:30):
better and who has a betteroversight over that?
Us?
You know, these are just.
These are just examples, butultimately, what I'm trying to
say is like there is oneoverarching profession that has
real insight into all of theseproblems and that is architects,
and I think it's an issue innew zealand, and that we cherry
pick individuals to solveproblems rather than looking at

(17:53):
the bigger picture, the holisticpicture, and finding the right
person or the right professional, the right entity to tackle all
of that, and I think that'ssomewhere where we could
probably try and you know,develop a little bit more.
That, speaking to clients andpeople out there that are
looking to start projects, isyou need somebody that has that
overview, that complete overviewand that professional complete

(18:14):
overview as well.
We're very informed becausewe're not experts.
I'm not going to try and saythat you know across the board
by any means, but we're trained,highly trained, to be able to
find that right information, tobring those teams together, to
manage those teams and toproduce beautiful outcomes as
well.
Now we're speaking a lot aboutthe emotion, but the aesthetic
also can't be lost.
Yeah, so that's just sort oflike my my view on it, and I

(18:36):
think yeah, I mean, have youguys worked on sort of larger
projects?
not in my current life.
Ever, Not as a RET Architect,but in a previous, prior to
starting my own practice.
Yes, big time yeah.

Speaker 3 (18:53):
So, if you work on a big commercial project, you see
what you know.
You see what architects bringto the table in terms of what
you're describing, which is, youknow, facilitating the bringing
together of different people'sdifferent perspectives
consultants you know nuttyproblems, client briefs,
planning issues.
We are the ones who facilitateall that decision making.
We're the one who integrate allthe sometimes horrendously

(19:17):
complex issues and come out with, as you say, often an elegant,
clever solution that hopefullymeets the client's brief and and
and budget.
You know it's an incrediblycomplex thing that we do and it
is not described in a picture oninstagram yeah, yeah I mean
I'll give you a.
Really, this is another thingthat sort of set me off.
There was an article in thenewspaper that was um, it was

(19:39):
about a project that I worked onas a, as a, when I was working
for studio pacific.
It's a an amazing.
It's an amazing.
As the Herald article said, newZealand Strong is building what
is going to be the largesttimber span structure in New
Zealand, and it was a greatstory about what New Zealand
Strong was and wasn't doing withthe structure.
It didn't even mention thearchitects.

(20:00):
It didn't mention what we didor how we got there, or the
incredible persistence andforesight of my boss, the way
that he planned the project, theway he somehow managed to get
timber technologies and Homestarrating into what is essentially
a giant bubble.

Speaker 4 (20:22):
None of that story has been communicated, so I have
to ask, though, like how orwhen did this kind of become an
issue?
Like how did we kind of get tothis, into this position to
begin with, or has it kind ofalways been like this?
And and are there things thatwe can do, or, you know, should

(20:43):
we just be relying on the nziato kind of get us, get us out of
this hole, so to speak?

Speaker 3 (20:49):
well, I think another one of the issues with relying
on pictures is that we're, youknow, we're not just
communicating the stuff that wedo actually bring to the table,
but we're also reinforcing thisidea that we're only interested
in the frilly bits or the bitsthat look good on pictures.
so like that's what I mean aboutit doing sort of double duty
for us.
Like some of the comments I gotwhen I wrote in the bulletin
was we're worried clients won'tcome to us because we're

(21:12):
perceived as cool and expensive.
They spend a lot of timejustifying Too late for that.
I guess we're seen as generatorsof risk, not problem solvers,
strategists or governors.
So you know, nothing we aredoing out there is enforcing the
value that we bring in, and Ithink you know, like why is that
that?
I mean, I know from my previousexperience of trying to talk to

(21:35):
people about this is that thereis a general sense that to be a
professional, you're notsupposed to market yourself like
don't, do we want to talk aboutourselves like a bar of
chocolate.
You know, personally,personally, I think we do.
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (21:47):
I agree Absolutely.
I mean it's interesting.

Speaker 2 (21:49):
Delicious, delicious chocolate.

Speaker 1 (21:51):
Yeah, I mean, we're going through a brand
re-strategization at the momentand we've brought in an external
person to help us with that,because we can't do it ourselves
.
I think, and I think it'sintrinsic in the profession that
we've sort of been uh like Idon't know, tamped out, or you

(22:12):
know, we've been not necessarilytold not to put yourselves out
there, but it is, and I spoke tothis in the first episode of
this season.
It's the tall poppy syndrome ofnew zealand.
You know, don't stand too high,you'll get cut down.
But I think we should all bepushing ourselves up, you know,
and there is no reason why wecan't market ourselves like
anybody anyone else does well,we're running businesses,

(22:35):
service-based businesses, at theend of the day.

Speaker 4 (22:38):
So I mean, look at, look at any other industry all
they do is they spend so muchtime, effort and money on
marketing everything.
Everything is marketingawareness.
It's crazy that any kind offirm out there wouldn't do the
same.

Speaker 1 (22:53):
Do you think it's a fear of the code of ethics?
Lisa, that's something thatI've always returned to, and I
kind of feel like that may beone of the causes.

Speaker 3 (23:02):
I hadn't thought about that actually.

Speaker 1 (23:04):
Yeah, not being allowed to sell yourself, not
being able to sell a servicethat you can't deliver, or
something there's like no, butthat's you know your own
competency so yeah you'reselling, selling what you're
competently able to achieve, Iknow, but I think the code of
ethics is ambiguous enough thatit freaks people out because
they wonder where the line is ifyou know what I mean?

Speaker 2 (23:28):
I emailed.

Speaker 3 (23:28):
That's crazy years ago I'm thinking back to a
lecture that miles warren gavewhen I was at architecture
school and and someone asked aquestion that puts my asian
context.
But he asked a question, um, atthe end of it, oh you, how did
you grow your business?
You know, Sir Miles?
And he went oh, you know, just,you know, it grew organically.

(23:49):
I did my auntie's garage and itgrew from there.
And my friend, who'd come fromthe Otago Council as a water
engineer, leaned over and hesaid are you kidding me?
When their book came out, thefirst thing it did landed on the
desks of every you knowengineer working for a council
in New Zealand on the desks ofevery you know engineer working
for a council in new zealand asmanifesto.

(24:09):
Yeah, there's this sort ofgentility over the top of it, or
that we don't want to behilarious something like that
and I talked to a friend afriend and a client who's a
branding expert and he he had acrack at the nz day about 10
years ago, I think, talking tothem about communicating value,
because he was showing me at thetime there was an advertising
campaign in Home Magazine and hewas like going Lisa, you're

(24:31):
preaching to the converted, it'sa waste of time and money and
it was a really wishy-washycampaign as well.
So he was kind of trying toargue that they should be
communicating value and ofcourse they thought that that
was grubby.
So these are the shoes theywere up against.
And then I think you know, likewe are collective but we are in

(24:51):
competition with each other, andso I think a lot of architects,
you know, I think a lot ofarchitects, I think we, I think
I personally think we would bestronger together.
And I see that in the SPG thing, Like, since we started the
SPGs it's, you know, it's reallygreat to have people that you
can rely on.
I mean, the other issue is thatwe're a wide church, so there's

(25:14):
a lot of diverse voices, and ithas been explained to me that
one of the reasons the NZAAdon't say very much is for fear
of annoying somebody.
So if you say, you know, dosomething about climate change,
someone else is going to go.
Why are you saying that?

Speaker 1 (25:30):
I don't know, but that's so tame and I think that
sort of for me that sort ofresponse is from someone or from
an entity that is large,basically, and they don't need
the NZIA to support them, theydon't need that kind of.

Speaker 3 (25:46):
No, but that's the NZIA's position.
Yeah, because it's amember-driven society, right?
You don't want to be sort ofannoying a lot of your members.
But I also feel like thebiggest voices.

Speaker 1 (25:58):
Yeah but, I, also feel like the biggest entities
in the room are going to be theones that will control that
narrative, because they don'tnecessarily need them.
Then they'll be like well, youguys just keep doing what you do
because it's fine by us,Whereas our smaller entities are
like actually, we really needyou guys to help uplift us,
promote us a bit better.

Speaker 3 (26:14):
So you've hit the nail on the head right.
My other reason is that we'reall too bloody busy trying to
run like this.
Being an architect, beingresponsible for everything that
I do, like the like, themultitude of things I think
about and do in one day likeit's hard.
It's hard work.
Being an architect and runninga practice is hard work, like
having the headspace to thinkabout any of this stuff just so

(26:40):
hard.
So you know, when I try andengage people about it, the
response is just not it'spositive but it's.
You know emails to me sayinghey, you've raised some great
points, good luck.

Speaker 1 (26:53):
Yeah Well, that's why we're happy to have you here,
because we can kind of try andget this out a little bit more,
get some momentum behind it.

Speaker 3 (27:01):
Here's a question for you guys.
Did you vote in the specialgeneral meeting on Wednesday?
I did not.
Here's a question for you guys.
Did you vote in the specialgeneral meeting on Wednesday?

Speaker 2 (27:06):
I did not this, the NZIA Mm-hmm.
I stopped paying for NZIA a fewyears ago.

Speaker 3 (27:15):
This is one of the other things that's driven me
into frenzy of activity.
Yeah, yeah.
So we had the opportunity toaddress the structure of the nza
and to think about governance,and smaller practices were not
heard in.
That I don't think.
Well, didn't show up.
Should I put it that way?
Yeah, to be fair I don't knowthat, but I embarrassingly

(27:40):
you're sort of saying, hey guys,why don't you pay attention?

Speaker 1 (27:43):
well, totally, and that's a fair comment.
But back to your point before,interestingly, I didn't vote,
but also I consciously didn'tvote because I didn't have the
time.
You know, I didn't really havethe time to put everything else
aside and to focus on this otherthing which, ultimately, I'm
like it's important, probablyfor me to have my voice, but at
the end of the day, like, is itgoing to be heard?

(28:05):
Probably not.
What's the point?

Speaker 3 (28:06):
well, it literally was, so it will be heard.
I mean, it's like exactly thesame if I hadn't put my head up
over the parapet, like I sawthose emails coming in saying oh
, we're going on a road show,we're talking about the
constitution I thought good god,like I need to focus on that.
Like a hole in the head, um.
So I completely ignored it, andI'm the first one to say that
if I hadn't gotten engagedliterally in the last four weeks

(28:31):
, I would not have shown up forthat vote.
And it's not that complicated.
There's a few documents to readon the website.
We do need to address itlegislatively.
We need to lodge a constitutionnext year, and it's our choice.
Do we want to take the adviceof the people that we you know
our fees have paid money to togive us advice?

(28:53):
Do we want a board that youknow that acts in our own best
interest?
So if we sat here talking aboutyou know what we can do around.
You know better decision-making.

Speaker 1 (29:02):
Well, maybe that's you know, something that we all
do need to engage in we are sortof victims of our own um
inaction sometimes, and I thinkthat obviously speaks to your
point now.
But it's also, you know, themarketing point of view, the
self-promotion point of view,the industry promotion point of
view, like a lot of the time weare waiting for somebody else to

(29:25):
solve the problem for us andwe're not really willing to do
it ourselves.
And that's why it's good tohave someone like yourself put
your hand up and be like oh,come on, guys, let's, let's
actually do something about this.
And it does stimulate chatter.
And you know, from your email,like you said, it's gone to,
went to sam zondag and thereforewent to gerard, and now it's

(29:47):
come to this.
You know um forum and I'vepassed it on to a lot of people
and you know that's the snowballthat starts to gather momentum,
so hopefully it continues to doso.

Speaker 3 (29:58):
I actually wonder, talking to people where the part
of the problem is comes down tothe sort of inherent
hierarchies.
And now in our profession Idon't know what it was like for
you guys, but when I went toarchitecture school, there was a
very clear hierarchiescommunicated to us in terms of
design versus anything practical.
So it didn't matter ifmarketing, detailing,

(30:22):
waterproofing, buildings, thosethings were not nearly as
important as designing.
And then there was obviouslykind of hierarchical structures
in that around who the what dothey call them star architects
were.
And I just wonder whether a lotof us who pay fees to the NZIA
don't actually feel like webelong to the club.

(30:42):
You know, like maybe it's a clubthat we pay for but we don't
belong to, to or don't feel likewe have the right to belong,
and I think that's one of thethings that that award gives me
is the right to say well, youknow, gary thought I belonged.
Okay, what's the kind of gaveme the medal, you know, so I
don't.
Maybe I just I've dropped that.
Um, you know that that sort offear that I didn't belong or

(31:07):
whatever, that insecurity orthat inferiority, complex or
whatever.

Speaker 1 (31:11):
I agree very much with what you just said, lisa,
and we unfortunately won a localaward last year and that
validation from the NZIA doesmake you feel like you can sort
of be a bit more outspoken.
But there's so many of us thateither like even yourself,
gerard, that you know eitherdon't engage with the NZIA or

(31:32):
don't engage with the awardsprograms, or you know we're
working isolated a solo.
There's so many soulpractitioners out there, or one
or two people bands, that youknow their voices also need to
be heard in some capacity and Ithink, yeah, you're right, that
hierarchical fear maybe of ofspeaking out is is a real
problem what I think happen ifwe don't, if the small practices

(31:56):
don't sort of claim our voice.

Speaker 3 (31:59):
We will be overtaken by the large practices.
We're not overtaken, butthey're the ones with the
resources and the mana and theposition and the drive to have a
voice.
If we don't stand up and fightfor it, we won't.
The voice of Sam talking abouthow she needs to write a booklet

(32:20):
to explain to her clients, witha $400,000 budget, why they
should pay a little bit extrafor her they're not going to be
hurt.

Speaker 2 (32:29):
Is it a marketing issue, though?
Could the issue be solved withmarketing versus going via the
NZIA?
Independent marketing yeah,independent marketing.
I used to think you weren'tallowed to market at all, but I
saw um waramani having, uh,phantom billboard posters all
around wellington, and I didsome mock-ups of my own sort of

(32:52):
phantom billboard posters a fewyears ago, and then I never
followed through with it.
Cool, bring them back, butsomething like that is a way of
phantom billboards.
Aren't that expensive?
Like, for 500 bucks, you canget quite a few billboards
around town for a week or so.
That's the bottom end of the.

Speaker 3 (33:11):
That's my list of ideas.

Speaker 1 (33:13):
Thanks, Gerard.
We're all going to have a bigbillboard at the Wazoo now.

Speaker 2 (33:17):
I think it's something worth considering,
because how else do you get yourname out there Instagram, like
you say, people scroll pastpictures so quickly now and if
you don't have a really nice,succinct, beautifully crafted
video which creates a story,like at least, I really do like
that NZIA video.

(33:38):
I watched your one and that'slike a perfect little video.
It's like a minute and a halfor something.

Speaker 3 (33:44):
Simon Wilson.

Speaker 2 (33:45):
Yeah, it kind of captured who you are as a person
.
So then there's like thislikability of you as a person.
So then like that's a big thing, I think, for any human
engagement.
So something like that is sucha powerful communication tool I
talked about the jury service.

Speaker 3 (34:00):
Before you get, you jump into a car with a bunch of
like maybe four, three or fourother architects and you're
reminded you've never met andyou're reminded you know what a
smart, funny, interesting bunchof people we are.
You're not communicating thatat all except to other
architects.

Speaker 4 (34:15):
Now, we're really good at that.

Speaker 3 (34:18):
Think about our work.
We're too busy talking to eachother.
We're not talking to peoplethat we should be talking to
that's the thing they'reinterested in that, that's so
it's.

Speaker 4 (34:28):
The interesting thing is for me, like nziak institute
of architects I only use it forlike a, you know.
Okay, there's like networkevents, let's.
Let's talk about what nzi doesright brings architects together
, probably brings a few otherinterested parties, but
predominantly architects, andthen, you know, there's a lot of

(34:48):
social gatherings and that sortof thing.
There's education, so tutorialsand that sort of thing, but I
never even really saw the nziaas the people that should be
selling the profession to otherthan like the awards ceremony
which is, in a weird way, onlyselling to architects.
Once again, yeah, you don't evensee it as a profession that's

(35:11):
meant to be selling architectureto non-architects, I guess to
the general public.
Or is that just me, you know,because I am in the industry,
and that's just how I feel it.

Speaker 1 (35:24):
I'm not sure I think you won't have haven't seen that
, ben, because they don't do it,and I think, to sum it, to sum
it up basically, but also Ithink I think they hit.
They certainly have a role toplay, but I think we all have a
role to play as well.
And this goes back to gerard'spoint on marketing, like we also
need to market ourselves betterand I think us as small

(35:45):
practices, which all of us are,we can do so much.
But I also think something wehaven't touched on is there's
bigger practices in the countryas well.
There's huge entities that havea huge amount of sway in the
built environment that I alsodon't think, that a lot of the
time is self-satisfying andaren't necessarily looking to

(36:06):
uplift their profession as awhole.
I'm sure about that, you don'treckon.

Speaker 3 (36:11):
No, well, I'm not convinced about that.
No, I mean one of the mostthoughtful responses I had to my
.
So before I wrote the bulletin,I just basically thought of
every architect I could think of, wrote a letter to them and
said you know, give me somefeedback.
Yeah, yeah, the most thoughtfulresponses I got was from John
Coop, who's the managingdirector of Warren Armani, and I

(36:33):
thought that his approach wastotally.
You know, he was.
I mean, it seems I don't knowthis for sure, but looking from
a distance it looks a lot likehe did a lot of very smart
things to lift up the, you know,up the practice of Warren Arnie
and he is offering that sort ofperspective to the profession.

Speaker 1 (36:51):
I mean I'm happy to be put in my place in that
statement, which is good to hear.

Speaker 3 (36:57):
I mean again, we're not talking enough with each
other, right?
I had no interest at all withJohn, but I haven't spoken to
him for years.
What did he say?
We are seen as generators ofrisk, not problem solvers,
strategists or governors.
So his argument is that everybusiness with a campus should
have an architect on its board,but none of them do so.

(37:20):
He's a director on a board, buthe's the only one I've ever
heard of Right.
Director of a on a board, buthe's the only one I've ever
heard of right.
So engineers, lawyers,accountants take on
directorships, but architectsdon't.
And at the point that he'smaking as well, putting pictures
of batches on instagram is notgoing to give us any power in
the world.
We need you know we need if wewant change from his perspective

(37:42):
, which is obviously a lot morebusiness savvy than mine, so we
need to be in positions of power.

Speaker 1 (37:48):
Kirsten Thompson touched on this expertly in her
cold metal lecture last year orFortuna series lecture last year
, and spoke to the role of thearchitect and architectural
advocacy in Australia and howmuch not necessarily power, no
power, I guess that they do have, and how their opinions are

(38:09):
respected.
I think that is.
Another issue that we have isthat you're right, there aren't
architects in any positions ofdecision-making.
We don't have a governmentarchitect or we don't
necessarily have architects onurban panel review boards,
boards or just like to yourpoint, and you know those sort
of facilities where you needdesign input, professional

(38:34):
design input, not necessarilysomeone who's looking at it from
a financial or a structural orinfrastructural lens.
You know and I don't know how,I don't know how you change that
, but yeah, I mean if anybodywants to look for it.

Speaker 3 (38:46):
We get to face that to our responsibility.
Like I think it's our fault and, honestly, like I think I tried
to communicate, I do think it'san existential issue.

Speaker 1 (38:54):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (38:55):
You look at what's happening out there, you know in
the last 10 years I've beenpracticing, the prices go up
every year.
You know like it's harder.
The first house.
I did three bedroom house inavondale for 97 000.
Well done, yeah, like either.
So that was a moment, um.
You know like it's so muchharder to practice and where are

(39:16):
we going to end up.
You know what's the logicalconclusion of where we're going?
Fewer and fewer architectsdoing houses for people who are
making money without us, whilewe wait patiently, like lapdogs,
waiting for them to come to uswith their dirty money.

Speaker 2 (39:33):
Please call me.

Speaker 3 (39:34):
We've been involved in making Pick me and then spend
it on really expensive details.
Is that what we want as aprofession, or do we want to
pull together collectively andfight for something more for a
seat at the table?

Speaker 2 (39:51):
I liked your note in there increasing obsolescence,
and I kind of wonder has thatbeen happening for a long time?
I feel like when you'restudying for your registration
or something, often it's riskaversion.
The right answer in your case,study exam, is always avoid risk
.
But I feel like that'sall-encompassing and it's

(40:13):
covered everything.
And so when no longer urbandesigners or you remove yourself
from the puzzle and bring in aconsultant or something, you're
no longer the planner, your ownplanner.
So it's like a fragmentation ofyour job and I feel like that's
not overly helpful.

(40:33):
I remember a lecture by JosephRasmus Prince of Rex Architects
talking about agency andarchitects consistently trying
to avoid risk and then wonderingwhy they're being left out of
all the decision making and whythe why the contractor has all
the power.
So it's like how is thesolution?

(40:55):
To be more in the room,ultimately to take on more risk?

Speaker 4 (41:00):
I mean developers.

Speaker 2 (41:01):
Take all the risk and and they have a seat at the
table, I guess, as as a result.

Speaker 1 (41:05):
Yeah, I think you make a very valid point, gerard
and I think we as a professionare terrified of liability, but
we are highly trained, we'regood at what we do, we know
we're good at what we do, wehave exorbitant amounts on
insurance to cover our backs ifwe do make a mistake, but we

(41:27):
never, ever, put any of it intoplay.
You know, and I think you'reright, I think it is it's been a
growing obsolescence, becauseof fear, in my opinion.
But then again, anytime you tryand break out of that mold or
that established mold of today,you're often pulled back down,

(41:48):
told to rein your head in, cutdown by council, maybe, you know
, cut down by a compliancepathway or things like that, and
so you just sort of you often,and again this goes back to the
point of how busy we are youtake an easier route because you
don't have the time orsometimes the energy to solve
the problem.

Speaker 3 (42:07):
Yeah, I mean I've certainly had lots of
conversations around risk andthe effect that it's had on the
industry, but not in the lastkind of five or so years.
I mean there was a time,especially amongst female
architects, there was a lot ofdiscussion around risk, like I'm
not sure that that's thebiggest problem we face.
I think it's more about value,like maybe valuing ourselves and

(42:33):
communicating our value betterand just being a little bit less
focused on the product, alittle bit more on the service.
But yeah, I think you know theNZAA is there to you know.
Well, it's what we've got right.
It's our industry body, so it'sgoing to do what we ask it to
do Like.
So there's a strategic plan from2024.

(42:54):
And if you look at it, there'slots of nice words about support
, public education and awarenesscampaign on the value of
architects, registration andprofessional standards, deliver
campaigns to highlight the valueand contribution of members,
work to Aotearoa, new Zealand,community communities and
environment.
Well, that was quarter one, twoand three of last year.
That was the action plan.

(43:15):
So I mean we need to do morethan you know, write action
plans.
Yeah we need to act.
Also that's been a great thingis that you know like people are
communicating, like if we wantthe NZIA to help us with this,
then we do need to communicateit to them, because they are
sort of, you know, in theprocess of trying to understand

(43:35):
how to grapple with all thisstuff as well.
So one of the biggest issues isadvocacy.
So again, a dirty word.
But do we want lobbyists?
And down in wellington, and my,my argument is we absolutely do
.
You know we were completelysideswiped.
What happened with the changeof government?
You know we were hit prettyhard as a profession and I think
the things that the currentgovernment doesn't really

(43:57):
understand, or is probably aboutto, is that with all the
architects out of work in thenext three months to a year,
there are going to be fewer andfewer contractors in work, so
that is going to have a palpableeffect on their poll ratings
and their ability to getre-elected and you you don't
have to be a rocket scientist tofigure that out.

Speaker 1 (44:17):
No, not at all.

Speaker 3 (44:18):
You know we're not being heard.
Do you know what I mean?
And also, the other thing is,I'm just going to talk to you
about some of this stuff.
It's actually really important.
Like you know, that thing aboutthe protection for the term
architect that's not off thetable, is that the protection
for the term architect that'snot off the table?
Is it still being floated?
It's still out there in theworld, it hasn't been squashed.
So when you say, oh, you knowwe don't have time to think

(44:40):
about this, you know, specialgeneral meeting and all this,
it's like these are the issuesat play.
Like it's not enough.
Do you know what I mean?
Imagine if they took that awayfrom us.
The government, you know,fighting, cutting regulation at
every corner.
Have regard for architects.
Like I do think, unfortunately,with all the other stuff going
on that we are so stressed andworried and thinking about, we

(45:02):
do have to pay a bit ofattention to this stuff.

Speaker 1 (45:04):
The protection of the term architect, I think, is a
particularly important one.
One thing that frustrates me innew zealand in particular and
you see the adverseinternationally is that I don't
like to say this, but we are notneeded.
Necessarily we should be, butultimately you can build in new

(45:25):
zealand code compliant buildingswithout the need of an
architect, and that is to me.

Speaker 3 (45:34):
I think that's a problem, because you end up with
a incredibly basic,unimaginative average built
environment you ask the peoplein your neighborhood do you want
your child going to school in aprefab or do you want them
going to school in anarchitecturally designed
building?
An easy question, right?

Speaker 1 (45:51):
it's not a difficult question an easy question, but I
think that's the problem isthat our position's not held in
a high enough regard, that weare the be-all and end-all from
a design perspective, and Ithink we should be, because
we're trained to be, but there'sso many other little side
professions that can stillimpact the built environment

(46:12):
without the need of us, and Ithink that's for me that's a key
issue.
Um, and even to the point ofconsenting I know this has been
talked about in the past andeverything but like this could
be a mechanism for us to, andthere's risk involved in this.
But you know, like self-review,you know engineers do it
through the peer review systemlike why, why couldn't we?

(46:33):
And that's that kind of likeputs us our standing on a higher
regard I'll tell you one thingthat would be useful.

Speaker 3 (46:39):
A lot of architects see planners as as a block, and
you know I I see them as ifarchitects and planners worked
to get together for thebetterment of our communities,
we would be stronger come.
The company that I worked forin london had a thriving
practice based on a reputationfor getting things through
planning.
Planning is difficult toachieve in london.

(47:00):
You have to do a good job youhave a nice you know building
that's going to last thedistance, to get planning.
So you know, like a lot of,there's a lot of these kind of
hierarchies in play that arejust not working that well for
us, or dichotomies going back tothat, you know, would you
prefer an architecturallydesigned building question?

Speaker 4 (47:19):
one thing that we've commonly talked about on this
podcast is I just I don'tactually believe their answer is
as clear as black and white asyou think it is.
I think that there's so manypeople with not you know, like I
would say, bad taste, but orlet's just say, like not our
kind of, or not with a similarkind of taste or aesthetic as us

(47:42):
, that they're quite happy justliving in some of those more
cookie cutter type apologies, orthat sort of thing.
So I think, yeah, I think likethere's definitely, and that may
be because there's just notenough architecturally designed
houses out there to compare to.
So maybe, like it's just, we'vejust gone a full circle and it

(48:02):
comes back to awareness ofactually, well, what is well
designed versus what isn't andpeople being able to actually
differentiate, because, yeah,I'm just not convinced that
everyone wants to live in anarchitecturally designed house
at this point in time.

Speaker 1 (48:20):
I'm not saying that everything needs to be bespoke.
I just think that our role, aslet's call it like chief
overseer of the builtenvironment, should be more
prominent.
And you can still deliver thosecookie-cutter solutions, but
we're still the head of thesnake.

Speaker 3 (48:41):
Where I'm at is that you know, don't whinge about
things we can't control.
Focus on what we can control.
Good point.

Speaker 2 (48:47):
But you know what I mean.

Speaker 3 (48:48):
Yeah, yeah, we can't do anything about.
Like a friend of mine fromEurope was complaining 20 years
ago that New Zealanders aren'ttaught visual appreciation, all
the stuff that she learnedthrough her osmosis in Portugal
or whatever we don't have it.
We can talk about all thatstuff, but we're not going to be
able to solve that problem.
Yeah, very very, and I honestlythink like yeah, it's very

(49:12):
tempting to blame a whole lot ofother stuff, but I honestly
think we have to start lookingat ourselves.
You know, what can we do?

Speaker 4 (49:20):
What can we do better ?

Speaker 2 (49:35):
You know seeing ourselves as a group of people
and seeing worth andcommunicating that value is
something that we can do,something that we can ask our
profession as a body to do, knowas a body to do, yeah, and kind
of doing practices.
Yeah, it kind of comes fullcircle all the way back to how
we started about advocacy andmarketing and getting getting
the word out there, kind ofreminded of like how um vocal
like frank lloyd wright was backin the day.
He'd be on tv every chance he'dget and extremely opinionated

(49:56):
and talking about utopianarchitecture and yeah ebjorn
said you could always rely onath.

Speaker 3 (50:03):
You know, give a pithy quote, it would be
generous to other architects, itwouldn't be specific about him
and that's one of the things onthe list of you know, if we want
to sort of turn to things, wecan do.
That was one of the things onthe list of you know, if we want
to sort of turn to things, wecan do, that was one of the
things on the list.
Is that?
Okay, we all have differentideas.
Well, maybe the newcommunication guy at the NZIA,
maybe he could develop or wecould send him in you know, a

(50:24):
sort of a spreadsheet of peoplewho you know.
Well, you know my name's LisaWebb and I'm interested and
capable on talking on these.
You know three issues here weall are and capable in talking
on these.
You know three issues here weall are.
But you know he doesn't, he'sonly just started, he doesn't
know anything about us or who weshould go to and we're probably
not going to tell him.
You know there could be a list.
You know we could just say,okay, we all have different

(50:47):
ideas, but you know, let's makea list of people that could.
So at least you have somethingout there rather than nothing
Like.
Make a list of people thatcould.
So at least you have somethingout there rather than nothing
Like.
That is something that we could.
You know that we could bebetter at.
We could get quotes fromarchitects.
I don't know if anyone readsthe paper anymore, but you know
we could get quotes fromarchitects in the paper and we
could get more publicity.

Speaker 4 (51:06):
Testimonials yeah, Just sounds like positive easy
marketing to me.
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (51:12):
And the airtime thing .
Airtime thing's reallyinteresting, lisa, and way back
start of the pod you talkedabout when you, when your house,
won, um, the nza nathfieldaward for housing, like that in
the video, and you're stillreaping the benefits of the
video, like, I think, airtime,visual, airtime of architects be
, be that opinion, be thatprojects, be that stories, be

(51:35):
that narrative.
I think that is an easymechanism for us to better get
our skills, our profession,across to the wider public.

Speaker 3 (51:45):
Yeah, the other one.
I did a project for some peopleI knew in the neighborhood and
have become my friends LouiseMcGill and Gordon Harcourt.
Gordon used to be the presenteron Fair Goat.

Speaker 1 (51:58):
I've seen that one as well.
I saw that video.

Speaker 3 (52:03):
Yeah, there were parts of that project where he
was white-knuckling, you know,because he'd seen all the bad
stories firsthand.
You know he had the bloodynoses to sort of prove it.
But at the end of, yeah, hepresented to the contractor and
I that video that he'd made.
You know, it's an incrediblygenerous thing to do and I was
talking to him about it on theweekend and you know he's up for

(52:24):
telling stories about, you know, contributing his voice to what
architects can do.
And I talked to Mark Abbott aswell, the interim chief
executive.
They're talking about going andum with a videographer taking
snippets at the local awards ofclients.
You know, like every one of uswould have clients saying nice

(52:45):
things about stuff, you knowyeah and those stories are far
more resonant to me than a thanI mean.
This is again, I don't want itto make it sound like I'm not
interested in design.
Of course I am, and I wantthings to be beautiful, and
that's what I'm trying to say isthey don't have to be one or
the other.

Speaker 4 (53:03):
Yeah, it's the same thing.

Speaker 3 (53:05):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (53:06):
Architecture shared and for people.

Speaker 3 (53:08):
It's more complex than you see in a picture.

Speaker 2 (53:11):
Yeah, People are infinitely more important, I
think in the story.

Speaker 1 (53:15):
Well, that's a key point, Gerard, and this is where
the narrative becomes soimportant.
You know, it's lovely to watcha local project video, but it's
very tailored, it's very clean.
There's not necessarily a lotof reality to it, and I think
we're the real success in termsof not necessarily selling the
product, as in the finalbuilding, but the actual

(53:39):
profession, what we do asarchitects and what the result
of what we do is, is that story.
It's the real people'sresponses, it's the client's joy
at the end of it.
It's the way that, like yousaid, you transform that
teacher's life in the way thatthey interact with their school.
I mean, that's the real key, Ithink, in terms of trying to
sell what we do.
They're really beautifulstories as well.

Speaker 3 (54:03):
Blind and Tears the other day.
I feel you know you'relistening to me.
I feel that, yeah, these arenice things to have out there in
the world.

Speaker 1 (54:11):
I had that the other day in a concept design meeting
and it sort of took me aback.
I was like, oh, I'm glad thatI've done the right thing, but I
don't really know what to say.

Speaker 3 (54:22):
But again, that's another skill that good
architects have is the abilityto listen and hear what people
are saying and interpret in away that they weren't expecting.
That's exactly what we bring tothe table.
There's another really goodidea I had from a guy called Ren
Zhijian, whose I think hispractice is called Percept
Studio.
So I'd not heard, I hadn'theard from him before and

(54:44):
probably the NZIA had data, buthe had a really great idea, I
thought, and that's a video thatdescribes the process.
So he was saying when he hasclients and they want to know
how building works, he sendsthem to these YouTube videos
that builders have made, which Ilasted about five minutes.
Was I okay Enough with thewheelbarrow?
But you know, like that's areally that's actually a really

(55:08):
good idea and goes to that pointwe were talking about before
around Sam's conundrum.
You know a good way to explainto people and you know when you
start, especially when you'restarting out and a lot of people
haven't used your clients,haven't used an architect before
and there's a lot of anxietyand all that.
You know you can explain, youknow how the process works and
maybe communicate why you knowit's worth an architect there to

(55:29):
help you if you're an architectthere to help you.
You know like, even at my youknow like, because I've sort of
seen it all like when you'restarting out it's so hard to
communicate your value and thenyou get, you know, you win an
award and all of a sudden peoplestart going, oh, maybe she
doesn't know what she's talkingabout, and it becomes easier,
right, but you still have todeal with, you know, these

(55:50):
preconceptions, like.
You know, oh, we'll get a QS tomanage the money because
architects can't deal with moneywhich infuriates me because I'm
very particular about money anda sort of obsessive controller
of trade summary sheets and allthat sort of stuff.
So we're still fighting ourcorner on all that stuff and

(56:10):
those kinds of preconceptionsthat we don't know anything
about.
Money is one of the things thatreally drives me out the wall
and I'd really like not to getholed up at a party again about
that.

Speaker 1 (56:20):
I think that's one of them, but there's many
preconceptions about us whichneed to be debunked or at least
explained.

Speaker 3 (56:26):
This is what we're not doing with the Instagram
picture strategy.
So this is the problem.
Hopefully, the NZA are talkingabout getting a PR person on
board as well, so obviously wedon't know how to do any of this
, so it's up to us.
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (56:44):
Okay, I think that's a great idea.
Yeah, I think that's… I likedyour comment about you know
running it more as a business,for sure.

Speaker 3 (56:51):
Yeah, well, I think my friend the branding advisor.
He sort of basically says whenwe work with Whittaker's, the
argument is why would you paymore for a bar of Whittaker's
chocolate than a bar ofCadbury's chocolate?
And I just, I don't thinkarchitecture is that different,
like you know.
Why would you pay for us?

Speaker 1 (57:06):
It's such a great analogy because I will pay more
for a Whittaker's chocolate barevery time, yeah, or for a
Whittaker's chocolate bar everytime.
Yeah, market positioning it'squality, and then it's the
emotion that it gives you.
I feel so much more satisfiedwith good chocolate than I do
with gritty, over-sugaredgeneric chocolate.

Speaker 2 (57:26):
I know we're getting late in the conversation but on
the Whittaker's chat, celebrityendorsement might be one.
There's a very young NewZealand motocross rider who's
getting very big in the UnitedStates at the moment who's a
very big Whitaker's fan andalways talks about it in his
post-race interviews Nice, youhear it in these podcasts people

(57:47):
in America trying to track downWhitaker's.
That reminds me of RichieMcCaw's Total Span video.
Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 4 (57:56):
Yeah, see all of those guys do it.

Speaker 1 (57:58):
Should we get Richie McCaw to champion?
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (58:02):
No, somebody design Richie House.

Speaker 3 (58:06):
One of the comments that was made was around a PR
strategy that just would haverelationships with social media
influences and all that sort ofstuff.

Speaker 1 (58:16):
It's funny, though we sort of roll our eyes a little
bit at it, but it does havereach, there's meat there.
There is meat there, and thatis the world we live in.

Speaker 2 (58:27):
I've seen a video of somebody giving a personal tour
of a real beautiful mid-centuryhouse in the States.
Those videos are prettycaptivating.
I'm just an absolute sucker forgiving a personal tour of like
a real beautiful mid-centuryhouse in the states and like.
Those videos are prettycaptivating and I'm just an
absolute sucker for are yougoing back to ice?

Speaker 4 (58:41):
ice cube.
I mean, ice cube's the biggestadvocate.
Yeah, he's who we need.
But yeah, also the arcymarathon guys who have had on
the pod.

Speaker 1 (58:50):
I'm like becoming more and more addicted to
watching their videos becausejust love the storytelling and,
once again, and just the generalbanter, I guess I think
something that they do well isthey make it architecturally
nerdy enough that we asprofessionals get off on it, but

(59:11):
they also make it like jovialand sort of awkward and like
common enough that regularviewers will also really enjoy
it yeah, they describe it verywell, they do do you have any
closing thoughts lesser?

Speaker 3 (59:27):
I just I I feel I feel like a reluctant
cheerleader.
I'm somebody who's never reallybeen involved in anything sort
of organized in my life.
I remember my mum saying to meonce when I was a kid you know,
whenever you get a group ofpeople together and try and get
a decision, it doesn't matter ifit's a PTA or a Bloomin' Sunday

(59:48):
School, you know committee or Idon't know the Board of
Fletchers or whatever there'salways.
You know difficulties, makingdecisions and finding ways
forward and, like you know,basically why would you want
that so?
But I sort of feel like we haveto get involved.

Speaker 1 (01:00:07):
Yeah, I mean, we're happy to be here cheerleading
with you as well, so I hopeyou're not.

Speaker 3 (01:00:12):
But there's going to be another vote coming up, I
hope, so we are going to have apresident.

Speaker 4 (01:00:17):
Call to action.
Call to action.

Speaker 3 (01:00:19):
Lisa does not want to be president.

Speaker 1 (01:00:23):
But at least vote people, myself included, yeah,
yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:00:27):
Educate what's involved.
So like, for example, youbrought up the Australian model,
they have a board structuredwith outside board members.
So they have adopted the.
As I understand it I obviouslydon't know this for a fact, but
as I understand it they arestructured in a way that we were
trying to structure ourselves.
So, you know, what I hear fromMark Abbott is that obviously

(01:00:53):
the chief executive role is up,so he's an interim chief
executive.
The chief executive role iscoming up and, like, I'm
interested in you know who we'regoing to get and what skills
are they going to bring to thetable, because it really does
need someone who's capable ofnavigating all these sort of
complex issues.
Um, and then the other one is Ithink there's a president-elect

(01:01:13):
coming up.
Yeah, yeah, everyone put theirthumb on their forehead or
whatever it is to avoid that one.
And then the other one is thebranch members.
You know, around New Zealandthere are I don't know the
structure of it even, but youknow the branch members are
coming up for re-voting.
But, again, if you want thesekinds of issues addressed, then

(01:01:34):
communicate that to your, toyour, to your local board rep
yeah, or get involved yourselvesif you've somehow magicked up
some spare time I mean justsorry off the podcast, but just
as an aside, like we do, likethat is.
One of the things is that we dohave to address the governance
structure and, like I don't knowhow many times, to say to
people like we really do need toget engaged on that front and,

(01:01:55):
like I said all before the vote,how do we get people interested
in really boring stuff likereading about governance
structures, like they've got anice diagram on the website,
like all you have to do diagramit's gonna make it easy as
little amount of clicks aspossible, because I actually
read that bulletin and I thoughtto myself I really should go on
the website and see whatthey're talking about yeah

(01:02:18):
well, we, we have an opportunitylike we've got a choice right.
Either we have um, we have alot of representatives sitting
around the table more than thenumber I understand has been
advised leads to a successfuloutcome.
So if you get too many peoplesitting around the table talking
about stuff, you're there sixweeks later.
Do you know what I'm?

Speaker 4 (01:02:34):
saying should be sending it all of that stuff out
in those bulletins, instead ofsaying like, hey, we're going to
meet about this, go to thewebsite, just get it in there, I
don't know where to read it ifit was on in the news.

Speaker 3 (01:02:45):
But they've been emailing and we were ignoring it
like, literally, I saw themroadshed really town like yeah
whatever, but I think that's theissue with the bulletins as
well.

Speaker 1 (01:02:55):
I don't know about you guys, but they send them out
on Friday afternoon.

Speaker 2 (01:02:58):
The last thing I want to do is open a bloody email on
a Friday afternoon.
Yeah, that's right.

Speaker 1 (01:03:03):
Send it to me on a Monday morning.
It'll sit in my, like.
I'll be like that's interesting.
I'll star that email all weeklooking at me and by Friday
afternoon.
I'm so irritated looking atthat email.
I will address it, but if yousend it to me on a Friday
afternoon, I'll open it and I'llgo delete.

Speaker 3 (01:03:20):
I'm leaving, sorry.
Maybe we should change the timeExactly.
That's an easy win and somegood ideas for the bulletin as
well in terms of how we talk toeach other a bit more
interesting, like show work onthe boards, that kind of stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:03:32):
Yeah, I like that.

Speaker 3 (01:03:33):
Yeah, I mean, the structures are really not great.
Like there was an email sayingissue come to the Auckland board
meeting now or whatevertomorrow night at this bar or
whatever.
And I raced across town, I toldmy husband to cook dinner and I
got there and it was a bunch ofpeople standing around drinking
free drinks in a bar, liketalking about nothing, and they

(01:03:54):
had bits of white paper on onthe bar tables going oh, write
an idea.
And it was like, oh, have aarchitectural walk around the
city, or whatever.
I was like, oh my god, you know, it's just like.
That is not an effective, thatis not effective way to move
forward.

Speaker 4 (01:04:07):
Don't put that in the podcast, though, because that's
too negative uplift, upliftyeah, I did see one come through
the other day about a meet-upat the Rimuru golf course and I
was like, oh yeah, ben's here,but I would 100% just be going
to play golf.

Speaker 3 (01:04:25):
Well, go Ben Talk to people, yeah Do it.
You know, I just couldn'timagine anything worse.

Speaker 1 (01:04:38):
you know, I just couldn't imagine anything worse?

Speaker 4 (01:04:39):
uh, amazingly so.

Speaker 1 (01:04:40):
Thank you very much for coming on and thanks so much
and um, we will continue all tokeep advocating for
architecture in new zealand andwe'll keep pushing positivity,
the positive vibes.

Speaker 3 (01:04:50):
I think we need to act collectively.
That's what I would say if wewant to get where we want to go.
Thank you, awesome, nicechatting, thank you.