David Chipperfield on Architecture’s Priorities

0:00Hello and welcome to the new season of Design Emergency. I'm Alice Rosslorn, co-founder of Design Emergency with Palarantonelli. And since launching it six years ago, Palar and I have had the pleasure of interviewing many global leaders in design and architecture who are all helping to build a better future. And with thrilled that our interview in this episode is one of the most influential architects of our time, David Chipperfield. David grew up on a farm in Southwest England and worked for Britain's architectural grandees, Richard Rogers and Norman Foster, before opening his own practice in 1985. David Chipperfield architects now has offices in Berlin, London, Milan, Santiago de Compostella and Shanghai. It's responsible for many memorable buildings from the Neuys Museum in Berlin, to the Royal Academy in London, and the San Miquelé Sanitri in Venice. Its current works and progress include the Nobel Center in Stockholm and the National Archaeological Museum in Athens.

1:00David also enjoys working on very different scales at Fondatio Norea, the nonprofit foundation he has established in Santiago to experiment with environmental, economic and cultural projects in Galicia. So we decided to ask him about his take on architecture's evolution during his career and how its defining values have changed. So David, thank you very much for joining us. Let's start with that core question. How have the values of architecture changed? Well, first of all, thank you for asking me onto your podcast. Fortunately, my career is now quite a long one. And when I began as a student back in the 70s, 80s, clearly the profession and the world were in a different place. And in one way, as architects, our position tends to very much reflect the societal priorities. And one could say very, very simply that the generation that taught me, the way the sort of post-war generation, worked very much in the public sector, worked on planning,

2:07on housing, on new universities, you know, it's a time of public works. And then by the time I graduated in the middle to late 80s, this situation had changed in the UK. We had recession and we had Margaret Thatcher dismantling the public sector. So in a way that marked very clearly a shift from a sort of publicly motivated a society to a privately one, to one of financialisation. And that clearly reflected a change in architectural practice, where we've seen that shift over the last 30 or 40 years. So if we look at specific strands of architecture, I mean one that has a fundamental role is inclusivity, an architecture's ability to engage and empower as many people as possible, that mission was crystal clear in the earlier era of the focus on public sector architecture that you've talked about. How is it being executed now?

3:08Again, we are no worse than no better than the society that surrounds us within which we operate. And the profession has very much adjusted itself collectively and individually to do. And I would say that tendencies which were always there to some degree have become very exaggerated. And it has become increasingly difficult to establish common ground and common purpose. I think all architects are united by a general sense of common purpose, as we train to believe that as architects, we can make a better world. And our territory is clearly the built environment. And I think everybody holds to that desire. But within practice, that's become more and more difficult. And the reason for that are many, but very much to do with a sort of lack of engagement and trust

4:11that the profession has. The profession has inevitably become, let's say, more rival of us. I mean, it's an unfortunate condition for architects that we believe that we have social purpose. And collectively, we would like to contribute. But in the end, our contribution is very much individualistic. And the last 30 or 40 years, which has only wallowed in the financialization of everything, architecture is not immune from that. And so I would say this proportionate amount of architectural talent has been applied to the market. And the motivations and priorities of the market as opposed to more abstracting collective concerns of our society. And of course, now we've hit a wall where we've all, slowly and rather too, too slowly, working up to the challenges both environmental and social that have been significantly

5:16I would say neglected by thought in it when all sectors over the last 30 or 40 years. And as you rightly say, there has been a general awakening in that people have accepted the gravity of the situation we're in. It's widely accepted. This is an extraordinary turbulent and uncertain time in history. So do you believe that the architecture community can play a positive role in addressing these complex challenges? And do you have any examples to share of projects that you believe are already doing so? Well, your first question is, you know, do I believe we can? Again, I don't think we're in any different position in a way than we all are individually in the sense we've all understood. Well, we've done significant exceptions, but most of us have started to understand not only the question of environment, but also of social inequality, which I'll talk about a

6:18little bit, but it's not so easy. You know, we've given a lot of our weapons away. So the profound problem of our society looking at through the lens of architecture, I would say, has been the erosion of a planning and long-term thinking. Everything has been inspired towards short-termism. Planning got a sort of bad name for itself. In the generation we refer to, of the 60s and 70s, they were visionary in many ways, but some of those visions were not robust enough. And there was a sort of hangover from that that coincided with, you know, sort of facturite ideologies of depowering public sector. So they will work together in a way. You've freed the market up, you erode the requirements for administration, and you let the market find itself and motivate. And of course, it all sounds good, but we've realized that the market without direction can lead us

7:22in dangerous places. And in terms of architecture, that direction would be called planning. And that would be planning is the anticipation of individual activities towards the sort of collective result. So coming back slightly more precisely to your question, are we capable of directing our energies more efficiently? Because certainly the overall construction industry contributes a rather large proportion to our CO2 production more than 40%. So clearly within our overall territory, there is a significant opportunity to improve that. Can we do it without really rethinking it? No. Can we do it on an individual basis by choosing better window frames and having, you know, infrastructure instead of completely strutting them? We need to go much higher up stream and think about where are we building, who are we building for? What are we building out of?

8:24You know, it has to be a linked up thing. If you build a sustainable housing disconnected from public transportation, let's say, you're missing a lot of the picture. So the fact that we've given up planning and that we don't seem to show much interest in regaining it because it's a political question, I think is a huge question for us. And without putting back into place some long-term considerations about how we treat our physical and natural environment. But also the decisions we're making about how we build our fittest and about how we're leveraging, we've leveraging the value of land and property in our cities. There's also had enormous social effects. We are sort of cleansing the theory of people, of the richness of citizenship, by an uncontrolled exploitation of land value. So we've got to double-wammy here, environmental and the lack of planning, lack of control means that we're also exacerbating

9:31social inequalities. It's a very grim picture, but a wholly realistic one. And yet there is an enormous amount of thoughtful, sensitive and experimental work going on. Can you think of any examples of either your projects or other architects' projects that have had a positive impact on the huge challenges that we face? So if we begin with social inequality, it is a problem that has been addressed by architecture in the past, not always successfully, but sometimes. So are there any examples of current practice that you do find hopeful and cause for optimism in? I would say that architecture can't do anything. It's a society using architecture that can do something. We can, and I think you're hinting at it, we can find very, very good, sincere and

10:31inspirational small projects. There's no doubt about that. In England, there's a number of people doing some very interesting social housing supported by a particular district or a property. There are moments of hope and inspiration and example, and I would never want to knock the small example, because I think this is something that we have to deal with in a way. When you have these huge, huge problems, how do you tackle them only by huge solutions, or do you tackle them by small inspirational examples? I think a bit of both. The profession has, over the last 30 or 40 years, become likely to adjust it to the idea that we fight a guerrilla warfare, that we work outside of conventional support. Through individual genius, you break through and you create moments of inspiration, and there have been an enormous number

11:37of inspirational buildings over the last 30 or 40 years. So it's a sort of paradox. In one sense, I would say that the quality of individual buildings over this last 30 or 40 years certainly has not eroded. I would say this enormous amount of innovation and creativity, formal creativity, and even technical advance. There is significant, I would say, this is probably the best part of the future, there's significant advances in technology, materials, and in terms of use of energy and understanding how to make buildings more efficient. We are, I think, making enormous advances in that. Whether a society wants to embrace in a serious way, all of those advances is another question, but I think the biggest challenge we have is to shake off the notions that architects are the champions. We've still got this heroic notion of the architect and the architecture procession didn't do anything to shake that

12:40off in the last 30 or 14 years. The terminologies start architect certainly does reflect a certain attitude towards the profession, and one that probably is slightly unhealthy, when we take, and that as long as we see the idea that an architect or a project will show the way, I think we're misleading ourselves in a way staying in the same sort of box that we've been in for the last 40 years. So we have to change that very much. However, I would not contradict the implication, I think you're saying, is that there are everywhere, some people working in genuinely interesting ways, and starting to take on priorities, criteria, enjudgment, which are becoming much more appropriate to our condition. Is it enough? No, because we need it much bigger. I mean, we just don't have time, so we need to see substantial

13:49shift in policy, not just in frontline activities. Frontline activities are absolutely necessary to take care, example, and to keep us all believing in potential, but we need policy shifts as well. Indeed, but speaking as an outsider to architecture, someone who's very interested in it, but does work in the sector, it seems to me that there's been a polarization, as you rightly say, issues like social equality have always been embraced by architecture, but often lone radicals, I mean, Peter Barber would fall into that category. But there are also practices who are working repeatedly at huge scales. So Lakaton and Versailles, and they're working public housing in France, would be an example of that. And we see more and more young architects wanting to focus on social and humanitarian projects, rather than working for big commercial practices. So I think there is,

14:50you'll probably accuse me of being blindly over optimistic, but I think there are huge kernels of hope there. If we talk about the other huge challenge that you've alluded to, the climate emergency, are there enough examples there of it being addressed at scale? And if so, what do you consider them to be? I think this is the issue of all things, you know, it's not just architecture, but it's the societal challenge we're not. Whether it's energy, it's waste, it's traffic, it's settlement, I mean, it had we turned the boat, had we start to shift it away from the priorities that we have become totally immersed in, you know, it's not easy to shift those priorities and ideas of what success is. And I think you're absolutely right to refer to those architects who are doing really interesting, instantiate work at what I call the guerrilla frontline guerrilla

15:52scale. And they have an enormous influence on the younger generation. And I think that's where our hope is. Unfortunately, we don't have enough time to wait for younger generation to take hold, or at least we certainly have to help that younger generation. We certainly have to help create the rules within which that younger generation operate. Because if all they're going to do is inherit roughly the same priorities and the sort of blindness that we operated within and are still operating, then their position is just as challenging as ours is. And I think that's incumbent on those of us that have a bit more access to power, because let's be clear. Architecture has an uncomfortable relationship with power. We cannot do anything on our own. You can't go home and sketch up a project or a little city or an idea for a town. And then execute it. You have to persuade an enormous

16:53number of people to do it. And you need power for that. You need access to power. And we have become in general terms, powerless. The power that the profession has taken hold of in the last years is the power of monetization that we have become valuable in the monetization of land value and of building value. And at that point, our worst is understood. We bring something to the project. We can make something. The difficulty is, how can we show our worst in a societal way? Because that's where our worth should be focused. So can you think of examples of architectural projects, whether they're your own or those of other architects that have succeeded in doing that? A scale. No, you mentioned a few examples. Selects on the style of the developer. I mean, these are architects who are really admirable. You know, we must admire them in their efforts. They are fighting at the frontline and having a big influence. But there's still fighting a griller or

17:58I think we again, I don't want to underestimate the power of architecture because I think it's inspirational. And I wouldn't want us all to become environmentalists and sociologists and planners. But I think the biggest issue now is planning, is the framework within which architects can operate. We have so much talent within the profession. I think the profession is overloaded in the talent and also what I've understood through the work that we've been doing here in the foundation for the last 10 years in this small region of Galicia is that we have a sort of advantage in the sense that we can understand why you might bother with some of these things. If you talk about getting rid of traffic or starting to think about moving traffic from a town, it's a very difficult discussion because people don't want not to be able to drive their car into the town. They want to be able to park. And so from a popular point of view, it's a very

18:59difficult interior. Politically, it's very difficult to. The reason we want to do is not because we have anything particular against traffic, because we think that it erodes urban quality. So we are motivated at sort of linked up environmental thinking. For instance, we're working on abandoned villages. You can't just restore houses. You need people to live in it. So you've actually got to start thinking about hardware, software, both in Ratt social and economic conditions and environmental conditions as well as physical architectural and urban lines. I think architects are very well-positioned to make the significant contribution in this direction. And the architects you've quoted and there's many others are sharing the way in strict physical terms. But I think if you talk to all of them, they still complain that they're fighting against something. It's very difficult to find true collaborative efforts. Switzerland is the unique place. Let me tell you

20:04you know, the Swiss engaged planning as an extremely positive and in a way inevitable part of environmental quality and it's in their blood, in their constitution. To be a planner in Switzerland is a very well-regarded career option for an architect in England is not. And I think we humiliated the profession and we need to get planning back onto the table. I'm saying this as an architect and I never thought if you went back to the young David Chilapher, I would have them all put away. But now my admiration goes to planners. So what needs to happen to ensure that there are more intelligence sophisticated and enlightened planners in the future? I mean, should it be more embedded in architecture education, for example? Yes, I certainly think that architecture education needs to pick up the stick and I think it is. I would say again, I'm impressed by the younger generation starting to see architecture not just as getting there,

21:09building on the cover of an architectural magazine and starting their career that way. I mean, of course, that is an aspect. I mean, the thing is architects have to create their professional status, you know, their own position. We're not my doctors. You can't just graduate and then put doctor on the door and then people say, you know, come and see because they've got a backache. You graduate as an architect and you still don't quite know what that, what does that mean? You know, how do you then conduct yourself in the 90s? You don't work for in the large practice. And if the large practice is not prioritized to these issues, how do you do that? So I think it's a shift which is going to take a little while. But being optimistic, I would say one can detect that shift in a younger generation. You know, I have 18 people in my foundation here, young people who are so impressive. I mean, I'm just dedicated to purpose and the idea of seeing architecture,

22:11you know, they will train disasters, but they don't see our teaching necessarily as being fulfilled by doing a beautiful house. Because I think people realize that that's not going to get us very far. But instead of, you know, challenging those things which affect our environment from our perspective is not easy. I mean, once you break the framework of the boundaries within which we see architecture being and once you say that those boundaries need to be challenged and you've got to step over them, you know, you find yourself getting into discussions about traffic, about moving waste bins away from the center of the town. And then you've got to think about what's the point of having restoring nice buildings if the public space is not being. But what's the point of having a nice town if nobody can afford to live in it? You know, I mean, this is the problem we're seeing in London now that we've looked after the central areas of our city, may fair and place like that. I

23:12mean, they're usually kept, but there's that in terms of the idea of a being a city, they're now becoming stoned. So, you know, there's a question within the conservation lobby to say, if we keep beautiful buildings in the center of our cities, are we just keeping them so that they can become boutiques and expensive apartments for global investment? I mean, that's a sort of strange idea of conservation. So, you know, we have to sort of start thinking about, why don't we protect them? And I think this is the challenge and it's something we've got to really come together on it. And it's not going to just be a cup of nice projects, you know, and unfortunately, it's the rethinking of priorities. And in terms of the rethinking of priorities, you've already alluded to the climate emergency. In your dealings with clients, how open are they to integrating

24:12advances in managing or asswaging the impact of the climate emergency on their projects? I mean, whether it's the adoption of reuse strategies or using technology to assuage the environmental impact in different ways? It's an easier conversation to have now than it has been, but for instance, we know that the equations are quite complicated in terms of what are the best materials to use? How do you, you know, we sign there? We know first there's only one clear rule, reuse buildings, you know, whenever possible, don't knock a building down, just reuse it at repurpose. That in itself is a really difficult discussion to have. I mean, in cities like London or New York, you're flying totally against the grain, you're totally against the ecosystem and the financial culture that has developed over the last 30 or 40 years, which is development is about opportunizing and getting more opportunity out of the land use or the

25:18buildings use that you've accumulated. And the only thing that's going to stop that is policy in regulation and lets you insist on limiting development and prioritizing and in a way rewarding reuse. The market isn't going to do it. They'll have all sorts of reasons and you can use science to your advantage and prove that over the 30 year life cycle of a new building will save more energy than reusing it all of one, but it's not true. And also that's not the issue, issue is repairing, reusing, protecting, taking more care of the resources that we have. And that's a poor picture idea. We talk about circular economy, it is a bit of a cliche, but it describes very well. It has to be circular and don't have circular systems. We have linear systems and they're very separated. So even within the condition of London, we're reusing a building for the

26:20London School of Economics. It has been a difficult call, I would have to say. It took a lot of courage by the London School of Economics to protect, reuse, rather ugly 1950s buildings. It's easy to protect a monument or protect something that has high architectural quality, but now we've got to move off of that protection into another type of protection. It's not easy and it's very difficult to justify financially. It's a big challenge. And on a one by one basis, I would say, redevelopment always wins out. So it's only going to be on a collective basis. That these decisions happen. And that's the difficulty. And I think we are very reluctant to see intervention. And I think in the UK, we've inherited this sort of free market attitude, but we're going to have to step in. And we have seven million people in poverty. But that is very much connected to the lack of housing. We can't keep talking about affordable housing.

27:24It's a sort of fig leaf because I don't know really what that means. There's some sort of subsidy extracted from the commercial sector, but we need to build social housing. The market isn't going to build social housing. There's no profit in social housing. So if we have a profit-based society, how are you going to build housing that is not profitable without there being a circular attitude to that? Because surely, if we added all out, if you do the math for the government, I think you can make a very strong case for building social housing because if the on-casts are not doing it, maybe dissipated across health costs, about all sorts of other costs. But the market is not an install of issues of reuse or of sustainability. There has to be some stimulus. And again, it is clearly an issue of planning. If local councils prioritize it as well as national government, if we come back to technology, are there any specific advances in technology that you think will enable the profession to design

28:30and build more sustainably? I think we are able to evaluate performance much better. So calculations, taking a very simple example, how would a building perform through energy and orientation of those calculations at one point might have been really complicated to do? Now they're quite easy to do. So we can anticipate the consequence of how we design much better. But if we don't have a target or we don't have a sort of common purpose, that doesn't necessarily mean very much. So clearly, there's huge advances in recycling. There's a lot of work going on in terms of carbon footprint. There's a lot of work going on in terms of concrete and in terms of infrastructure. So all of this is really useful stuff. And the good thing about it is that it's being picked up by industry. So there we can be a bit more comfortable, a bit like the energy thing, a bit like the car industry. It's sort of, it's got traction and it's got commercial industrial

29:36realities. So it can be seen to conform and to form within the metrics of the commercial system. So in a way, we can be a little bit confident about that. But if you come up with ideas, which are more efficient to form better, etc., etc. Then I think market gets harder and more efficient to form better. So that's a very good story. You're still about to know what to do with it. Again, there's one thing about when we build, can we build more efficiently? Yes, I think we can. Absolutely. But someone still got inside, what do we build? Where do we build it? When do we not something else down to build it? Those are not solved by technical advances. Those are solved by political, social and cultural ones. Well, David, thank you very much for sharing your work with us so generously and your ideas. And thank you all for listening. You can find images of

30:39David's projects and ones we've discussed on our Instagram feed at design.emergency. And powder and I look forward to welcoming you back to design emergency very soon. When we'll be talking with another global design leader at the forefront of positive change. Goodbye.