Roy: A unique part of the process that Frank Gehry uses with his design is to engage very
deeply with his clients and there’s quite a long process leading up to the final shape
of the building, and I’m just wondering how that process works because it’s very
different from other architects who might say well here’s the design, take it, or
leave it. How does the process of engagement work and lead to final solutions?
Craig: Well, we design buildings generally from the inside to the outside, so if it’s
a, it’s a concert hall or it’s a theatre, it’s about the interaction between the audience
and the performers and the building really, the core of the building, the real kind of
value of it, is about that human interaction. So what’s interesting about a school, about
your school is, is the way you teach, and the building is only there to support the
activities that are going inside of it, so of course we have to, kind of, climb inside
your head, figure out how you do what you do and then really try and create the best
environment to make that happen. So it kind of, it fosters interactions between students
and teachers, it fosters interaction between researchers and, you know, it has to do with,
you know, getting the building right for that and then, you know so the, the beginning of
the process is about, is a lot of dialogue, talking about how you do what you do, what
your kind of goals and visions and aspirations are and then gradually we start to put together
the functional relationships and then, components of building, you know, individual rooms and
then, components of building and build it up, and then you know, finally, after going
through that long process, and understanding what you’re about, there’s a kind of body
language that starts to develop out of the – it becomes the architecture of the building,
and there’s, you know there are moments of inspiration when Frank kind of gets it,
he goes, “uh, ok now, this is what’s going to happen, you know, the building’s going
to start to move and flow and things are going to happen”, but that’s only after a very
painstaking process. Frank says it’s like watching paint dry, and it’s just like,
we kind of, plod along through doing our thing.
Roy: In our case, our vision that we’re hoping will connect with the building is one for business education. And of course you’ve
done a business school before, the Weatherhead School of Management, and you’ve done other
educational buildings, the MIT Starter Building, and Princeton Library and others. And I wonder,
what is unique or special about education or even a business school, that might be reflected
in the physical spaces and the environment that people inhabit? Because, well we’re
academics and students, we have particular needs and you must of studied those in the
discussions that you’ve had in other institutions. Can you see how that connection can take place
with the vision at UTS, and what form it might emerge in in the building at this stage?
Craig: You know it’s hard to say at this point where, you know, we don’t know where
we’re going to end up. And, you know, different buildings are expressive of – like the building
at MIT, you know it’s a building for scientists, and you know, they’re, they have a lot of
quirky ways and, we there, we wanted to make a building where, you know we went into their
lab spaces and they have all the computers and wires, and you know all the tools of their
trade, all the things that they work with and, you know a lot of old and funky furniture
and all that stuff and were in a building originally that was a world war two surplus
building, and they were very comfortable in their space, and we wanted to make a building
that could bring all their junk, all their stuff, all their tools all their furniture
and bring it in and they would, it would feel very comfortable when they moved in. And,
it required a very open aesthetic, an aesthetic that wasn’t precious, that, you know that
allowed them to just, you know, move in and feel comfortable. And at Princeton, very different
kind of client, a very different, you know they were after, a more traditional academic
environment, even, you know kind of going into one of our buildings which is a little,
it wasn’t ‘collegic gothic’ let’s put it that way, but, you know required a
more refined space, something more finished you know, where there weren’t wires flying
off of, and so for you, you know I don’t know yet, I don’t know where we’re going
to end up so that’s what the exploration is about.
Roy: Yes, yes, well our vision would encompass the breaking down of boundaries, within, within
the faculty, within our organisation, to overcome silos of disciplines, and schools, and also
to break down boundaries with the outside community, with business and with the city
generally because we’re a very centrally located business school, and we’re looking
forward to the dialogue in which that can take shape. And one of the phrases that
Frank Gehry has used in the process of liquid into crystal, that there’s a process which is
liquid, which is one where things can change and then at a certain point, it has to take
physical shape and be decided on. How do you see that process evolving in our case?
Craig: We are starting to understand your relationship to the business community in
Sydney and, so we absolutely want to make a building that is going to invite the business
community into the building, and I don’t know exactly how that’s going to work yet
but they, you know, those people need to feel comfortable when they come in and, so, figuring
out the materials the kind of level of finish and you know, it goes down right down to the
furniture and how the spaces are arranged is, you know going to be really important.
The, you know the creation of the environment that encourages intellectual interaction I
think is really an important point. I was talking to one of the teachers that was in
the meeting this morning and he was talking about what researchers do and the kind of
environment that they need and he was talking about you know that he needs to be able to
have a space where he can read, where he can think, where he can write, and that environment,
you know, needs to be quiet, he needs privacy, so we need to create those spaces. And then
the other part of that, which he didn’t talk about that much but I think is that,
when you come out of that very private space of, you know, contemplation and thought
then you want to meet people and you want to be able to share the ideas that you’ve been
thinking about, and that, and, our experience is that that kind of happens around food usually
or a drink you know you need to come out and get a cup of coffee and, you know so to make
the social spaces that are, where you come out from and then go back in to, and to put
the spaces in the right proximity so that it happens easily. And I think there’s a
whole kind of hierarchy I think some of that happens within the faculty group, some of
it happens between the different departments, and the kind of interaction spaces need to
happen in different scales. At MIT we started talking about neighbourhoods, where different
labs would, kind of in the same area of the building would relate in a kind of neighbourhood
fashion, and then there was, almost like a town square where the departments came together
and that was where the, you know the cafeteria, the café was, that the main food thing was.
So it’s trying to figure out those things that, happen naturally so that the interactions
happen. The other question was about when the building crystallises which is a very
tricky part of the process because you know early on we fight to not let people bond too
much to any particular design because if it happens too early, it shuts down the process
before it marinates, and gets to a, you know, good solution. So we do all kinds of things
to keep the thing flowing. My experiences is the longer the design process
goes on the better the building gets, and even if it gets messy like that it gets broken,
if the design gets broken and then put back together again, you’ve learned so much,
you know the journey, the moving along, getting to that point, each time it gets broken apart
it gets better I mean, Tom Krens who’s our client at the Guggenheim Museum, kind of loves
that part of the process cause he knows that if you get the point you have to break the
thing apart that the next iteration is going to get better.