Architecture is too important to be left to Architects alone

In 1986, he reinvented the office tower in the shape of the HSBC skyscraper in Hong Kong, a tall, almost expressionist structure in which many components were manufactured off-site. The HSBC skyscraper, which relied so heavily on prefabricated components, thus became a forerunner of the circular economy in a special way, a pioneer of today’s ideas for buildings that can be easily dismantled and ultimately recycled.

 

2017 not only saw the completion of the Apple Park campus, which is powered by 100 per cent renewable energy, but also the launch of the Norman Foster Foundation, whose mission is to “promote interdisciplinary thinking and research to help new generations anticipate the future”. Now there is a new initiative, the Norman Foster Institute, to “respond to the growing importance of urbanisation and its challenges”. A very special interview to mark the launch of the Institute’s Master’s course on sustainable cities.

Lord Foster, in the preface to your book On Cities you say, I am an architect by training, but an urbanist by attitude. When did you first realise this?

 

N

F

As a student, I was passionate about and driven by design, the design of anything, whether it’s a piece of furniture, whether it’s a fridge, whether it’s a building, whether it’s a monumental building, a highly symbolic building, or whether it’s a very humble building. I did a whole summer’s research project on civic spaces—self-generated, but within the framework of the university. I analysed those spaces by drawing them, by observing them. As diverse as the main piazza in Siena, in Verona, the Circus at Bath, Shepherd Market in Mayfair, the Oxford quadrangles.

-

-

-

-

What kind of architectural thinking was important to you at the time?

 

N

F

All about the city, I was hugely influenced by the writings of activists, designers and critics Kenneth Rowntree and Gordon Cullen. Some of them appeared under the banner of outrage in the Architectural Review of that period. Nothing whatsoever to do with the magazine as it is now; it was very, very different. The first practice out of Yale was Team Four, or then Foster Associates, which I founded with my late wife in 1967. The emphasis was on architecture, but you can see the increasing emphasis on civic spaces, whether it’s Trafalgar Square or the Duisburg master plan. So, all of these were about the bigger picture. And in a way, the evolution of the practice reflects a personal belief that architecture was too important to be left to architects alone. But you really need a holistic approach; you need other skills, such as sociologists. It doesn’t mean that you’re surrendering the leadership of design; quite the reverse. But this is a very common misconception, as much between architects as laypersons, because it makes it sound as if the decision-making is by a committee. Nothing could be further from the truth.

-

-

-

-

Could you expand on the idea of taking a holistic approach to the city?

 

N

F

What I’m really saying is that the more knowledge you have on any design assignment, whatever it is, whether it’s a small building or a vast, complex, complicated building like an airport, the more knowledge you have of all the different issues that comprise the built reality, the more effective you can be as a designer. So there is growing interest in the infrastructure, which I’ve described as the urban glue in a city, binding the individual buildings together; it determines the DNA, the identity—in other words, the public spaces, the connections, the boulevards and squares, the parks, the metro systems, the terminals. All of these not only create the identity that makes New York different from Paris, from London, from wherever. Quite aside from the carbon footprint, it’s the very spirit, the essence of the place. Infrastructure as described in Goo­gle definitions or downloadable papers or whatever is kind of dry, boring, abstract. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. It’s totally about the quality of life in the city and the extent to which it is sustainable or unsustainable, and that’s the point. 

-

-

-

-

It is interesting that you describe the glue of the city in terms that most people would associate with real people. From your perspective, the infrastructure sounds almost alive. Would you say it is an organism in its own right?

 

N

F

Absolutely. The ideal city is walkable, it’s friendly, it’s likely to embrace nature and biodiversity, where you could walk from where you live to a place where you might be able to get a meal or find a shop. And if it isn’t within walking distance, then you have access to good public transport. So, the ideal city is well-connected in terms of its neighbourhood. It’s likely to have a historic core, which is its birthplace, which most likely provides cultural facilities. And at one point in my introduction to the Master’s course, I made the point that perhaps it sounds familiar. It is very much the traditional, walkable, historic European city. Those kinds of cities have always got the popular vote as desirable destinations and desirable places to settle, to work, to bring up a family. The opposite kind of city, which is the sprawling, very recent invention of a suburban spread, is literally consuming the countryside, where you’re into a commute if you want to buy something or go to a gym.

-

-

-

-

The way you describe the ideal city as a European model raises the question: what about America?

 

N

F

Maybe my European city tag is potentially misleading. I’m thinking of a city which is compact, high-density and walkable, so in the American context Boston or New York itself immediately spring to mind. And San Francisco is a very recognisable city, too.

-

-

-

-