#513 - Joshua Ramus, Founding Principal of REX

Introduction to Joshua Ramis

0:00This is the second studio hosted by the Architecture and Design Office fame. My name is David Lee, and with me is Marina Bordero-Renay. This week, our guest is Joshua Ramis. Joshua is the founding principal at Rex Architecture Office in New York City. Yeah, anyone who's in New York or the East Coast knows Rex. I feel like actually speaking with him has been a long time coming. So we were very excited to talk with him because obviously we've known of his work for a while. So with Joshua, we talk about his upbringing, how he got into architecture, of course.

0:30And then I think the bulk of the conversation was really about their approach to their work and defending architecture, talking about architecture with clients and the simplicity of their work in some ways and the complexity of their work in other ways. And I think that was kind of the bulk of it. We covered a lot of different aspects. Yeah, it was. I was so glad that he used examples of projects to kind of illustrate his thoughts about how they work. I thought that was really cool.

1:02Sponsors. This episode is brought to you by Chaos. They make award-winning design and visualization tools, and they're really pushing the boundaries with AI. Now, AI is shaking up the architecture and design world, and Chaos is taking a responsible approach. Their tools are built to help architects, designers, and visualization specialists to work faster and explore more ideas without replacing creativity. Basically, Chaos wants AI to make your imagination stronger, not take over. So you get to design with more freedom, create stunning visuals, and stay in control of your work.

1:34If you want to see what that looks like, tap the Chaos link in our show notes. This is The Second Studio with myself, Marina, and our guest, Joshua. Here we go.

Upbringing and early influences

1:41I'm kind of from all over the U.S. I was born in Connecticut. Parents separated when I was very little, and one parent went to rural North Carolina, and the other went to Washington, D.C., and then that parent moved to Seattle for my high school days. And I say I'm from Seattle because I think that for Americans, high school is a kind of watershed moment where you come into your own, and so I identify as being from Seattle, but have lived all over.

2:12And I had the unusual experience in Seattle of being on Bainbridge Island, and the parent that was in North Carolina, if I didn't say before, was in the Outer Banks, so I had this really crazy, beautiful period where my life was split between islands on both coasts. Was there anything about that upbringing that foreshadowed your career in architecture, either of your parents' architects, an uncle who was an architect, anything like that, or Legos involved in the childhood?

2:46My grandfather was a structural engineer, was a bridge engineer, and I wish I could say that that had a big influence, but to be honest, I knew that's what he did, but it didn't play much into my upbringing. And similarly, my parents in Bainbridge, we built a series of, we're called Panabode Houses, which are Lincoln Log Houses, where you, it's a kit house, where you design the house, and then the logs show up, and they're literally like Lincoln Logs.

3:27And then you put one layer of the house all the way around, and then another one, and then another one, and you cut the windows with a chainsaw, and you cut the electrical, you know, with these massive drills, you know. But again, I wouldn't say that that was what led me to architecture, either.

Transitioning from philosophy to architecture

3:48Because your bachelor's is not in architecture, it's in philosophy. It was in philosophy, which I think is a great background for architecture. I think philosophy is a great background for anything.

4:00It's certainly, you know, it's great for teaching you to write and argue clearly, you know, orate clearly, concisely, clearly, compellingly. To some degrees, it was the fact that I found philosophy to be, you know, intellectually enjoyable, but I didn't, it's not like you read the phenomenology of spirit and change how you live.

4:33And so it was a little bit of the dissatisfaction of the everyday impact of it that made me start to look or be receptive when architecture came along. And it came along in a really unusual way. I was, I did philosophy, and I also was pursuing a second degree in mathematics, you know, changed its position on dual degrees right before my senior year, and they stopped providing and allowing you to have dual degrees.

5:11Wait, so does that mean that you did, you know, four or three years of pursuing a dual degree, and the last minute you couldn't? Yeah. What? So I did my, you know, Yale has this really beautiful thing where it doesn't matter what you study, you have to do a thesis, a written thesis. And so I had organized to do my written thesis for philosophy in the fall, so I did that, and that's what my degree was in. But along the way, because I was doing that, the only other thing I did in my undergraduate were art courses.

5:49To just sort of had this, and I had an extraordinary professor named Erwin Hauer, who is a remarkable sculptor. His sculpture is really incredible, fortunately or unfortunately, for creating these kind of three-dimensional, for lack of a better word, bricks, tiles, that you stack and create screen walls with.

6:21And a lot of sort of the mid-century modern and subsequently brutalist architects used them. So, you know, you can see the clear relationship with his sculpture. They're three-dimensional, and they always marry perfectly with the next one, but they make these incredible, repetitious, three-dimensional screen walls. And he encouraged me to go into either sculpture or architecture, and there was a professor, Esther DeCosta Meyer, who was sort of on loan to Yale after Scully stopped teaching at Yale, retired.

7:14And she was doing a survey course on modern European architecture in the grad school, and I took it, and that was it. So a combination of these two different professors that were both super compelling, super, yeah, they were just both remarkable people. So what were, what was covered in the modern European course that captivated you?

7:47Like, were there specific projects that you remember seeing and learning about? Well, I'd never heard of Mies before. You know what's weird is that all of us are like admitted in architecture. It's weird to think that people don't know about Mies. There was at one point we didn't know about Mies. I mean, at one point we didn't. Okay, yeah, yeah. So Mies. And that was it. Mies was it. Well, it's funny because, you know, your background in philosophy and then, I think you said mathematics, is, they're like super different things.

8:17But it kind of makes sense, right? And then, you know, it's kind of cliche, but for architects, it's, those are actually the three kind of corners of the stool or whatever you would describe, the three rows that intersect and there's kind of architecture in the middle.

Prioritizing performative architecture over aesthetics

8:30So, um, and, uh, I guess what, what I find personally is that, look, and I say this all the time that, that while beauty is incredibly important to us, to me, um, I'm not dumb enough to talk about it in public. Um, and what I mean by that is I actually, I think that, you know, joy, beauty, inspiration is incredibly important in architecture, but I don't think that's should be its main thrust. I think its main thrust is frankly more what I found missing in philosophy, which was, um, how we can impact people's everyday lives.

9:09What can it literally do? Um, and if I think about the projects that we've done that I'm the most proud, they, they are some kind of tool that, that transformed the primary user's ability to do what they do. Um, so if it's a library and it changes how they curate information, if it's a artistic director or a performing artist, it allows them to create art they couldn't have conceived of previously.

9:43If they're a museum director, it helps them to overcome limitations in operational budgets, you know, and that I find the most interesting part of what architecture can do. And the reason why I say we're not dumb enough to talk about beauty in public is that, and I say this to students all the time, you know, if, if you attempt to argue what you're doing on, on terms of beauty and aesthetics, it reduces the whole discussion to, do I like it or do I not like it?

10:19And so you can say, Hey, I like this. And the client says, I don't know what conversation stops. Whereas if you, um, have a building that transforms what they do, it's funny that the, and I, and I don't mean this as a Trojan horse, although it could be. I don't mean to say that it's a way of convincing people to build things that they would find uncomfortable, but I will say that, um, if you, I think a lot of our work, you would look at it and you would assume that we'd had really intense aesthetic discussions.

11:02And in fact, we never had an aesthetic discussion at all. And so because we're so focused on the performative aspect of the project, it's like, we almost get away with doing things that would otherwise be impossible to convince someone to do. Yeah. Yeah. So are the things that you're describing, I'm going to list a handful. Let me know if I got it correct. It's like program. It's probably, there's the financial component that you're considering in some of the projects. I'm not probably, I know that I'm sure that's the case. Um, I guess engineering would be another one like the, these types of more, I guess they're sort of quantifiable, but more like you can actually state a position about it.

11:44And it's, it's more rational. There's like a logic behind it. It's not a, the subjective, like you said, like, I like it. I don't like it. Then what do you do after that kind of conversation? Let me qualify it a little bit, because what I, what I don't want it to sound like is I'm espousing form follows function. Okay. Um, because I use the word perform as though it was somehow distinct from form. Yeah. And what I actually like about perform is it, it actually includes the word form and, and, you know, as an example, what is the performative nature of the St. Louis arch?

12:21It, it, it, it's almost a hundred percent aesthetic and that's performing. So, so I, I kind of want to qualify what I said to say that you have these different, it's almost like a stereo equalizer. And in every project, you're finding the balance between aesthetics, between program, between, you know, whatever, these different things. And you're tweaking them to maximize performance on the terms of that specific project. Yep.

12:49There's for good reason that the clients will often see architects regard them with a fair amount of skepticism with the assumption that you're trying to sell them or convince them to do something that is about your typically aesthetic agenda. That will be at odds with their needs. Mm-hmm. And if you are focused on their needs and trying to embody their, their needs in ways that they couldn't have conceived. And in my experience, if you do that with incredible rigor and you try to issue conventional reactions, you go back to first principles.

13:28It always begets something exciting, new, uncomfortable, challenging, aesthetically too. I've never seen it not. Mm-hmm. Even when doing so creates something that is seemingly incredible, incredibly banal.

Designing the Perlman at the World Trade Center

13:48And, you know, you think of the Pearlman at the World Trade Center, which is, you know, people say, oh, it's just a dumb cube. And I'm like, okay, it's a, it's just a dumb cube sitting in the middle of Manhattan, right next to the World Trade Center site.

14:03Like, that's pretty provocative. Yeah. Right? Yeah. So. Also, it does not look like a dumb cube. I don't really like to say that. So, you know, it, and there, and there are reasons why we felt that was the right response for that site, why we felt it should be so subdued, so close to the memorial and, and why we wanted the skin to transform. So the building would have a kind of, um, assert a respectful independence when it was in use.

14:38We felt that was the right combination of, of, you know, of beauty and, and, and functionality. And, um, this may be a tangent at this moment, but, but I think to kind of unpack that more, that the single most important thing about that building is this, this highly reconfigurable L of theaters that's hiding in the interior. Um, and I, I say about that project that we can describe it equally out of desire and out of obligation.

15:12So there's not a single move that I wouldn't defend as, as being desirous on that project, but there's almost not a single move where it's also not coming out of an obligation. So we veiled the building in stone, in translucent stone. Um, what most people don't know is that that was actually kind of a requirement at the World Trade Center. Um, the, the commercial guidelines state that you can't see any kind of commercial activity from the memorial.

15:42So you couldn't see intermission. You couldn't see the restaurant. You couldn't see ticket sales. It had to be veiled. And so with that as a base requirement, veiling the building, veiling this incredibly reconfigurable core created this really beautiful tension where you have a building that, you know, a lot of architects will say, you know, I made it an incredibly complex building and it will reveal itself to you over time. This building plays a different game. It's super simple, apparently. And every time you use it, you have a radically different experience.

16:15You will see theater in an end stage with 600 people. You'll see, um, chamber opera with 400 in a traverse and it's a, you enter the auditorium from all different sides. The next time, you know, every time the, the procession and the dimension and the configuration is different. And the more you use it, actually, the more it confounds, understand it. And then you walk back out and it's just this seemingly little dumb cube.

16:45Um, and that was the game we thought would be beautiful. You know, we called it the mystery box in the competition that actually that would become the, the thing that made this project really unique. So again, even in that situation, both how, how to react properly to the sobriety of the memorial, but also how to use that to play an experiential game with the radical reconfigurability of the interior.

17:15And I would say on those terms, it's highly performing, you know, in that, you know, in that respective of both form and functionality. I think the performance or perform is an interesting word to describe architecture and what, what it does. And it's interesting also because it, it, it focuses on, it focuses on the effect it has on, on, on people.

17:46That's one lens also like the others I listed, like from an engineering standpoint, cost standpoint, whatever else, but it focuses the effect, it focuses the conversation on the effect rather than focusing on like the thing itself too much. And I, I feel like that allows openness for, for you, the architect, for us as architects and also the clients to think more about, again, the performance of it and the architecture is a means to an end. Whereas I think sometimes when, when clients in particular focus on the architecture itself, it's, they, they aren't able to be as loose to say, okay, well, it could be something different because what we're actually trying to do is to, to have an effect, to have an impact and how we get there is through the architecture.

18:29And there are therefore the architecture could be three or four or five, a hundred different things. As long as we get to that end point, it's fine. And it kind of shifts the focus away from the debate of, you know, blue versus red facades or whatever the heck it would be. But I will say again that those, well, I'm not sure those discussions are important. As I said, you know, I, I've almost found that when you're having the performative discussion, the aesthetic one, aesthetic ones fall to the wayside. They just don't happen.

18:59It builds trust and they're, they're willing to, to rely on your judgment. But again, I want to say that that is still incredible. We don't do anything that we don't think is incredibly beautiful. Yeah, of course. No. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Working with sophisticated developer clients

19:13Are most of your clients developers as opposed to, I don't, I don't know what. No, no, we, we have, we have all kinds. Um, I will say that our, our developer clients are all super sophisticated. We're super lucky that way. Um, the developers we've worked with are, um, Brookfield and Tishman Spire and Two Trees. And, you know, these are all entities that, um, develop and retain ownership. So the, it's not about the, you know, turning the biggest profit as quickly as possible and walking away.

19:51It's, you know, they're going to, they're going to own and maintain these buildings. And therefore, longevity is important to them. Um, the, the integrity of the project is important to them. And that means that, you know, they, they attract and retain sophisticated staff who, who understand architecture. Um, I suspect quite differently than many developers teams. Yeah. Um, and so we, we have enjoyed working with all of them immensely.

20:22And we've had really great conversations with them during design. Um, did you find, I know it's hard to make generalizations, but do you find that developer clients versus others have a better grasp of, and maybe it's also, you work with a certain subset of developers for sure, but they have a better grasp of some of these ideas or they get it quicker. Um, not necessarily.

20:54I mean, I think we're, we've been extremely lucky with who we've worked with, um, as developers, but I'd say we've also been pretty damn lucky who we've worked with as non-developer clients. And, um, you know, I, going back to, even to the, my earliest projects, you know, doing, um, the Seattle Central Library while at RMA, um, the library board and the city librarian were wildly, um, competent people.

The Seattle Central Library experience

21:28Yeah. And the thing I will always say about a good client are those that can take educated risks. So they're not pushovers, you know, the library board, the city librarian, they put very high bars, but they were wise enough and confident enough that if they, they pushed and dug and interrogated something long enough and the bar was high enough that if you surpassed it, they'd

21:59go forward with it. And that, you know, that project obviously had a huge impact on my career and, and there are certain, you know, incredibly important moments in that project that made many of the ideas we're discussing about right now really clear. And one of them was when we pulled the design out of the box, you know, it was like crickets in the room and they, they, we were presenting at one of the board members houses who had a beautiful

22:34house on Lake Washington and they, they asked me and Rem to go outside and kind of go for a walk on the dock, which felt like walking the plank. Just keep walking and don't stop until you hit water.

22:51And we're looking at each other, like, you know, uh, oops, like maybe, maybe we went too far. Like, and we came back in and one of the board members, you know, within a group that was extraordinary, um, particularly extraordinary. And she said, we don't know what this is, but we know how it embodies every idea and decision

23:24we've discussed and made up to this point, but you've justified that you've explained how it's the embodiment of everything we need. And so we'll go forward with it. Yeah. Yeah. That's a cool client. That's amazing. That's amazing because they were not, they were not scared of the fact that they did not know what it was. Oh, well, they were, but they were probably confident in it enough that that did not deter

23:56them from, you know, not going that route. So it's kind of, it, I mean, it's fascinating that you could present something that is actually exactly what people were asking for, not what they would have ever imagined it to be in terms of form. Right. And, and still have them like go for it. And I think that, I mean, that's definitely the type of client that I think most architects would be wanting to, to, to work with because it really lets, you know, our creativity be what it needs to be. It also is incumbent on the architect though, to present, well, to have good ideas first

24:29of all, and then be able to communicate them in a certain way to take a client on, on a journey, so to speak. And, and not shy, and not shy away from, you know, just try and give the client what they ask for, like stick to the brief too much where it doesn't become anything exciting or new or, or, or, or interesting. Right. Those clients though, are also the very same clients who, if you came in and just started making an aesthetic argument would also eviscerate you.

24:59So, you know, when people say, oh, you've got great clients, I would say, yes. And great clients, you have to rise to the occasion, right? It's not just like, oh, it's easy because I've got a great client. You know, we're, we're working with someone right now who has a reputation for being very difficult. We haven't found him difficult at all. He's no bullshit. And we come into meetings and we make arguments that are about the performance of the project.

25:30And yeah, he interrogates us. And sometimes it's rough.

25:36I think he would say that we would hold our own in those meetings. And we're not scared of him because the, the discussions are about everything. You know, they're about what are his entities risks in terms of leasing or sales and how do they impact schedule and, and impacts on procurement and, you know, we're coming up with systems that

26:14would allow for faster erection sequences. And those things are informing the design and those things are informing the design and the aesthetics of the design, but making things that are also highly unusual. And, and, and he's totally on board with that and, and, and is able to, to, to, to allow those

26:46things to drive really unusual, unexpected aesthetic embodiments. I'm going to mention two different approaches to architecture and let's say even more specifically client meetings that I've witnessed or seen, um, which seem very different from your approach. And I loved your thoughts, your thoughts on it. The first is that it's pretty common in architecture, architects rather, for them to post rationalize something.

27:16And, and, and to be clear, it's not like the idea always comes first in the actual process. The idea reveals itself after you ponder for a week of, you know, after looking at the thing, but I'm talking about like really serious post rationalizing the thing just because you want to do it and you make up some reasons as one example. Another example is the architect has a project and they have a series of ideas that they're, they honestly feel are, are, are good, but they choose to present the project in a different way to the client to, because they think the architect thinks that's, that's a better way

27:52to convince the client. So like a, a, a, I'm going to call it bullshit, but a, a made up metaphor, you know, for this thing that looks like a fallen bird or whatever, which was not part of the architect's thinking of the process or the teams at all, but they do it because, oh, we know the client loves birds or, you know, whatever the thing might be. Well, unfortunately, well, so yeah, I'll say, unfortunately, um, I'm not able to do that. And there are clients for whom you have to do that. Um, we had a massive project in another country, um, and we, it was a country in which there

28:32was a certain type of construction that was really used predominantly on multifamily residential high rise, um, um, um, properties. And we came up with a concept that would reduce the construction by about 33%, you know, by a third and talked about all the money it would save. And it created something, you know, a very unusual typology that actually maximize light views, cross ventilation while also reducing construction speed.

29:07And after this really intense, elaborate presentation between me and our structural engineer talking about, you know, how the whole thing worked and everything, the decision maker went, I don't understand, um, what animal is it? What animal is it? Like, wait, what do you, what do you mean? It's like, Oh, well, they presented a dragon and they presented, you know, whatever, uh, a

29:39firebird. What is your animal? And I was like, what the fuck are you talking about?

29:46Um, and then we lost the commission because we didn't know what animal it was.

29:53You got to work on your improv. So the reality is, is that there are some people who are wiser than I am, who would go on to that meeting and be like, yeah, just shut up and tell them what animal it was. Um, I, you know, that would make me throw up in my mouth, but, uh, you know, there are people who know how to read the room better than I do. Um, and are quite successful at that. Yeah. Um, you know, I suspect I come off as a little bit, um, too erudite, probably not very touchy

30:30feely.

30:32And, you know, when people are hoping to have this kind of amazing experience with their architect, there's something about being warm and charming and, you know, charismatic. And where you feel like this is a person I want to go have drinks with. I, you know, I don't think I exude that.

30:54Well, but that's good because at least you're filtering to the clientele that is meant for you and not, you know, to like 90% of the population. So, yes. Although that also means I'm filtering out potential projects in the same breath. Is most of your work won by competition?

Navigating design competitions and international projects

31:13Um, a lot is not, is it most? I mean, we, we have a lot of repeat work with the developers I mentioned. Um, although a lot of that work is through competition. Um, gosh, I'm trying to think about the projects that we, I would say, I would say like maybe two thirds are competition and a third are somehow some sort of selective competition, you know, uh,

31:44not, not a design competition, but you know, you go through, uh, an intensive interview process. Gotcha. Gotcha. Whereas the two thirds are like design competitions where you're producing is, um, I know that model is, it seems to be much more common and prevalent in Europe, less the United States. I've always felt and seen and heard from colleagues that competitions of X scale and depending on what they're requiring from the people participating are just brutal things to do because it requires a lot of energy, time and money to do it.

32:19And you just don't, I guess sometimes you don't know how it's, you don't know how it's going to turn out. You don't know the mindset of the jury. Like there's just a lot of, a lot of risk involved. Look, there is an enormous irony that you'll have major international competitions in which they shortlist, shortlist 20 firms who have to do, you know, models at two different scales, 12, a zero boards, each with, you know, 20, you know, 20 renderings in total.

32:54You have to fly there for an interim and a final.

32:58And it's, you know, it's a, you have to provide complete area takeoffs and a cost estimate. That's 20 firms. And then they say it has to be highly sustainable.

33:09It's like hundreds of thousands of dollars. But the money aside is like the amount of humored effort and just plane flights, this building will never get out of its carbon debt of just the competition.

33:24You've made, you've made 20 firms each doing two models is 40 models that you've produced around the world and shipped to the site. Like, just start with that, you know, and you want it to be, you know, benchmarked with sustainability. Fuck off. And, but that's super common.

33:47And yeah, I think competitions are, the problem with the competition is that everything that I've been espousing early on in our conversation is very difficult to, to do in a competition. You know, you don't get to discuss the project with the client.

34:05The best competitions we've had, and the Perlman is a good example of this, are competitions in which they, they do concept design with, in that case, three firms simultaneously.

34:20So you are engaging them. Right. You are getting feedback. And in that particular instance, they said, we're going to do this competition. We're going to do a concept design, but we're not, you know, whoever wins, we're not, that's not going to be the, the building that we choose. We ended up having a great interaction with that client, a great rapport. And we not only won, but they chose to move forward with our project.

34:48After saying they wouldn't, right. That the basis of the competition was, you know, that, that won't happen. Um, but, um, interesting. I think there are other ways of finding the right architect.

35:02Um, you know, there's also, we have competitions where, where we'll be shortlisted and you look at the firm shortlisted and you're like, we have nothing in common. So what, what you're, you're realizing is that these people have no idea what they're doing. Yeah. It's like the decision was made almost from day one before anyone producing work, or at least half of the, uh, entrance could be kicked out before even putting in any effort. Yeah. Yeah. Um, yeah.

35:33How much of your, how much of your work is international versus, um, you know, U S based or New York based? Uh, maybe it's also two thirds international, one third. Wow.

35:46Um, we have, we have projects right now, two in Australia, one in, um, South Korea, um, two in South Korea, uh, one in Abu Dhabi. And now a little break for our show sponsors, dear architects, design leaders, and founders redefining the industry. If you want to shape not only buildings, but the business behind them, this is your moment. Future London Academy's executive MBA takes you inside the boardrooms of Pentagram, Uber,

36:22Zaha Hadid Architects, and Google, where you'll master finance strategy and operations from the people who already excel at them. Study along peers, transforming the industry worldwide and do it all in just nine intensive weeks over one year between London and California. The program is award-winning, transformative, and crafted for design and architecture leaders with 15 or more years of experience. If you're ready to grow your impact, apply now by tapping the future London Academy link in our show notes. Say goodbye to design unfriendly spreadsheets.

36:52Programma built by designers for designers provides an integrated suite of tools for every phase of your project. From mood boards to advanced specification tools to project management, seamlessly integrated, easily shareable, and always current, Programma reduces redundancy and minimizes costly errors. Share your work in the format that works for you, be it PDF spec sheets or online branded client dashboards with always up-to-date specification details. Join interior design movers and shakers and start for free by clicking the Programma link in our show notes. Experience the difference with Programma, software built for interior design workflows.

Studio size and the choice to outsource

37:27Wait, how, so actually for some context, how large is your office? Like how many people do you have at Rex? Right now we're on the smaller end of our, of our normal size. We're 25. Okay. We vacillate between 25 and 35 and we will, so in my opinion, there is a, there is a cliff that happens when a firm surpasses about 50 people. Yeah. I think with, with very few exceptions, um, and I won't name, there's one exception in particular,

37:59which I, I'll say Herzog Demerl. I think that they have grown and I don't think the quality of the work has, has, um, curtailed. Um, but I think they are an incredible outlier. Yeah. Um, and I think that they are organized structurally in a way where they are very intentional about how they maintain that quality. But I, again, I think they are an incredible outlier. Um, so we, we only have a lot of people who are in the world.

38:31We only have architects in the studio. We don't have a single non-architect. We outsource absolutely everything else. Um, and so we, we have set the studio up such that we literally can't grow past 40. Um, assuming that, you know, a normal firm would have a lot of, you know, have the business services, PD, PR, um, AVIT, sorry, uh, yeah, uh, IT, um, uh, legal, they'd have that in-house. We, we, we outsource all of that.

39:01So our 40 is maybe a normal 50 and, and we just won't take work beyond that. So what's the thinking behind, um, having all of the other, you know, roles of an office, the ones you just mentioned, be outsourced as opposed to being internal? Uh, it's super clear. I, as I said, I think if you, um, the moment a firm goes past, a conventional firm goes past 50, I think that the intelligence of the firm starts getting dumbed down. You see firms that weirdly plagiarize themselves, if you know what I mean by that.

39:35I know exactly what you mean. Yeah. You know, you see that they're, they're plagiarizing, you know, they become at a dimension where the people doing the work feel they have a right to the legacy work of the firm, but they don't understand it. They don't have the control of it. And so they produce work that if anyone else produced would be eviscerated for plagiarism. And yet they produce it under the name of the firm that did it. And, um, so with that in mind, your question was, um, what was my question?

40:16Um, but so, but the problem is that at 50 people, it's not quite big enough to have a world-class, you know, business services. You gotcha. It's just not enough work. And so, and you probably don't have enough revenue to support someone full-time. And so what I found is that we can have incredible, I'll give an example. We, you know, we outsource our business services and the team that we work with, they know absolutely

40:48everything there is about R and D tax credits. Right. If I hired that person in-house, would that person know everything about R and D tax credits? No. Right. You know, and that's just one example. And would they know how to build up, um, the fee basis for, um, state department work? No. But you work with a firm that has, you know, a hundred clients. Right. And they've been in business for 30 years. They've seen all that and they know how to do it. And so you, you get a quality, um, and, and if I look at how much I pay them a year, it's

41:22less than if I brought that person in-house. Gotcha. I also feel like there is something nice about not having those departments, you know, like within the office space itself. Because I've noticed from past experience that, you know, some of those people who are not architects or designers do have a tendency to somehow influence how the office, you know, starts to feel and function in a way that just becomes kind of like a bureaucratic machine rather than a design studio.

41:53And the, the, the, the feeling of the place becomes completely different. Um, so I think it's, it's very interesting that you're doing it the way you're doing it. Well, I have a expression that, you know, we, we would prefer to be Vermeer than, than Warhol. Okay. We prefer if we do 15 or 20 exceptional buildings in my lifetime, I would rather do that than be churning out beautiful, but nonetheless, you know, a hundred copies of a print.

42:25Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And that's one of a thousand different things that we've produced. Um, and it's sometimes a difficult business model, you know, um, we typically have between five and eight major projects going. They're all major. We don't have any small work or bread or bread or bread or bread. I shouldn't say small. We will do, we don't really care about the size, but we'll have five to eight major projects that we really care about. We don't have bread and butter.

42:57And it means that, you know, when there's a downturn in the economy or chance has a couple of projects go on hold or stop. Yeah. You know, it's a really, it impacts you guys, you know, but, but at that, you know, and on the other hand, we're a firm that has 25 people who can have more than $2 billion worth of work under design and construction. Are you guys often, are you guys often operating as the architect of record, uh, at least for local projects or how does that work?

43:28Um, we want, always want to, um, there are many projects were that, you know, if you know, what I, I think particularly we American architects have done a great job of neutering ourselves. Um, and so, you know, we, we created this whole concept of the design and executive architect, this idea that the person with the good idea is a petulant child who needs, um, you know,

44:00a handler, um, I don't, I, I don't know how you design without knowing how to build and I don't know how you, I, I think it's absolutely idiotic. Um, what happens when we are the design architect is we do what the first, we'll only do a project that we're, we're involved start to finish. Sure. If, if it's in a location in the world where they'd say, yeah, we want you to disappear

44:32after schematic design or design development, we say, no, no interest. Um, but even when we are involved to the finish or, you know, even being involved to the project's finish, um, you know, there's expectation that the, the work goes to a local architect of record. And therefore we have to do what I call construction document light. So we do more work than we're getting paid for. Yeah. And then we're the ones who care.

45:03So we're actually the ones solving the problems during construction documents and construction administration in which we're not getting the fee to cover it. Yeah. So we would be far happier to, to, you know, to be the architect of record. And, um, you know, I'm licensed also in the Netherlands and I'm licensed in Australia. I'm licensed all over the United States. Um, we often, even if we are not the architect of record for the entirety of a project, we

45:34often, even in places like Australia, um, will be the architect of record for the enclosure. Interesting. So, so yeah, we, you know, we, we, we are always, always want and would prefer to, to, um, just be an architect. Do you guys take the same approach, uh, which is to say, um, being, you know, more involved with the most involved with the interiors of your buildings?

46:02Or are you often, you know, we've other, other than projects in which it's speculative, but, you know, offices and, um, uh, you know, we, we, we, uh, we wouldn't do a project in which we aren't in control of the interiors. Yeah. Well, when you mentioned, you know, our profession kind of self neutering or whatever you said, um, I think that, that critique or, or take is, is applied in a lot of different ways over the last, I don't know, number of decades. Um, and the interiors is, is one of those things like our, we do houses.

46:36So it's a very different scale than what you do. Um, but we see it all the time, especially on the West coast compared to the East coast. Like those two, the interiors and architecture are like completely divorced to the point where, when I first arrived back in California and I was talking to folks and they, I would ask, I'd say, I'm an architect. And they'd say, do you do design as well? And I was like your moment with the animal thing. I was like, I don't, and I've since learned that this is part of, I don't know what happens here. This is the, the, the professional landscape, but there's all this like splitting off and

47:08the architect, I think, I'm sure there's a graph somewhere or analysis where their, their role has just kind of gotten chop, chop, chop, chop, chop. And it's, you know, you chop so much. And at some point it becomes this very continuous thing that, that as a profession, we're trying to still be something, but meanwhile, we're losing arms and legs left and right. I mean, the, the only projects where we're not controlling the interiors were it's spec office in which we're doing the lobbies, elevators, elevator, lobbies, restrooms, because you don't

47:40do the office space. Yeah. Um, but even on the large developer residential work, um, you know, we're, we're, we're doing the condo interiors. Yeah. Um, I was wondering, so at that scale of an office, are you, you're able to be involved in every single project that the office is, is doing?

48:04Um, that's why I don't want it to grow past that 40 is that I, I love, I want to be involved in everything. Um, um, I have several principals that I love working with and I want them to be involved. Um, I really enjoy CD and CA. Um, I think that's where projects, you know, again, I'll go back to Mies. The fact that, you know, um, I can, can you imagine Mies not worrying about how the wall

48:40meets a floor? It's a scam act. That window detail. Maybe he's handing it off. Yeah. Um, is it, but do you have, I mean, you know, you're the person at the top and, and obviously, you know, you're involved in all the projects, but it's hard to find or to make or to have time to still be involved. Cause it's very easy, even when you're partitioning out, uh, uh, you know, the, the legal things and whatnot, whatnot, you know, you're still, I'm assuming still doing business development, you know, all the other stuff you have to do as a business owner. Is it hard to, to get time in the studio to, to like be involved?

49:12Yes. And no, the yes. And the no part is I said, I have these three amazing principles with me, um, or fantastic and, and do enormous amount of that work with me. Um, and that's been, you know, a huge relief to share that burden. Um, and there are people that have grown up in the office that they all have around 15 years of experience in the office. And, um, you know, I, I trust them explicitly and implicitly, um, you know, they, they may

49:52make different decisions, but I wouldn't make a better one. Right. That's been a pretty important evolution in the firm. I want to ask you about, because zooming out and talking about your, your career, um, you

Reflections on OMA and geometric simplicity

50:05know, you were at OMA, how long were you at OMA for? 10 years. Okay. Oh, that's a long time. I'm assuming not a lot of sleep happened during those 10 years. No. Okay. I've only, I've literally only met one person who worked at OMA and I just met them recently who was like, they worked in, in the, uh, um, not the New York office, the other, the main office. And they were like, I was the only person who went home on time. Yeah, but they didn't stay very long. Huh? They didn't stay very long there. I think we were talking about different people. Oh, maybe we are. Uh, but anyway, uh, what I was going to say is 10 years at OMA, the Seattle public library,

50:40you split off on your own and looking back on the, how long have you had Rex now? It's been, um, it kind of happened in 2005 and it formally happened to the outside world in the beginning of 2006. Okay. Gotcha. So it's been, it's been 21 years. I'm, I'm curious, like, so you split off. But there's, there's a kind of, there's a part of our history that most people don't know, but actually Rex is OMA New York. Yes. Yeah. I, I, I purchased Rem out of the company.

51:11He, you know, I owned the company 50, 50 and, and when we separated, I bought him out. So there's a weird thing that Rex's articles of incorporation say OMA New York. Um, but so how, so, okay, so this is like now it was not gonna be my question, but there is an OMA office in New York. You got friends who've worked there. So are they OMA 2.0 in LLC? Like what, what? I think they are legally something called OMA AMO. That's right. Oh, yeah. Right. Yeah. Um, okay.

51:43Um, which is fine. I mean, I don't, we don't, I have no, you know, technically speaking, I think OMA New York is one of our DBAs, but I certainly don't have any interest in using it, nor do I have any interest in suggesting they shouldn't be using it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Uh, it's just, it's just part of our unusual history. Yeah. Um, but so for the time you split off, you know, it's been about 20 years, let's say around that mark. Um, and how have, how do you see yourself relative to, to OMA and Rem Coolhouse?

52:18I mean, I, I, you're doing your own work and you're focused on that, but I guess another way to phrase the question is how do you think your approach and what you're doing is different from what OMA is or, or was doing? Like, is there a design philosophy, uh, uh, uh, approach that's different? Is it, uh, like, how do you see, see that, uh, that differentiation? First, and I, I don't, I don't, this isn't meant to be flip, but I, I don't really think

52:49about that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I, look, I can only talk about OMA for the time I was there and that's now 20 years ago. So, um, even when I was there, there was, you know, if you look, if you put the Seattle Library and the Porto Concert Hall side by side, they look like genetic sisters, but I can tell you that they came to be in exactly the opposite way, right?

53:21Seattle is obsessively rational and Porto is beautifully intuitional. Um, you know, every angle, every move on Seattle is argued, whereas Porto started out as a kind of amazingly intricate intuitional house that got put on steroids and blown up into the size of a concert hall, you know, and, um, all I can say is that we are still pursuing the same

53:58ideas that were so powerful at Seattle.

54:04And even to the extent that the overall geometry of Seattle appears willful, and I will argue that it's not, but it appears willful. It's still a bunch of dumb boxes stacked on top of each other. So, so if you denuded it, it would still look, you know, I have a certain, um, predilection for simple forms. I would say that, um, in the last couple of years I've started lecturing about, or including

54:38in lectures, the notion that what started out, I thought as a predilection was in fact something very intentional that I just hadn't been able to articulate for a long time, which is the geometric simplicity of our work, which I think in retrospect, whether or not it was gestating or not, it's certainly very intentional now, which is first humans build Cartesian

55:11until we start 3d printing buildings, our, our materials, our methods of, of measurement, every, you know, we build Cartesian. Yeah, that's fair. Yeah. That's fair. You know, the world is full of buildings that I think are delightful and their exuberance and form making where you get close to them and you just go, holy fuck, this is terrible. You know, because nothing aligns, nothing is in plain, you know, and you just, and my OCD has to run out immediately.

55:42Like I can't handle it. In fact, I run out of most Cartesian buildings because it doesn't align. Our ability, our ability to build even Cartesian is bad. So, um, so that's, that's one thing. It's just, I think that our ability to do, to build something timelessly, exquisitely is greatly increased by that simplicity or purity. Um, but there's another very intentional thing, which is, I'll use, I'll use the liniment as,

56:19sorry, the Perlman as a great example of that. Um, you know, the building has maybe 15 facade details. Wait, wait, which building was that? The Perlman. Okay. Um, as opposed to a conventional building, which might have 150.

56:39And that reduction in the emphasis on repetition and scale. Allows us to take the same amount of money and do way more with it. If you look at a project like 2050 M street, there's a field condition, there's a parapet condition, there's a corner condition, there's a transition from the storefront at grade into the field condition of the, of the curtain wall. Um, actually it's not a curtain wall. It's, it's weirdly, it's a, it's actually a storefronted system, but they're not what you

57:13think is a curtain wall. Um, and that's how we were, you know, the whole, whole, but all I'm getting is it allows us to really push the envelope, pun intended. And we've started talking about, um, phenomenology over form, you know, creating buildings and wall systems and experiences that will change over the course of the day and the year in pretty radical

57:47ways. You know, the Pearlman illuminating at night and the way light hits the facades of the Lindemann, and, um, um, that I think are super powerful and I would rather direct the money there than in just a crazed form that will likely go out of fashion.

58:14Interesting. And, you know, that, that has to come with some, you know, I talked about, oh, you just do dumb boxes, you know, that I've sat in on, um, you know, public selection processes for major projects in which the board is discussing the firms and yeah, that is what they say about our work. Oh, it's just a dumb box, you know? And so you have to, you know, it, it, some people understand the power of the refinement

58:45of it. You know, some people understand these, some people understand, um, bunch theft, you know, yeah. Um, bunch theft. Oh, is it really behind you? Yeah. So, um, I'm sitting in bunch of looking at bunch of, um, our, our building or our office is a, is a, what I call the poor man's secret building. So it's, you know, a bunch shaft SOM building. Are you guys, wait, where are you guys located in the city? I can't tell. 140 Broadway. We're, we're, we're in the building with the Noguchi, the Noguchi cube, the red Noguchi

59:17cube out in front. Oh, okay. Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. Cool. And we're across from that one, which is also has a, a Noguchi courtyard. Something for you.

Musical background and future project aspirations

59:27Um, is there a type of project that you'd really love to do next that you, you have to haven't done? Um, there's two things I would love to do. Three things. Two of them are very similar. Um, we have not yet done a proper symphony or opera. And I would love to do that. Um, that was in the, it was while we are so obsessed with performing arts buildings. I was a musician as a, as a younger person, kid and the younger person.

59:58And, and, um, actually went to Yale thinking I would be a musician. What did you, what did you play? Performance? I was a, a horn player. What kind of, what kind of, what kind of horn? French horn. No kidding. That was a trumpet player. Yeah. French horn is tough, man. It's a, that mouthpiece is really tiny. It's tiny. And it's like the rim is so thin that you're slipping and sliding all over the notes. I, I don't know how you guys do it. I still have an indentation. Do you really? Yeah. Yeah.

1:00:29Um, well, you must've been a pretty serious player then. Yeah. As I said, I, that was the reason I selected Yale was, was proximity to a teacher and, um, the music department. Did you ever, do you still play at all? How are your chops? My chops. I mean, the problem with any brass instrument, but particularly horn is that, um, if you're not playing a lot, your, your embouchure, your muscles get very weak. I can play beautifully for about five minutes.

1:01:01You know, it's so, yeah. My muscles start to shake. Yeah. I really can't, I can't do it. Um, and that, you know, so that's, I pick it up less and less because the experience is shorter and shorter and less satisfying. Well, if you play five minutes in the office every day, you know, you're stuck on track. Oh, I wouldn't do that. Uh, it's funny though. I, I have the, I mean, it's pretty common. I had the same experience. Like it's, it's strange. So I stopped playing seriously after college has been, you know, a long time, but for many

1:01:35years after, after that, I could still pick up the trumpet and play pretty well for, you know, like 20 minutes and then 15 and then 10 and then five. And now it's like just a couple of minutes and then it's not worth anything. And it's, it's, um, but the crazy thing is your muscle memory is there with maybe not with your lips, but with your, like, I know I still can do fingering without thinking. Yeah. I will play, you know, Mahler's fourth and I don't think about what I'm doing. Yeah. But the lips might not be aligned with the fingers.

1:02:06The nose can't do it, but the hand knows, you know, I even remember alternate fingering for some reason. You know, I know if I need to bend a note, I should be doing it on the F-horn and not the C-horn. And I don't know why I knew that. That's awesome. Um, so you still have your French horn. Yeah. Cool. Um, the, uh, we're actually, the time went by super fast. Uh, one of my last questions is what is your, the other thing I would say is that I absolutely

1:02:38definitely want to do is an airport. Is this again? An airport. Oh, an airport. It's funny. I was going to ask you like systems thinking. Yeah. If there is a building that you, you do not like to do, you would not want to do. No, but the airport, is this something you want to do? Oh, yeah, yeah, no, no, no. I definitely want to do an airport. Wow. Interesting. Those are super complex. We would do the, we would do the best airport in the world. I have no doubt.

1:03:03Because of the, you said the systems thinking. Yeah. It's, it's the ultimate systems challenge. You know, what's interesting is that in this conversation, everything you're saying, you know, it makes complete sense and I'm aligned with it. But it, it just occurred to me that there are a lot of architects who don't practice the same way as you, which is totally fine. But the, but like your, your, the way you approach buildings is a very, how to phrase it, like your, your mind is very open to thinking about it through different lenses, as opposed

1:03:35to just focusing on like the artifact itself and saying, how do I make it pretty? Like you're thinking about, you know, like you said, even the financial or construction methods. And it's, it's not, it's not like most architects operate that way. I think it's really easy actually for architects over time to limit their, their thinking more and more because of maybe the practicality of, of everyday life and what it means to practice as an architect. But they're like, just narrow the thinking more and more to like, okay, give me the program. I'm fine. Okay. Boxes, some nice facade thing.

1:04:06And then, then they're done. There's not much more to it than that.

Articulating the narrative arc of a project

1:04:10Well, so that goes all the way back to where I started with philosophy. Um, you know, internally we, and when I teach also, we talk and emphasize this idea of our being able to articulate the narrative arc of a project, being able to articulate, these are the issues we're, we're focused on, these are our positions on those issues, and this is why the building embodies those positions. And, and, and to your point, creating that narrative is not linear.

1:04:42Sometimes you have an intuition about the manifestation of it, and sometimes you can clearly articulate the issue, but you can't quite figure out the position, you know, and so it's sort of over time, it, it sort of takes hold, but we don't stop, even if we have something we think is compelling, if we can't create that compelling narrative, even to the point that we have clients who will say sometimes, you know, I feel like we're handcuffed into the solution. And I'm like, well, that, that's good, actually.

1:05:13That means we have, we have actually, while you may feel constrained right now, um, what I know from experience is that will make the project far easier to defend in the public realm, far easier to defend, um, to be able to, you know, if it's a public project, to be able to tell the public, these are the, this is the array of things we could have done, and this is why we did what we did, and we may end up being wrong, but at least it was done, uh, wisely.

1:05:46It was done intentionally. It was not a whim. It was not about my feelings and my vision, you know, we can, we can defend the investment. And, and as I said, it, it, um, you know, there's a bunch of things I will, I'll say about that, but the, I often liken it to, you know, the power of talk therapy, you know, there's arguments about what happens in the brain when you can finally articulate trauma, you know, and, and that

1:06:17you don't, you can't control it, and therefore you can't overcome it until you can articulate it. Um, not that architecture is traumatic, but I think, you know, in a similar idea that if you, until you can fully create a narrative that's watertight, you're not in control of it. Um, and so we don't stop until we get that. And when I'm teaching and I require the students always, every time we meet, whether it's me individually or meeting as a group, they have to, they have to do this stupid thing where they say,

1:06:49this is the issue or issues. This is the position or positions. And this is why the building my proposal embodies it. And inevitably some portion of the studio or the whole studio will have this moment where they're like, Oh, you're just teaching us how to present. Yeah. And I'm like, you know what? I think I'm teaching you the entire space of architecture because the only thing you will put into this world, unless you are wildly independently wealthy, is that which you can argue. Yeah. Yeah. And so, you know, if you want to be a paper architect, you know, um, I've just lost his

1:07:24name. I wanted to say extraordinary, extraordinary paper architect who passed away about five years ago. Um, anyway, you know, he, he did great things in the world, but there's a reason it's not built. Um, and there's nothing wrong with what he did, but if you want to build, you're only going to build what you can argue. Yeah. It's not Leibius Woods, is it? It was Leibius Woods. There we go. I was massing between Neil Denari and Daniel Leibuskin, which you can see how those guys

1:07:56are both still alive. They're still alive. Yeah. So, yeah. But that's, but that's why I was like, it's neither of those people. I don't want to, I don't want to prematurely end their career. Yeah. Announcement everyone. Neil Denari is no longer with us. Yeah. But, but, but it was just the name that I was sort of, anyway. Yeah. But yeah, Leibius Woods. Um, you know, extraordinary person. No critique. Yeah. It's funny with what you're saying, but where my mind goes is I just got back from doing

1:08:28some thesis crits, uh, undergraduate thesis crits. And, uh, there's a, uh, person at the school, like a school journalist asking, interviewing critics. And they asked me like, why is this important? And, and I was like, well, there's many reasons, but one of them is if you ever have any hope to be an architect doing real buildings, there's no way you're going to get anything built unless you have the ability and to present, but I also agree. It's not just about presenting. It's, it's, it's evidence that there is a reason behind your, your actions and you just

1:08:58don't, you just can't go around, you know, without any reason. It's like an attorney in court, like you have to be able to defend your case. It's the same thing. Yeah. And if it doesn't, if it's not sensible graphically and, and, and, and, and language and in your, in your speak, then something's amiss. That's just the way it is. And unless there's a rat, unless there's a really good idea, but you just lack the ability to describe it because you haven't, you know, you haven't like thought about it quite enough. That's that can happen. But beyond that, um, if it can't be talked about or presented successfully, then I think it's

1:09:31just evidence that something's missing. There's also a power in the, the editorial function of it, in that it, it distills what is immutable about a project. And just as I said that over time, what I thought was a predilection has become intentional in terms of the simplicity of the form and its impact on what we can do with the enclosures. There's also something where we, we've become very intentional about limiting the ambitions

1:10:03of a project to one, two, three things. Yeah. And, and being very clear with the client that those are the immutable things and everything else we'd like to get. And if we don't, we don't. And when they see that that's true, they also relax. And, and to be clear, those one or two or three things are usually crazy ambitious, right? The things that would drive, put anyone way out of their comfort zone, but because we articulate

1:10:34them so clearly that those are the things, you know? So for example, on the, the Lindemann, it's the automated reconfigurability of the hall and this idea of this clear, clear story that plows to the building that, um, means that you have the, the, the interaction between the interior and exterior worlds of the project, um, in a place that most people think would be acoustically and performatively, it would be impossible. And yet we proved it was possible and did it.

1:11:04And, and, and it has, it's, it's giving great returns on how the community engages in the work that's being produced there, the community, both in terms of Brown University, but also Providence at large. And I'll give an example of how powerful that is. There was a moment I was on site, it was towards the tail end of COVID. So things were sort of coming back to life and there was a sheet rock sub and an electrical sub in the building.

1:11:36And I heard the sheet rock sub saying to the electrician, you can't do that because that's at odds with, and then he, then he mentioned the two core principles of the project. And I was like, holy shit, if you have two subs articulating that and why, you know, whatever the issue was, I don't remember what they were doing, but it, it, it illustrates the power

1:12:06of the clarity of the argument being judicious about what you're going to go to bat for. Um, clearly those two things on that project are not for the faint of heart, meaning the building is not without ambition just because I can distill it into two ideas. Sure. Yeah. Um, and, and, and it's because we could distill it into two ideas and the client knew that those were the only two hills we'd die on and that we were really malleable on everything

1:12:38else that we were able to achieve them and within our studio, I will say that all the time, which is, you know, if you can reinvent the wheel once and, you know, heaven forbid twice or three times in a project, who gets to do that? Yeah. I mean, that's a home run reinvent one wheel, let alone two or three, like that's way more

1:13:09than most people get to do. And it's enough. Yeah. There's a, we have this, you know, there's had this architects, I think in general, we have this, um, insecurity about we're not doing enough. Is it enough? Um, you know, when, when the studio would get nervous about, you know, go back to the Perlman, the simplicity of the Perlman, I was like, you have a thing on the interior that does 68 different stage audience configurations that's never been done on the planet in history. Like you don't think it's enough.

1:13:40Um, and all 68 of those configurations we've taken through, um, you know, smoke and life safety and, you know, I've gotten to see it. So what, what more were you hoping to do on this project? Um, I, that's the, the, the focus of, of the, the ideas and everything you just said is it's just, it's really interesting and it makes just a lot of sense. Um, I think it's, it's also maybe, I feel like it's, um, like for younger architects,

1:14:18it's, it's also easy for them to fall into the trap of wanting to do too much. It's almost like they just, they want to put too many ideas into one thing and it takes a level of maturity or a restraint sometimes to say like, that's not, that's not what this needs to be about. But I really love the point though, that when you distill it to a, one or two, you know, ideas or moves or gestures, whatever it's going to be, that it, it, it much, it greatly improves the, the, the, the chances of success with the projects as opposed to spreading

1:14:50yourself really thin and then everything gets cut out. And then pretty soon the project is like Swiss cheese at the end. Um, it's a good one. Yeah. Last question, Marina. Our last question, which is kind of a tradition at this point is what is your favorite building? And it doesn't have to be one of your own, although we've had some architects choose their own. Yeah. No, I mean, my favorite building, you should know, just, um, uh, absolutely Beinecke Rare Books Library at Yale. That's the one that's the, who's the architect of that one again?

1:15:21No, Bunshaft. That's... There's a reason we're, there's a reason we're in a Bunshaft building. That's the one with, um, it also has a translucent facade, right? Yeah. Phenomenal building. Yeah. It, um, although you could not do it today, um, it is the most exquisite thing I've ever been in. Well, you couldn't do it today because... Um, I mean, it's actually, our starting point on the Perlman's facade was how could we figure out how to do something similar with today's energy requirements?

1:15:53Gotcha. But that, you know, it's, it's an inch and a quarter thick monolithic marble. Like, it's a, it's a radiator. Yeah. Yeah. You know? Um, and then a very close second is, um, Mon Giraldi's chapel just outside of Rome. Yeah. Um, which, which is lesser known. And, and, and, uh, I don't know if, if you don't know it, it's, it's extraordinary. Um, and, and you will see why our work is the way it is, or as you say, you could, you

1:16:29can see what I aspire to. And, and, you know, both of them are incredibly simple forms where the, every, every inch of the building has been, um, labored over. The, the chapel by Mon Giraldi, if you don't know it, it has this, for lack of a better description, like a clear story. So the first thing is that it's, it's, it's incredibly modern at the same time, um, has a tactility and humanity to it, which I really appreciate.

1:17:02Um, it has these, these, it was the first time anyone tried to do a translucent insulated panel. Um, so it's got these white translucent panels that have, which are the white is actually the insulation in the, in the interlayer. Um, but there's a clear story at the base, like the first three inches is actually clear glass. And so it, when you're in the space, it, it floods the whole floor plane with light and

1:17:33the rest of the light, the rest of the walls are illuminated, but they're not as bright. And so it, it, you know, every Stanley Kubrick film is copied back. Like, um, you know, if you want it, you want it to feel you're on sacred ground, spread the, the, the floor with, with bright light, with a luminescence around it. You know, it's like, you can hear it go, oh, it's so insanely beautiful. And you're like, what, why didn't anyone ever think?

1:18:05It's a simple move too. Yeah. Yeah. We were looking at it just as you were speaking. It's a pretty incredible building. So it's, that's amazing. Um, the time went by super fast. Thank you so much for making the time on a, on a, are we Friday? We are Friday. We are on a Friday. On a Friday. This was really, really interesting and we appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Good pleasure. If you like what we're doing, then please support the show by leaving a review of us in the Apple podcast app. You can also find us on Spotify, YouTube, um, Instagram, our handle is second to studio

1:18:37pod website is second studio pod. Oh, you just dropped your headphones and water. Um, what else is there? We have a hotline. So if you have guest suggestions or topics that we should talk about or questions you want us to try and answer, uh, that number is two, one, three, two, two, two, six, nine, five, zero. So you can leave a voicemail there or shoot a text message. And beyond that, we have a lot more cool stuff coming out with great guests. Stay tuned and we appreciate you listening. Talk soon. Bye.