Patkau Architects

.. ~--------------------------- © 1995 Th e University of Michigan College of Architecture+ Urban Planning & Patkau Architects Editor: Annette W. LeCuyer Book Design: Christian Unverzagt IS BN 0-9614792-3-X $11.50 us The text grid of this document responds to the changing resistance of the book's spine. It was designed and produced on an Apple Power Macintosh 7100 using QuarkXPress, Microsoft Word , & Adobe Photoshop software. Typeset in FF Meta+ Book Roman & Book Caps, designed by Eri k Spiekerman. Printed on Bo# Mountie Matte White Text and Bo# Neaah Classic Columns Stonehenge Cover paper. College of Arc hitecture+ Urban Planning The University of Michigan 2ooo Bonisteel Boulevard Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109- 2069 USA • I John Dinkeloo graduated from this college in 1942 and is one of its most distinguished alumni. In many ways, he epitomized the kind of education and talents of which the co llege has been proud and which we are still keen to encourage. John Dinkeloo was an architect, an outstandin g designer, and a student of materials. He was the author of a number of significant arch itectural inventions of the latter part of this century including the neoprene gasket and severa l different types of glass, and he experimented with the use of Corten and exposed steel. john Dinkeloo worked as a young architect in Eero Saa rinen's office and later as a partner with Kevin Roche in the firm Roche Dinkeloo. He was an imaginative creator, who worked on major projects of great significance which have inspired architects throughout the world: the Ford Foundation, the Oakland Museum, the john Deere Headquarters, and many others. The John Dinkeloo Memorial Lecture is a milestone in our academic year. This lecture se ries began in 1984, three years after the untimely death of John Dinkeloo. It is generously supported by an endowment from faculty and friends, and with the help ofThelma Dinkeloo, John's widow. The Dinkeloo Lectures have brought to this college some of the most important architects working in practice today. The speakers, selected for their commitment to design technology and the art of making buildings, have included Kevin Roche, Fay Jones, Richard Meier, Thorn Mayne, Michael McKinnell, Tod Williams and Billie Ts ien , to name just a few. I am pleased to introduce a young Canadian architect, John Patkau of Patkau Architects in Vancouver who will deliver the 1995 Dinkeloo Memorial Lecture. John and Patricia Patkau pursued their undergraduate studies at the University of Manitoba. john graduated with a Masters degree from Manitoba in 1972, andl Patricia with a Masters from Ya le in 1978. They founded their partnership in Edmonton in 1978 and moved to Vancouver in 1984. 6 The Patkaus are particularly inspiring in that they are young architects who are developing architectural theory through practice. In an increasingly homogenized world, theirs is an architecture which searches ou t the particular, whether it be in the site, the history of the place, or in the program of the building. The exploration of these issues is clearly evident in their drawings and models, and perhaps most importantly in their completed bu ildings. This document is a record of the 1995 Dinkeloo Memorial Lecture. It focuses on three of the most recent projects designed by the Patkaus which are significant because they represent three different types of work: a civic building of national importance which was built following a successful design competition, a house, and an award-winning public school which is currently under construction. Kenneth !Frampton, writing about the Patkaus' work, recently observed! that: "john and Patricia Patkau are two young Canadian architects whose achievements are all the more refreshing because of their discretely tectonic character. The quality of this work suggests once again that we would do well to turn our attention to the periphery if we would wish to find our way back to more measured and sensitive forms of architectural practice.'" On behalf of the College, I am delighted to welcome the architect john Patkau. Brian Carter Professor & Chair ofArchitecture I greatly admire the buildings of John Dinkeloo and believe that he was, above all, an architect who struggled to master his craft through practice. Co incidentally, our projects are very much the work of practicing architects who are struggling in the same way. I am honored to be invited to deliver the 1995 Dinkeloo Memorial Lecture. Although my partner Patricia and I are very interested in architectural theory and attempt to place our work in the context of a rigorously argued theoretical discussion, this presentation will not center on issues of theory directly- it will center on issues of practice. This is because, unli ke many architects who are interested in theoretical issues, we did not come to this interest as a result of an early career in teaching. We did not develop our ideas in an academ ic setting and then enter into practice to implement these ideas. Until recently we have been isolated from the academic environment and restricted to explori ng our ideas through practice. As a resu lt, ou r ideas have emerged very slowly. We were not ab le to sit down and consolidate a body of knowledge, put forward a platform and execute it. It has been a struggle, as it is for most practicing architects, to find a way from one pr.oject to the next, to understand what we are doing, and to somehow bu ild on that to find some form of mature expression. Architecture is an itine rant profession for the young and I moved to Alberta in the late seventies because it was an oil boom economy which offered tremendous opportunities for architects. After only two years of experience in another architect's office I was ab le to become registered. The re was no NCARB, no ora l exam ination; I simply logged my time and became an architect. Immediately upon being registered , I opened our practice in Edmonton . Pat joined me fro m Ya le, together with one ot he r fellow who had a technica l background. It was a nightmare. We learned t he hard way by making mistakes, and the experience has shaped us to this day. Out of the struggle to learn by se lf-teaching, we came to have a tremendous respect for the craft of architecture, for making. Because we were on our own, we had never been exposed to all of the knowledge 8 requ ired to actually co nstru ct a building. We knew how to compose a drawing, but there is a substantial gap between composing a drawing and construct ing a building. That learning process has marked our work and marks to this day a profound respect for the making of buildings, not simply building as the manifestation of theoretical ideas. We began to find ou r way with the design of the Pyrch House. The house is literally the shape of the property, centered about a gian t mound of rock. By lowering the main space be low that rock, the extremely mediocre and conventional development of " Tudo r-Bavarian" houses alongside is completely obscured. Because of the geometry of the site, the rock stands between the eye and the neighboring houses below. All that can be seen is the ocean beyond, a pure and powerful landscape distilled from the rock and the existing trees on that particular site. The configuration of t he house ensured that it became a largely mute participant allowing these natural elements to speak. Our intuitive starting point was to seek those things that were particular to the project and center our arch itectural response around them. We came to describe this sea rch as a sea rch for 'found poten tial' -those aspects of site, climate, building context, program, or loca l cu lture, fo r example, that will fac ilitate the development of an architectural order which is evocative of circumstance. 9 In 1983 - a time of crisis in the oil industry-the economy in Alberta was devastated. Our practice was destroyed. We relocated to Vancouver and started again by building a house for ourselves. The site we· could afford was within a steeply sloping, heavily forested ravine. Having spent most of our lives on the Canadian prairies which are characterized by bright blue skies and year round sunshine, we were especially concerned because, in this deep ravine, the sun was lost early in the day. Two things inspired the design and were consistent with our growing interest in found potential: the nature of the site and the climate. The terrain was so steeply sloping that it was difficult to get around. As a result we conceived of th e hou se as a bridge connecting the various levels of the site. The design was also conditioned by a need for light. In Vancouver everything is sun-seeking. Anything which stands between you and the sun is undesirable. Our response was to make one-third of the roof of glass and to place all of the major openings on the south side. The house was shaped by these concerns. This experience began to confirm the value of seeking out responses that emphasized the particular qualities of the place. 10 The App leton House, designed in 1985 for a site on Victoria Island,, was, for a young family with three small children. They showed us photographs of lofts in New York and industrial buildings and said, "This is the house that we want." The materiality of the images they showed us was completely impossible on their budget. The on ly thing which was feasible was wood frame construction, and so we decided to try to transform wood frame constru ction to represent the more substantial qualities of the images they had se lected.

Load more