Do you speak architecturalese?

Renowned Greek architect and urban planner Sotiris N. Papadopoulos explains to ‘Eurobuild CEE’ why public criticism towards the design of public projects is not always a good thing

Mladen Petrov, ‘Eurobuild CEE’: Mr. Papadopoulos, we often hear about award-winning projects for public buildings that at the end of the day are never delivered due to – let’s put it this way – public protest. The winning architect is then left with nothing – except a diploma and a money prize…

Sotiris N. Papadopoulos: I don’t understand this sort of situation. First prize means first prize. If an architect has been awarded the project, in an open public competition or tender, he or she should be given the right to see the project through. That should be the rule. A first prize in a competition means that this is the best project. However, you need some time to prove the value of the building, to let it blend into the surroundings and for citizens to get used to it. The public is not always willing to give the project the time it needs. I, as an architect, don’t always trust public opinion when it comes to design. That doesn’t mean I don’t respect the public. I do respect it and this is what competitions are for – the voice of the public should be heard during the competition through the architectural organizations whose representatives are part of the jury. These are professional organizations, which should represent public opinion.

Does the public realize that it is actually being represented in the competition? I don’t think so…

There is also another crucial issue – the budget and so-called political interventions. Let’s say I design a public building on a certain budget. Then, for example, the municipality comes along with some radical cost-cutting suggestions. Of course, they would rather spend less than the project requires. And this is a problem. In this cost-cutting process, the original project may start to lose its identity. What we see at the end of the day might be something quite different from what the architect originally designed and was awarded for. You design a tiger, the final result is a cat and this is when the public starts to criticize it, without having this crucial ‘behind the scenes’ information. Do you see my point?

Totally.

It’s easy to criticize when you don’t know all the facts. This is especially true of politicians, in many cases. Although they are the ones who know the facts, they use ‘gossipy’ public commentaries as an opportunity to play dirty politics. And this unfortunately is quite common – at least in my country, Greece.

I think people in our part of Europe love criticizing. Why do you think that is?

This is a very healthy activity, in theory. However, the Architectural Council of Europe, of which I am a member, recently published an interesting study showing that in the majority of European countries architects are not as high up the ladder of society as, for example, doctors and lawyers are. What does this mean? That ordinary people have no understanding of what we are doing? I have had clients who say “Well, basically all you do is draw something on a sheet of paper and you have the cheek to ask for so much money?” People just don’t understand how much effort and specialist knowledge is behind every dot or line drawn on a design. It’s a matter of education. In Finland, a country with a design tradition, the work of architects is highly appreciated. It just takes time. I don’t want to draw hasty conclusions about Central and Eastern Europe. Here, taste to a large extent is being dictated by flashy design and decoration magazines. They tell you what is trendy and what is not. I don’t want to generalize, but most of these magazines seem to be too excitable. Although they seem to understand aesthetics they don’t pass that critical knowledge on to their readers. Their main interest is to be attractive and to sell advertising, and this is very dangerous for architecture.

So are we ready for this brave new architecture? Or, being stuck in the belief that our beautiful old European cities are not the proper setting for such designs, will we keep accepting these projects just so we can later reject them?

Well, I think that architecture should take risks and be at the forefront of promoting the future. But at the same time it is wise to take into account the conditions and the people for whom you provide your services. The Kaplický project in Prague is not to everyone’s taste, but we as a society should experiment and subject its pros and cons to the test of time. One of the mistakes architects may make is using a very complicated design language, which the public – the final receiver of the project – simply doesn’t speak or understand. So we as architects, combining actions and events, should educate and be more open to the public by showing them what architecture is all about in a language they understand. We tend, however, to be a closed society. Architectural exhibitions should radically change and become truly accessible. Even I myself have problems understanding the text in an exhibition’s presentation and catalogues. I read a text written by a colleague and I just don’t understand what he’s trying to tell me. For the good of architecture, the language and the modes of communication – especially in exhibitions – should be modified to be more attractive and educational for the public. Unfortunately, most architectural public events are introverted in their set-up and are mainly for architects and a closed circle of people with relevant knowledge. 

Biographical details:

Since 1975, Sotiris Papadopoulos has worked across the whole spectrum of design, research and consultancy in architecture, urban planning and real estate development. He is also active in architectural competitions and has won 15 prizes, with 8 out of 15 of these projects having been completed. Sotiris Papadopoulos is involved in research programmes such as the ‘Design for All’ pilot project on accessibility in architecture forthe disabled, and ‘Leonardo 
– Heritage and Modernity: methods and tools for urban rehabilitation and new project design in an historical context.’