Make Architects

Mark Tynan interview

- Could you tell us about Make?

M: The office is comprised of about 150 people, it’s quite a young practice, it’s been around for about for 4 − 5 years. Established by Ken Shuttleworth, who is the main head, followed with a series of colleagues of his. It is set up as a partnerships where everybody within the business, within the firm - has an ownership over the work. In a way that also encourages young people to come in and also take pride in what they are doing, which in a way feeds back − it’s a democratic system. All the work is fresh and new, creativite, there is no set style or a set agenda. When you see the work it varies in types - from simple boxes to crazy geometries and curves and forms. So in that sense, it is quite a diverse and democratic work environment.

- Tell us a little bit about yourself and your role at Make?

M: I’m a Part Two architect, graduated from the Architectural Association just over the road. I graduated two years ago where I studied for my diploma, Intertactive Architecture and its role within society and the city. My role at Make is currently working through a series of residential layouts and high rise buildings as an architectural assistant.

- So what are some of the visions and values at Make?

M: I think it is definitely creativity and trying to push the boundary. Going beyond the conventions where possible. Testing out new materials, new ways of joining things together, new ways of testing the programs within a building, within a city in society and how they work in society.

Also the question of climate and sustainability and how it feed backs into our role as the architect and over seer of all things that affect our daily lives. It is a great place to be experimenting, whilst trying to make it happen in reality.

- Do you think London is the sort of place that promotes experimenting?

M: It’s hard to say. It is very set in lots of standards that work and have been well tested. It is definitely, London in particular, the hub of multicultural backgrounds, a lot of ethnic influences as well as from Europe and America etc. It is a really good creative hub in that sense. But in terms of architecture, building in the UK, is very restricting, it is expensive, maybe bureaucratic? Say if you compare to Asia or China where regulation and methods of working are maybe lapse or still developing, it certainly is creative.

- Why do you think London is such a hub of attraction to architects and designers, specifically those practicing in the experimental arena?

M: I think you have so many institutes within a small mile area of London. You got the RCA, the AA, you got the ranges from extremely artistic Central St Martins to the sciences and engineering of UCL and Imperial College, the Bartlett, Imperial College. And there are always lectures going on, invited talks, museums and film and fashion events which take place. So it is so hard to see why not, or why wouldn’t it attract all these people. In a way if you want to see all this diversity, it has to be in a big multicultural city.

- Do you think London is the best place to practice in your field?

M: I am not sure. Definitely for the time being. You’ve got all the leading architects from Chipperfield on one side to Zaha doing the extreme on the other. It’s got a whole range of resources of consultants, backgrounds and history of the past trying to build a future. It is often a place where people come for advice and opinions and as a base for architectural design. It’s a show case location for new and upcoming things.

- Are modern buildings in London progressive?

M: Not all of them. A lot of them are restricted. It more depends on the client, the location, the institute that it is being built for. The site could be extremely tight relative to the amount of programme they want to squeeze in.

It is a balance. For that reason I guess you could say it is progressive. It works. But where it often fails is where it has to claw back to convention and restrictions based on old legislation of London. There are rules in place which are old and safeguard from errors in the past. But where it does become progressive is in its clever use of materials and clever adaptation of space for multi-purposes. Space is no longer used for one program these days, it is extremely adaptable and flexible and architectural design that tries to push that is quite successful. For example, the Olympic stadium. The intention is for it to come down from a 100,000 to a 60,000 seating stadium. Whether that takes place, whether the infrastructure going in will help the city expand and develop the area positively? That is perhaps progressive thinking, but maybe not necessarily progressive in application.

- What sort of technology do you use in your work?

M: These days were moving more towards a lot of parametric design. So a lot of the work is highly computationally driven. Often directly developing the 3D form from the software package, testing out parameters in volumes and spaces. Modelling things out virtually. Then going into rapid prototyping techniques such as SLS (Selective Laser Sintering) and CNC (Computer Numerical Control) milling. Theses technologies help developing spaces and showing how it works and whether it meets the brief. But also looking at sensory modes, which is what I looked at early in my diploma. Interactivity and how its role takes place with in society. How architecture can be responsive and adapt to stimuli within the given environment and adapt the building envelop, maybe ephemerally, physically, the space to accommodate its inhabitant, to accommodate climatic changes. It is quite challenging. A lot of the work in the academic institutes are very much pushing towards this. It is not just architecture. The industry as a whole is trying to push that way. To see how space defined by parameters can be adaptive to a real situation.

- Are you working on any projects of techniques which are progressive?

M: Where I bring in progression within the work I do, I try to work within the notions of interactivity. How a space a can be changed and adaptive around stimuli. The stimuli could be as simple as a motion sensor. Maybe adapt existing infrastructure , say CCTV and use the inputs of people moving, the density of the traffic at any given moment of time to try adapt the architecture around it to meet those requirements. For example if there are a series of senors that detect your heat, does the space within accommodate?. Does the temperature change, if the sunlight is too intense, can the facade treatment adapt around it to control the shading? Its all possible, the technology is there. Do we dare to use it?

Make Architects : www.makearchitects.com

Written by Selph