THE ARCHITECT’S LAMENT

Timothy Hill on What is an architect, really?

Ref: https://architectureau.com/articles/Timothy-Hill-What-is-an-architect-really/

 

The AIA Podcast presented an interview with Timothy Hill (TH) of Partners Hill (previously of Donovan Hill). It is an interesting interview marred somewhat by the few agreeable giggles of the chirpy interviewer. One might have hoped for the type of interview given by Melvyn Bragg, selfless and subject-centred; for example, his astonishing interview with Dennis Potter who was terminally ill with cancer and had to break from time to time to take his pain killers. It was a searching, sensitive, and revealing conversation. This AIA, (Australian, not American Institute of Architects), -recorded interview with TH sometimes sounded as though the interviewer was in awe of her subject, happy to suggest that she shared similar thoughts and feelings just a little too much, with an acknowledging, annoying, self-satisfaction.

Timothy Hill.

In this chat, TH lamented the fact that surgeons and dentists are never questioned about their intents, processes, or inspirations the way that architects are challenged. He noted how clients are the bugbear of architects: “It’s not architects who stuff up buildings. It’s the clients. Clients are the biggest risk to any project.” One wondered if he might prefer to sedate his clients as surgeons and dentists do, so that they do not get in the way of the implementation of the specialist’s expert preferences – those of the Architect and his Analytical ‘Design Thinking.’ Capital letters seemed important to TH in order to identify his professional stature.

Too many hands? - those who “chip in a little something just to prove that they are there.”

There seems to be some irony in the firm's name: Partners Hill.

TH noted how, in the time he has been in the profession, teams of consultants for projects have grown, along with the number of documents required for a project, drawings that are, he pointed out, produced with the QWERTY keyboard in 3D when all dimensions are linear, suggesting that this effort was a waste of time; perhaps it was a subtle criticism of CAD/AI that allowed documentation to be changed just too easily? “The whole world is changed if you know that any line can be changed later.” Referring to this large group of professionals involved in a project as the ‘Email chain,’ TH noted his continuing frustration with these folk too, those who “chip in a little something just to prove that they are there,” adding that there is always someone who wants to express an opinion, like the apparently unwanted client’s involvement in his work, adding that one never questions a surgeon or a dentist, or tells them what to do. In response to the question, “What is inspiring you?,” TH commented, “That’s a hard one,” and followed up by asking, “Would you ask a very accomplished surgeon this question?” The implication appeared to be that ‘very accomplished’ architects should not be questioned.

Better than QWERTY?

Oddly, TH referred to the ‘architect’ with a capital ‘A’ and a small ‘a,’ with the latter being the word that is used in other contexts, such as ‘the architect of . . . ,’ in order to summarise a complex understanding of conventions where one “uses insight from experience to come up with a possibly lateral idea to make a real measurable, beneficial difference with the expected skill of the individual who is able to use persuasion and achieve transformation that can be measured as success or fail.” The capital ‘A’ architect referred to the real architect. He rattled off a few examples of the small ‘a’ usage, as if this might be a revelation – “architect of an AFL retreat; architect of a superannuation system;” and his favourite, “architect of judicial review – who is most likely a lawyer” - (see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2012/07/architect-of.html), isolating this use of the word by referring to professionals like himself as the ‘Architect’ in order to differentiate, to identify the real expert professional who he chooses to equate with the surgeon or the dentist, other professions that set the example for how TH would like to see architects treated - appointed as the unquestioned expert who is allowed to do his/her job, with the client asking, “How can we help you achieve your dream?”## He never points out that the Board of Architecture is the body that manages the use of the word ‘architect,’ and prefers to ignore this adoption of the word in ordinary language; even with the term ‘Landscape Architect,’ a group that the Board has no interest in. Neither does he note that the Board never mentions any ‘Architect’ with a capital ‘A’ as being different to the one with a small ‘a.’ The Architects Act 2002 in Queensland only refers to ‘architect.’ The ‘capital ‘A’ architect’ seems to be a TH invention or preference; perhaps it is the way he sees himself.

As an example of TH’s hopeful, favoured vision for the profession, which he would like to see become the conventional understanding, TH cited Bilbao and its efforts to “seduce Gehry” to do the Guggenheim. Apparently the city wanted Gehry and did everything Gehry asked for, and more, in order to achieve its goal; ‘kid gloves’ come to mind. The result was, as TH explained, “a new word in the architectural lexicon – ‘icon’ ”– as a description of the final project that Gehry completed. This is TH’s vision of a good process and an excellent Architectural result; maybe how he would like every project to be managed and accommodated to give an ‘iconic’ building that will amaze the world with a statement or ‘manifesto’ identity.+

Guggenheim, Bilbao.

TH appears to see such an arrangement and outcome as this as being what Architecture should always be – with the Architect given ‘carte blanche’ support and more to do whatever his professional ‘Design Thinking’ might conjure up in a particular context. Like the envied surgeon and dentist, TH suggests that Architects know best, and seems to want all others to keep out of the process of creating ‘Architecture.’

ZHA

This elitist position preferred by TH is a concern. Not getting one’s way all the time reeks of a spoilt child’s, ‘bratish’ response; and complaining about the growing complexity of projects, with larger teams and more drawings, seems odd, when his own office, (then Donovan Hill), designed a house with a reported ‘nearly 1000 hand drawn drawings.’ – C House.^ Why worry about 200 for an office block? It seems very reasonable in comparison.

TH has done some quality work, and has received the AIA Gold Medal for 2025, but one is dismayed by his vision which complains about the client. It has been said that a project is as good as the client, but this does not mean completely excluding, or achieving outcomes in spite of the client, as TH seems to want to do. It means that the client is involved in a good working relationship with the architect throughout the project in order to achieve the end result that both want. TH seems to be arguing that only the Architect knows what is desired, even criticising fellow professionals involved in his work who “chip in a little something just to prove that they are there."

TH has a somewhat odd vision of what surgeons and dentists do. The skills they bring to their respective tasks include both an intellectual and craft expertise – it is work that involves an adroitness with the hands and a knowing in order to achieve an outcome. The architect brings his intellectual skills to bear, applying his ‘Design Thinking,’ as TH likes to call it, to the project, defining matters for others to put together. However, one does not question the craft skill of the surgeon or the dentist, just as one does not tell a builder how to build, in spite of reputations being used in the gauging of possible outcomes and in the making of decisions; but one does question and become involved in the intellectual side of things medical and dental. One never goes to a surgeon or dentist just willy-nilly, because of the sign outside, in the same manner in which one never goes to any architect just because of the word beside the name. Choices are made in every case by the client. Neither does one ever ask the dentist or surgeon, “How can we help you achieve your dream?”

One discusses matters with a surgeon or a dentist and goes through the whole set of circumstances and options involved, even the surgeon’s/dentist’s own history of performance/outcomes; if one is unhappy with this or needs more or confirming information, one can always go and get another opinion; and again, and again, until one is satisfied and agrees to the craft process, at which stage, like handing a project over to a builder, one stops questioning and begins a different surveillance or supervision, as best one can given the circumstances. In all cases, the end product will be there for review, to be assessed against what was agreed.#

TH’s lament is misguided; the problem is not the client or other inputs from the team which can all be valuable to the listening architect; it is in the perception of the architect as ‘the Architect.’ In response to TH’s apparently frustrated question: “Is everyone an architect?,” one can quote Ananda Coomaraswamy, who wrote about the traditional understanding of the artist in an era in which we could say we see many ‘iconic’ works, pointing out that the artist was not ever considered to be a special sort of man; rather, every man was thought of as a special sort of artist.

Chartres Cathedral.

John James has identified nine different master masons who worked on the cathedral.

Might one point out similarly, that the architect is not a special sort of ‘Architect’ man; but that every man is a special sort of architect? The concept of the architect as an isolated hero, producing genius ‘statement,’ bespoke, ‘iconic’ outcomes that require/demand recognition and superfluous praise is a modern concept that needs to be modified. One is concerned that TH is now to travel Australia and talk about His preferred vision of what an architect should be, spreading His cry for total Autonomy and almost ‘genius’ Recognition for Architects; for clients who will appoint Him, (also read 'Her'), and let Him do whatever He wants to achieve His dream, as He, with his Talented ‘Design Thinking,’ sees things, in order for His Iconic Buildings to spread the gospel of His unchallenged, unchangeable, bespoke visions.

TH's site, Partners Hill, carries the standard clause of recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait People, etc. He gave no indication in this talk of anything to do with this, just, so it seemed, his self-centred lament about not being allowed to do whatever he wants; and his work does likewise, enjoying other exotic references in his exquisite detailing that ignores any Aboriginal inference, and diminishes the vernacular, mocking it as scrappy, unassuming suburban crassness that deserves to be dismissed – one might say, ‘given the big A.’ This version of the Architect as God needs to be dumped by a profession that too frequently bleats on about ‘uneducated’ clients and other foolish supporting professionals, ignoramuses, who try to interfere with the uniquely considered outcomes of the Hero, with naïve and ill-informed understandings of lesser intellectuals who are unaware of the Architect’s true value which is best left singular – about ME, like Modernism itself: all, one might add, client-free* - see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2020/02/villa-mairea-city-of-solitude.html.

One could suggest that TH might take his dummy and spit it elsewhere, not at the public, and learn to respect others with a caring empathy rather than concentrate on a self-centred longing indulgence to be free of criticism and censure; free to achieve His dreams. No one is so free, but all would like to be.** He is not helping the profession by taking this seemingly disrespectful stance. One hopes that by awarding the gold medal to TH, the profession is not further alienating itself from the public that sees architecture as an indulgent, self-serving calling, with those in it being prepared to even attack colleagues in the desire for an individuality with an iconic identity. Do 'gold medals' only exacerbate the situation?

#

P.S.

On medical practitioners and architects: we were consulting with a specialist on an ill family member. The specialist finally said that we should take the patient off everything that the local GP had prescribed, suggesting, but not saying by way of criticism, that the GP had over-prescribed, and that the medications were causing the problem.

Sensing this, I asked the specialist if we should get another GP.

He gave us the true, non-critical professional answer that gave us the message without his having to make a clear statement against a professional colleague:

“I just sacked my architect.”

So it seems that there is an equivalence between professions, but not in the way that TH would like things to be: both can be sacked – and he was.

*

It is interesting to ponder client inputs on various jobs. One comes to mind that stands out as an example of why clients should not be ignored.

The story involves a well-known, award winning residence with a clever plan. It had been praised when first constructed, as a true ‘new Queensland’ house, and continues to be referenced and lauded today, some fifty years later, such is its quality and inventiveness.

One day, while perusing the files in the office, I pulled out the general correspondence for this residence. It didn’t take long to get to the communication from the client that gave the architect the detailed, fully dimensioned floor plan as a freehand drawing as part of the brief; the diagram for the whole house that the architect used, right down to the last millimetre.

This collaboration proved to be fruitful, with the clever plan being developed sensitively and stylishly by the architect who never changed a thing. The building remains an excellent example of why architects should never be Architects – snobbish, self-centred, self-opinionated, bespoke design-thinking ‘Professionals.’

We need to remember that each man is a special kind of architect.

+

Perhaps one might call it a ‘statement building’ – c.f.

Swiss practice Herzog and de Meuron’s forte is devising statement buildings for institutional clients

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2025/sep/04/stirling-prize-for-architecture-shortlist-spruced-up-big-ben-cambridge-crystal-donut;

or a ‘manifesto’ building - see: https://www.bdonline.co.uk/briefing/the-manifesto-house-buildings-that-changed-the-future-of-architecture/5136192.article – buildings that changed the future of architecture.

^

: see Cameron Bruhn & Katelin Butler The New Queensland House Thames & Hudson, Australia, Port Melbourne, 2022 -

p.13: (The C House) took some eight years to complete, with fastidious attention given to the drawing and resolution of its details; and p.22: After six years of construction and a set of architect’s drawings that numbered almost 1000 A3 sheets (the majority hand drawn) . . .

NOTE

On the public perception of architects:

On face value it seems that the conventional view of architects is already that which TH desires. It is one which creates some animosity and criticism in the public. TH's position seems to want this public opinion to be changed, for architects to be loved and respected for what they are; for their egos to be pampered. It is a bold, arrogant request; a little like expressing some dissatisfaction with, and trying to change the vernacular rather than the unhappy individual.

One only has to look at the movie, The Brutalist, to see that architects are seen as moody, egocentric, perhaps drug-addicted, mysterious, heroic, arrogant identities who seek no interference, and angrily reject any that is offered, so that their precious, bespoke visions can be implemented in spite of everything else and everyone else, even those thoughts of other colleagues, as well as budgets, times, and other ambitions and opinions. They are portrayed as tortured, undaunted, unique, singular, 'alternative' identities with special, enigmatic, inexplicable, creative powers that see others as a problem. The Brutalist said it clearly: “Everything ugly is your fault.” We were supposed to see the project being designed and constructed in the movie as astonishingly beautiful, amazing, when it really is just a muddled schematic massing of geometric shapes with an iconic cross form towering above its silhouette.

The chapel, library, gymnasium . . . in The Brutalist.

With the outbreak of AIDS, along with homosexuals and nurses and others, architects were on the list of those likely to contract the disease: this sums up the public perception - architects are strangely ‘different.’

TH’s ‘big ‘A’ architect’ maintains this arcane vision that centres on the individual and represents an idiosyncratic perception of the profession that has become the public’s understanding. In spite of the general critique of this stance, TH only wants to ensure that this position is formalised as the accepted conventional expectation for, and comprehension of his profession.

On one television programme, the comment made by the owner of what was obviously the most unusual house in the street – a courtyard surrounded by rooms with each having only three walls and a curtain - is telling;

“You only go to an architect if you want something different.”

On another occasion, the comment of the architect in his public talk illustrating the insitu concrete residence he had just designed, seems to explain the situation:

“I was interested in doing a concrete house.” It sounded as though, had the client arrived at a different time, then they might have been given a different outcome, with the final building being the singular preference of the architect, the latest whim, his dream, irrespective of any brief. The client is seen as the individual who will facilitate, fund and fulfil the architect’s desires, a situation that TH praises in his Gehry reference, and explains as the operation of bespoke ‘design thinking’ – achieving the architect’s uninhibited ideal vision. It is a flawed expectation; an insult to the public who are clients, and to other professionals involved in project work, gold medal or not.

**

Robert Dessaix,  Chameleon, The Text Publishing Company, Melbourne, 2005.

p.27/28

It was Haruki Murakami, I seem to remember, the Japanese literary superstar, who wrote that while some pain in a lifetime is inevitable, suffering is optional.

22 Sept 25

NOTE

The Fountainhead confirms the public’s perception of the architect as a hero; a quirky genius; prickly; caring only for the purity of HIS buildings; furious with any outside input:

Fans of The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand’s masterpiece, will recall the hero Howard Roark as a quirky genius. Neither money nor fame mattered to the prickly architect; all he cared about was the purity of all those buildings he designed.

So you can imagine how furious he’d be to work in today’s construction industry, with its endless laws, codes, and rules.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelashley/2025/09/16/how-architects-can-harness-ai-to-build-without-boundaries/

28 Sept 25

NOTE

This interview with Gerald Matthews offers another vision of architectural practice as seen by an architect:

https://www.indailysa.com.au/news/business/2025/09/15/10-minutes-with-matthews-architects-managing-director-gerald-matthews

##

10 DEC 25

NOTE

The “How can we help you achieve your dream?” vision seems to be a Gehry fable; or is it a fabrication?: see -

https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/architect-frank-gehry-sculptural-home-in-silicon-valley

Mehdipour was certain that it could be, and that she could do it herself. Over Gehry’s objections, she decided that she would serve as the general contractor, and she presented the plans to the local planning commission to request exceptions to local height restrictions and certain other ordinances. She expected a hard time, but the reaction was the opposite. “The head of the planning commission went to Frank’s office in Los Angeles to have him explain the house,” Mehdipour said. “He asked Frank, ‘What can we do to help you?’ This is the most collaborative town.”

Gehry’s design was quickly granted a two-foot exception to Atherton’s residential height restriction, and approval for a deeper than normal roof overhang. That would turn out to be the easy part. The striking shapes and unorthodox geometries of Gehry’s architecture, which can look slapdash to the uninitiated, demand a high level of technical expertise to build, and Mehdipour and the various subcontractors she hired were occasionally stymied by the challenges of the construction process. The house would take 10 years to complete, and while the final appearance is essentially in line with what Gehry had designed, certain details were not completed according to his exact specifications.