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.
.jpg)
Better than QWERTY?
.jpg)
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."
.jpg)
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?”
.jpg)
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.#
.jpg)
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.
.jpg)
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.
.jpg)
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.
9 MAR 26
NOTE
The architect does
not have to be the bespoke genius who sees the client as the biggest
problem as TH complains: “It’s not architects who stuff up
buildings. It’s the clients. Clients are the biggest risk to any
project.”
SEAlab - founded
in 2015 in Ahmedabad by Anand Sonecha . . . is a practice shaped
by a slow, contemplative engagement with place, proportion, and
participation – has designed a School for the Blind. Its
process is an example of a sensitive, caring, successful cooperative
relationship between the architect and the user.
"Architectural
authorship and user participation were not separate or opposing
positions," Sonecha notes. Instead, they formed "a fluid
and intertwined process, not always a frictionless one, in which user
insights continuously shaped the work".
https://www.archdaily.com/1039285/mapping-space-without-sight-inside-sealabs-sensory-architecture
and
https://art4d.com/en/2022/09/school-for-blind-and-visually-impaired-children.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
