Farshid Moussavi

Farshid Moussavi RA OBE is an architect and – pay attention to the exact phrasing – Professor in Practice of Architecture at Harvard GSD. Born in Iran but raised in Britain, she has a terrific range of work, all imbued with a public spirit. Tim talks to her about one of her smallest projects ever as well as the purpose of her work in France and the USA.

 

Podcast transcript

Farshid Moussavi: None of it has been planned.

Tim Abrahams: Welcome to Superurbanism, a collection of interviews with architects or the architecturally adjacent by me Tim Abrahams about their work. Farshid Moussavi has forged a very particular path for herself, unselfconsciously modern design with real verve – she’s designed Victoria Beckham’s flagship store in 2019 –  but there’s a profound thoughtfulness at work there. At the same time, she was also designing these amazing mixed tenure apartments in La Defense in Paris: a difficult, aggressive site if ever there was one. These are subtle explorations of how to work with multi-family residencies. She’s worked a lot in France and knows the culture very well. She has popularized the work of Rene Galhoustet, a French architect who’s challenged a lot of Modernist consensus in volume-house building. I mentioned that because we discuss it. She’s also doing this fascinating meeting centre for a religious group founded by the Aga Khan in Houston of all places.

One of the things I wanted to work out was what is the thread that binds all these things together? First, though, I asked her about her most recent work. As some of you may know, when architects start out, one of their early jobs, particularly for nice wealthy middle-class architects, is their parents’ home or part of their parents’ home? Farshid’s first project as an architect was a ferry port, indeed, one of the most amazing ferry ports that exist – The Yokohama International Port Terminal – which she designed with Foreign Office Architects in 2002, which the more you look at it, sadly only in images for me, the more important it seems. That was her break. She saved the home for her parents until much later. Had such a great time talking to Farshid Moussavi.

Tim Abrahams: I was reacquainting myself with your work and saw the house in Hov. Was it for your parents? Yes. It’s normally when you start a practice that you do your parents’ house. It’s

Farshid Moussavi: No. Yeah, my first project was 48,000 square meters, a competition, we won unexpectedly. And the house is something I resisted a lot when my parents mentioned, especially my father, that they wanted to build a house in fact, the plot of land was larger than what the house has now. And in order to stop them from building this house at their age, I told them, look, just divide up the land and sell the house that’s on it. And then you’ll see later on what you’ll do, but some years later they, my father says, said, oh, but we should build a house. They had built a house in Iran, abandoned it when they migrated here. So, at some point I gave in and I thought if they really want to, we have to do it. It’s in a conservation area. And the planners wanted the house to fill the gap between the houses either side, and they dictated quite a lot: we have to fill the gap; it can’t be narrower; it has to be as high as the buildings next door. So, there was quite a lot given and then we tried to do something different and suited to the requirements of the client. And my parents’ preference would’ve been a one-story bungalow that was not even visible from the street, but planners wanted to see the house. We had to go to committee because the planner was being quite tough with us. But we got full support of all the counsellors and we went ahead and built it during Covid, which was actually really nice and almost therapeutic because all the work of the office was online. We were meeting only to look at some samples and we were all in our own homes, and for the house, William and I would go to the site and be close to the work. So, it was actually really well timed in the end.

Tim Abrahams: So, it happened across lockdown. What were your parents’ requirements? Did they have much say, given the planners

Farshid Moussavi: They wanted in a way a house designed by FMA and what I pushed them to be involved, and obviously I know how they live, they entertain quite a lot, they have a lot of friends there. They have three children who are now adult and have their own families. So, the house became a house for a client that is of, at this age, let’s say at this moment, and then in their life where if I go with my daughter, she needs to have her own space as well as choose to go and be with the rest of the family. So, unlike they were living on the same street, just the other end of the same street, and it was a mock Tudor house, quite perfect in its own right. You would go in and everything was symmetrical. You would go up a stair and then the bedroom’s right and left off of the corridor, and though it felt very homely and cosy, there was no privacy. Everybody’s like on top of each other. 

 

On the principal sleeping floor, the new house uses split levels to separate the bedrooms. So, every bedroom feels a little bit like an apartment of its own, and yet there is also a family space. So, the house had to have a lift because they were not allowed to do a bungalow, and of course the lift then has three doors, not one, because of all these split levels, and the split level comes out on the exterior a little bit because the windows are not all aligned, which curiously was a very easy sell to the planners because it belonged to the organization inside. It wasn’t an aesthetic play. There is a lot of spaciousness and light inside a lot of extremes between the bedrooms and then taller spaces, which are for entertainment. Iranians cook a lot. So, we dug one story down, which is mostly a kitchen and eating area. There is a wet and a dry kitchen so that if you cook, the smell doesn’t go everywhere throughout the house, all these things that were a problem in the previous house. If there was cooking being done, my father would always say, keep the kitchen door closed. And here we don’t have that issue. What else can I tell you?

Tim Abrahams: Is the client happy?

Farshid Moussavi: Yes. There were a couple of late interventions by them, despite the fact that for every decision, especially materials I would give them options and force them to be involved before we plastered the walls. Obviously the interior is more dark. And my mother said to me says, oh, we don’t have enough windows. So, we had already finished the brickwork, fully done, et cetera. And she made us cut two new windows, into the walls, one front and one back, and they’re actually beautiful, and they’re the magic of the living room because they’re not necessary, but they give you extra light and views of the sky and upper parts of the trees, and she’s very proud of them. Almost every time I’m there, I love this window, and it is nice because that’s a decision

Tim Abrahams: She took – as you wish –  she took ownership.

Farshid Moussavi: Ownership, yes. And to this day, if she had it her way, she would add another window to her room.

Tim Abrahams: As you said, you didn’t plan it that way. You work far away. You’re working a lot in France, you’re working in the USA, so there’s this really interesting relationship between home and away, particularly at the time. It must have been a very touching experience to go through that.

Farshid Moussavi: No, it was very special. It was done during this lockdown where I couldn’t actually be too close to them. Even when I went to meetings, when possible, I would insist on meeting in a garden. The house made it necessary to meet and even risk to a certain extent. No, it was very special. I remember going with my parents when they were building their house in Iran, going to meet the architect. I was, I have this, I was young, but I remember those.

Tim Abrahams: How old were you then?

Farshid Moussavi: Somewhere between seven and eight or, I don’t know, something like that.

Tim Abrahams: And yet you remember it.

Farshid Moussavi: I remember it. And I remember also the foundations going up and my father taking me on site. So, there’s a kind of a funny link between them. But we all have different positions. There was a stressful side to the house though, I must say, which is that I was in charge of the costs. Because when you work with a client who’s not your family, there is a cost consultant; the architect generally wants to push a little bit what you can do. But here I wanted to make sure we are not over budget and I had to value-engineer ourselves, which is usually what other people do. And so, when the client later on say, why did you do this? Why didn’t you make this larger? Why didn’t you? And you say, I had to make it happen,

Tim Abrahams: It’s because it would cost too much. Yeah, that’s fascinating. And it’s also fascinating because when I think of housing and what modern apartments and houses can be, I always think to the films that were made of the projects in Paris, which were part of the Venice Biennale and also how you’ve articulated it in your book Micropolitics and Architecture, about the decision and the role of the architect and negotiation between public and private and between competing ownerships. And I was wondering how has that work continued? you, IIII note that you’re doing some more work in Paris quite a bit. It looks like

Farshid Moussavi: In France, in Paris, we are doing a new project. It’s a public project this time, Saclay which is just outside of Paris. The Silicon Valley of France. And it’s an elementary school and kindergarten.

Tim Abrahams: Oh, so it’s not housing?

Farshid Moussavi: No, it’s not housing. But it’s great. Our job is of course to give them the number of classrooms they want and how people enter and exit the school, et cetera. But to put informal learning as an important part of, so building experience and also to make people feel that is a building for them rather than another building in the district being planned. So, what is the world of children like? How can we inspire imagination? How can we play, maybe even with scale in making decisions about the role of the staircase in the lobby, the relationship between the building and the garden? I think that the opportunities are the ones that they’re not like extra elements. And that’s, in a way, when I talk about micropolitics, it’s about looking at building elements, both as elements that have practical functions, but that they carry other kinds of roles or functions or agencies.

Tim Abrahams: It’s an interesting place to be doing that. because Saclay, as you say, is styled by the French as their Silicon Valley. It’s such a large development. It’s not quite a grand projet because it’s lots of different things, but the whole ambition of the area is very top down. And a lot of the architecture is quite muscular.

Farshid Moussavi: The buildings are, mostly laboratories or university buildings. So, there is a reason they’re large. But I think one thing they do well, or they have done well is to split the area into different zones that are masterplanned by different architects. In France, the urbanists are usually architects who have that as a focus. And then it gets divided up into plots and competitions are launched already but the masterplan remains on board and coordinates between. So, although there are lots of large buildings, any large district needs time to reset. And until now it has been a place where you go to learn, do some research. Now the housing is coming in and therefore our school is to support the housing. So eventually it will be a place where it’ll be more of a close-knit, lively area hopefully. So, it’s still ongoing. I think the quality of what is done is quite remarkable.

Tim Abrahams: Yeah.

Farshid Moussavi: And the diversity is good because normally when you have these big projects, they are given to a lot of perhaps more commercial practices who do big buildings with closed eyes. I think here they’ve tried to involve perhaps more design led practices and I think the landscaping needs to still also grow and as I said, the whole thing needs to settle, but it’s not like LA France, which was all tall office development and dead at night. This is supposed to be a real living quarter eventually.

Tim Abrahams: Does it have a campus feel at the moment?

Farshid Moussavi: Yes. It’s like a campus, but growing now to become mixed-use

Tim Abrahams: With the housing coming on board and facilities like schools. Where else are you working in France?

Farshid Moussavi: So, we have a new project in Montpelier where we have done a previous project and that’s a mixed use and residential.

Tim Abrahams: That’s Montpelier, isn’t it? I’m pointing, an amazing picture of a housing project that Farshid Moussavi did. What year was that?

Farshid Moussavi: Finished it in 2016.

 

Tim Abrahams: A few years ago. But you’re going back to Montpelier. Is it the same client?

Farshid Moussavi: It’s partly the same client. So, because it’s offices and housing in one building, our client got together with another developer. We know the city of course. So, it’s actually very nice. It’s the third project we have with this client. Because we did the project in Nanterre with them also, we did Montpelier first and now there is third project in Montpelier. And now there’s a third project. But they’re not direct commissions because they’re all competitions. We won together with them.

Tim Abrahams: So, it’s a developer? Architect. Anyone else?

Farshid Moussavi: No. That’s how most public projects in France, unless it’s a public facility, like the school, the public sector sells land; invites developers to come along with obviously a price for the land, but also a design. So, design is part of the equation and I think it’s a great formula.

Tim Abrahams: Do you think it’s a good system?

Farshid Moussavi: Very good system.

Tim Abrahams: What’s particularly good about it?

Farshid Moussavi: Because the influence, how the cities get shaped down even to the programming. So, the Nanterre building is really exceptional in terms of what’s in it. It’s multi-tenure only the top floor is market rate housing. The rest of it is social housing, affordable housing, student housing. it’s a very price capped except the top floor. And of course, these are reflected into the price that the city, the mayor expects for the land. So, there is a subsidized in some ways. So, I think it’s a great –  the building is a great demonstration of treating people equally because all of these different types of apartments, which obviously attract people from different walks of life, live in one block and have access to the same quality of base. And this wouldn’t happen, it would never ever be the mix we would have if we were working, if our client alone was because they would be led by obviously profit.

Tim Abrahams: So, the city insists on an architect develop a relationship. I was going to ask in a slightly glib way, “What do they like about you in France?”

Farshid Moussavi: I think the first time it was probably a bit of a gamble. They were looking to put together a list and we were the international team coming from outside and they put three different designs and architects in front of the mayor. And the mayor chose, and I think they thought maybe we are a good match for them. But they tried again. I mean they have, by the way, they do a lot of projects and they don’t come to us for every one of those projects. They have to wait for maybe a case where they really need us. I think that’s how it works out.

Tim Abrahams:  is it more the relationship with the public authority or is it the relationship with the developer that’s key or is it both?

Farshid Moussavi: With the public authority, we have been really welcomed both in Nanterre and in Montpelier. So, I think that’s definitely, and that’s why I think this setup in advance works well for architecture and architects and the city.

Tim Abrahams: Do you think it could work in the UK?

Farshid Moussavi: I don’t see why not. Just the GLA starts needs to start selling their own lands.

Tim Abrahams: Can you imagine? That would be something

Farshid Moussavi: I guess they do sometimes. It’s not like councils don’t sell, but it’s about, I don’t know, somehow, they manage to get the right outcome.

Tim Abrahams: Is there a different land ownership structure there? Is there more public land?

Farshid Moussavi: Yeah, it seems they do own a lot more public land.

Tim Abrahams: You’re working in France quite a bit. I was going to ask you how to pronounce her name

Farshid Moussavi: Gailhoustet

Tim Abrahams: Gailhoustet. When I was in St. Denis it was like, I’ve got to go and see that work. And it was largely because you had popularized it. How did you come across her work and what particularly grabbed you to it?

Farshid Moussavi: Did you go inside?

Tim Abrahams: I didn’t get into,

Farshid Moussavi: You have to go into that part. It’s a true experience. So, I teach at Harvard and for the past six, seven years I’ve been focusing on housing. And I have been taking the students to Paris because of the projects that happen in Ivry. Initially I went for the work of Jean Renaudie, who is, who was a collaborator with Renée Gailhoustet. And who is the person who’s been really far better known out of that group who really reinvented Ivry. Now was the master planner who was commissioned by the city of Ivre to build additional housing there and reimagine the city centre of Ivry-de-Seine. She brought on Jean Renaudie to work with her on some of the blocks. 

 

And over time she became closer to the work of, she was inspired by the work of Jean Renaudie, and who was adamant that housing should not be about standardization. Housing should provide people with a sense of individuality, give them choice. He had grown up in a village, so he was working with a kind of a village model, almost like a hilltop where he was also questioning the relationship between landscape, nature and buildings, trying to incorporate as much nature as possible, things that we are now very interested in. But in the 1980s, that was not happening anywhere else. 

So, he was taking standard the Le Corbusien frame structure and saying, I take that as the structure, but the way I’m going to subdivide the apartments is going to be free of that structure, what you would call the free plan. He started carving every floor using a triangular geometry, the structure being on an orthogonal grid in all kinds of ways so that no two apartments are identical and every apartment has more than one, outdoor space, which has 30 centimetres of soil, trees grow on them, et cetera.

The units have a lot of different orientations. We talk about two orientations now, but these units are many morel. So, the quality of light in these units, it’s unbelievable. They also have unusual shapes. So, when you go and visit them, the way people have occupied these, it really brings out their personality because they need to imagine themselves in the space rather than resort to the kind of predefined idea of how you occupy a living room or a bedroom as perhaps seen in an IKEA store or whatever. 

 

Tim Abrahams: Sofa against the wall. 

 

Farshid Moussavi: Exactly. So, when you go in there, they are far more shocking inside because of how people have occupied these spaces and actually the outside, which is also shocking because they have unusual shapes. Renée Gailhoustet works within that idea of the free plan, but her spaces are far more inward looking than outward looking. So she combines a hexagon, a triangle, and a rectangle and has a different grid, and the outdoor spaces that she plans for every unit are nested inside the unit rather than protruding. She talked about how you would walk around your own outdoor space like a patio and so no one would be looking at this. 

 

Whereas one of these one is much more of a social space where you go out to your balcony to say hello to your neighbours and even the fire escape that he plans because his block is terraced, it goes past other people’s terraces and they are like within the same, let’s say, approach. They actually give people very different ways of living, but always about giving choice, always about indoor outdoor living, always about having nature as part of your day-to-day life. I think they’re remarkable.

Tim Abrahams: How did you come across her work?

Farshid Moussavi: Renaudie, I first discovered in a book by Irénée Scalbert who has done a book on Renaudie Maybe probably because of its strong form, but really only when I started looking at it that I realized that form is a facilitator. It’s about living differently, living differently with other people living with nature.

Tim Abrahams: It’s really not gratuitous form making. There’s a very strong social strategy at work.

Farshid Moussavi: Yes. And both architects lived in their own complexes until they died and they lived and breathed,

Tim Abrahams: Not like Goldfinger who did it for two weeks.

Farshid Moussavi: Yeah,

Tim Abrahams: Two months or something.

 

Farshid Moussavi: Neave Brown was the same, I think different way of creating community, how people live together. I think he was also interested in giving people individual entrances off the street, et cetera. But perhaps there was more of a system which these two French architects were trying to erode and to bring forward the individual.

Tim Abrahams: That’s really interesting. I was putting the microphone together and you said buildings take a long time. How long has the system project been going?

Farshid Moussavi: I think we’ve been working on it for probably five years already and we’ve got a year to go. It was a two-stage competition first, which probably took over a year, and then we’ve been working on it nonstop and during also lockdowns and which was very nice because it kept us away from thinking about what was going on immediately around us.

Tim Abrahams: It’s interesting that you’ve got these two worlds because it’s not the first art building that you’ve done in the US and I’m pretty sure there’s going to be more. And then you’ve got these social or

Farshid Moussavi:  Well, the Houston project is actually a community centre. Maybe the scale of it makes you think that it’s more of a museum, but it’s a community centre for the Ismaili community. And yes, it has spaces inside where you can exhibit or hold events or there’s a black box theatre room, but it is for the Ismailis community to meet each other and host gatherings that include people outside of their own community.

Tim Abrahams: Forgive me, could you explain a little bit about who the Ismaili community, who are the Ismaili?

Farshid Moussavi: The Ismaili community are a branch of the Shia and their spiritual leader is HIs Highness The Aga Khan, who is our client. And he invented the idea of the Israeli centres. We have one in London opposite the V&A of course,

Tim Abrahams: Which is quite a long-established building. It’s been there for,

Farshid Moussavi:  I think it’s the first one maybe and because of the fact the footprint of it’s not that large and it faces a main road, et cetera, obviously it had to do other things. We have much larger sites. The weather in Houston is different to London. So, we have gardens on either side of the building. Our Ismaili centre is the first in America. It would be the headquarters. So, it is larger and we’ve made it larger by including a lot of free space in the building. Going back to Micropolitics because the mission given to us was to design a building that obviously allows the Ismaili community together, but it should also be a building that showcases the culture of the Muslim world. 

 

I would say the architectural culture, which usually gets simplified to a number of ingredients, but actually it includes Persia, India, Pakistan, China, and in America, etcetera. Given the fact that I’m from Iran, I think the references we have used are really Persian. And which again, when people talk about architecture of the Muslim world, it’s not religious, it’s to do with the culture of these people. There’s a large prayer room in the building and they Ismaili community do actually go and pray in there. But that’s one component of a large building. There will be celebrations, there will be lectures, there will be music events, there will be weddings. There’s a learning area of the building where,

Tim Abrahams: And what about the gardens are you are designing the gardens?

Farshid Moussavi: No, that comes with the, another architecture of the Muslim world. Yeah. Where the relationship between nature and a building is considered very important. And this site, because it was much larger than what the building would need, it lent itself to that and it’s also a sloping site and we had to place the building above the 500-year floodplain. So, the building is taller and then the landscape can cascade.

Tim Abrahams: And the landscape is lower and it’s a very formal, symmetrical relationship.

 

Farshid Moussavi: That’s right. Which again, if you look at Persian gardens, they are usually divided what they call them chahar bagh divided into quadrangles. And there is symmetry and it’s to do with paradise, you know, so

Tim Abrahams: It makes to do with paradise what

Farshid Moussavi: They are usually walled gardens. And it’s to do with smell of the flowers, colours and the mix of vegetation and water is very important. It should be quiet. And the idea of Islamic architecture is that perfection in creation becomes a reminder of God. And so, I think that geometry, order, symmetry is part of ways that you would achieve that.

Tim Abrahams: In Houston?

Farshid Moussavi: No, in Islamic architecture

Tim Abrahams: Yeah. No, no, yes

Farshid Moussavi: On our plot of land

Tim Abrahams: And lot of that but it’s, it’s remarkable to see that looking so familiar in

Farshid Moussavi: We’ve tried to make it and it was also one of the requests of the client that it also has to be a building that is about Houston. And, one of the reasons why for each one of these Ismaili centres, the Aga Khan has gone to a different architect is because they want the buildings to be thought of as uniquely for each place. Our sites and the weather, for example, the building tries to be very porous. It has all this veranda. And the idea is that the life of the building projects out and signals itself as a place of gathering; invites people too; welcomes people. Almost like a kind of an open arm too for people to come and experience building and the gatherings that happen there. And I think that we wouldn’t do that if we were doing that project in London. The weather, it doesn’t lend itself. 

 

So, Houston is warm, hot. You can have quite a lot of rain covered verandas as these are some of the free spaces that I was mentioning to you. We have also three atriums inside the building, which again, were not in the brief. And what we discussed with the client was that we are planning a lot of event spaces that will be programmed. They will be buyi invitation, you know, or rented by the community to hold their wedding, etcetera. But you also want this to be a place where Ismailis and non-Ismailis gather and get to know each other, et cetera. 

 

So, we need to have spaces that are free to anyone and you can just pop in. So, the atriums and the verandas have actually added a lot of surface area. The client agreed that they were a good idea, that they would be of value, these are things you can do with this kind of project that you cannot do. Maybe if the project was a commercial project

Tim Abrahams: Because of the status of the foundation. 

Farshid Moussavi: Because it reinforced their mission and they understood that perhaps it adds area volume, which of course translates to cost, but that they were essential and an opportunity here in Houston. I think these are what architects do to look at the brief and fulfil it but add and find ways in which they reinforce, and add value.  

Tim Abrahams: One of the things I always think really compelling about your work is the way in which there is an idea of the public which is higher than private or state ownership, that there is a universal value of the public.  

Farshid Moussavi: Users, you mean?

Tim Abrahams: User is quite reductive. It is like someone that kind of comes in and uses the toilet and then goes, there are a lot of really good buildings which have users, lots of very pretty buildings, a lot of very interesting buildings. Whereas they have a public, and for me there is, I’m always aware of a public being constituted through the architecture. The work doesn’t just open its arm out and say, you can come and use it if you want, It actually, there are architectural moments, gestures, ideas which suggest that through the use of this building you

Farshid Moussavi: Or through the experience of the building,

Tim Abrahams: Indeed very much so, a public can be created.

Farshid Moussavi: Yes. No, I think you are right, and of course the scale of this kind of building of inspiring people, let’s say to participate in a building depends really on the nature. Some buildings are more closed: a residential building perhaps. What you refer to as the public as distinct from the users of the building would be those who pass around the building. And I think that is often not talked about. And because a big residential building is both a piece that occupies a chunk of the city and people pass by every day on their way to their own home or on their way to work, et cetera. And that experience, I think it’s also relevant as well as the people who will, you know, sleep in the building. So perhaps kind of the experience of the building, the extent to which people experience the building depends on the nature of the building. The Houston project will be open to anyone, right? It’s not a ticketed building, it would be open to anyone. So, people will go deep into it. And so, it matters all the interiors in terms of how generous they are in terms of what they provide in terms of experience to people who visited the Nanterre building. It’s probably that the public doesn’t enter the front door, the lobbies are locked. So, it’s more to do with the building in its kind of urban setting.

Tim Abrahams: How many apartments are in there?

Farshid Moussavi: A hundred and I can’t remember 28 or something.

Tim Abrahams: But…

Farshid Moussavi: It’s also the relationship between neighbours for example.

Tim Abrahams: That’s to me something that that you that you think about. There is a thoughtfulness about the interrelationship between different people, different users, which through thoughtfulness can be thought of as a public.

Farshid Moussavi: One of the things that I think going back to the Nanterre building, which was really a great starting point, was the brief that I mentioned that was given to us, really was decided by the mayor. And I think when you get diversity of people living next to each other, the way a building encourages understanding between people does or doesn’t, I think it’s really crucial. So, one of the things we sent someone to go and interview, the building inhabitants after they had moved in for the Venice Biennale, that was about how will we live together or how should we live together? And we found out that, for example, despite quite a simple arrangement of interior apartments, because of the tapering shape of the building, the outdoor spaces of the apartments are different slightly from one to the other. 

 

And that people invite each other to check how different their balcony and loggia is to the other. And this invitation that is actually prompted by the building has started friendships and these kinds of stories are beautiful. If the building didn’t have this slight differences, there wouldn’t be that curiosity. There wouldn’t be that prompt to reach out to your neighbour. There wouldn’t be that excuse, let’s say. So, this was really a wonderful discovery. 

 

We also, again, one of the other comments that I liked very much was that because the building doesn’t distinguish where one apartment stops, starts and stops from the exterior even interior, you would just find your door, obviously one of the inhabitants said that he thought the entire building is his, because he can’t just identify his unit. So, he thinks the entire thing is his, and of course because he’s distinct from other buildings nearby and he has this sense of pride and attachment towards the building. And he said that because the other people living in the building had the same feeling, the building was also a bond between them. I think that these things are worth reflecting on and that these kinds of micro-decisions can have huge consequences on people’s attachment towards their place, towards people’s identity in the urban context. There’s a lot at stake.

Tim Abrahams: You are teaching at Harvard and your publishing as well. The book on Micropolitics I thought was one of the most interesting things that a contemporary architect has written about their work and the general condition of how they do it. But my question is how do you do both? And I’m sure the answer, firstly, is with great difficulty, but I was wondering how do they coexist and how do they inform each other?

Farshid Moussavi: They coexist because practice is the common subject. I teach about practice and therefore they are related. I usually take a subject that I feel is worth digging into that I’ve observed in practice. And I take it to teaching to share it obviously with my students, but also to perhaps ask questions that are not possible to ask at this very moment in time in practice. So my Ornament book emerged from my parallel experience in practice of working on retail projects, large retail projects and in the early 2000s many city centres in the UK were being redeveloped with these retail-led projects and we were working on one of them ourselves in Leicester. And we were faced with this situation that there is a big department store, John Lewis in that case, and they have their own formula of how they want to operate inside.

It’s a very large, big chunk of the city centre in Leicester. And the architect is asked to just design the shell; really the envelope mostly. And you could say this is not architecture or there’s not much scope here. Or you could say, actually we have to look at it as an architectural problem because it is the way in which this big thing is going to influence people’s experience. Both also for the department store, but also in the city centre of Leicester. So, I thought it would be worth looking at, in teaching, to look at the history of architecture, look at envelopes of buildings that we consider successful, let’s say, and look at what discipline architects had built to make decisions about how they articulate a building in its context, starting from modernism and this thin surface would normally be considered as decoration.

It doesn’t belong to what happens inside and therefore it doesn’t belong to modernism. But when you look at them and you look at buildings like the Seagram or the Beinecke Library, et cetera, these buildings have highly distinctive envelopes have not a direct link to the function inside. They are decisions about how to articulate the building envelope and how people come to experience it. Mies wentto huge lengths to make the Seagram look vertical and override or to recede the experience of the repetition of horizontal floors. And these are purely architectural decisions that end up influencing how the building is seen and experienced. That brought the research of the ornament. 

 

The form was a prompt to, you know, early days of digital experimentations with form. And I felt maybe in academia this time that was detached from architecture, which comes with gravity, structure, and I thought okay, let’s take a lot of different structural systems that are actually, that could be engines for form making and let’s start from that but look at it as an architect, not as an engineer. because an engineer would look at the most efficient way to carry load to the ground, and it’s not about space. What about carrying load? Whereas an architect takes a structure and wants to make space with it and different ways of making space. The style one who has a different story, they are connected and that’s why I don’t have to shift my mindset too much. Housing, which is what I’m doing teaching on that recently is because we’ve been doing a lot of housing in the office. So it’s a natural extension.

 

Tim Abrahams: You’re teaching about making things?.

Farshid Moussavi: Yes Making, but all teaching things that I know how to teach.

Tim Abrahams: It’s a very good stuff. I’ve had teachers for whom that was not the case. And you clearly enjoy teaching as well.

Farshid Moussavi: I enjoy it. But it does require more of my time. It’s always a dilemma.

Tim Abrahams: I’ve been wanting to talk to you about your work since I first met you and I’m just very grateful for your time.

Farshid Moussavi: Oh, it’s very kind of you to include me in your series. Thank you.

Tim Abrahams: Thank You very much. 

 

I’ve often wondered what the single thread running through Farshid’s work was. And it was only in our conversation that I realized that her teaching at Harvard, that though demanding of her time acts as a glue or a silver thread or some form of adhesive device. The teaching acts as a way to think though it is still given that it’s Harvard and given that it’s far, she teaching and teaching about how to make things for the widest possible constituency rather than how to be an activist for a narrow one as some people think. 

 

I love the story she tells of one of the earliest memories of life in Iran is going with a father to see their house being built, watching the foundations going in and how her home for her parents is a kind of revisiting of that memory later in life. Building is innately human. It’s part of our purpose. It’s actually quite a primitive urge. What makes us civilized though is how we build. And I find it hard to better Farshid’s approach humane, thoughtful, constituting its own public like, follow, subscribe, this podcast, please email it to your friends, tell your tutors, tell your students, tell everybody. Two weeks’ time, more stuff. Great work team. Talk to you soon.

 

 

Listen to more in the Superurbanism series