Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.
Hello and welcome to another episode of the Odd Thoughts Podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway and I'm Joe.
Why isn't Joe?
You know? I spend a lot of my time doing interior design. Yes, I've bored you, I'm sure, with a lot of thoughts on this topic. But then it struck me recently that actually what I'm doing is not really interior design. It's actually just interior decorating because I'm not
really changing the structure of a particular house. I don't like doing that, in part because I'm lazy and I hate construction mess, but also because it's a lot harder to change the particular design of a house than it is to just get new fabric for the windows or a new paint color. There are more real world constraints.
Yeah, I can confirm having looked over from time to time, you know, when they sit next to each other. I can confirm having you looked at you, say, like looking out wallpaper and vintage wallpaper that you might be acquiring. But no, I have not heard of you sort of talk about, you know, knocking down big walls or whatever
inside your home. Although I certainly. You know in New York City, you know people who do that and they hire an architect as part of They'll buy two condos or something like that and can join them and hire an architect and so forth. That's a different level. It's a different level of constraints and obligations.
Well, this is the other thing I've been thinking. Am I a product of my time? Because so much of the cultural emphasis nowadays seems to be on interior design and what the inside of a building looks like versus the exterior. And I think if I had been do you know, thinking about these things in like the nineties or the eighties, I would be much more into architecture.
It's really interesting thought. And I hadn't really thought of it that way, But that makes a lot of sense. And you know, my uninformed gut is like, oh, does social media make it? Other people are just much more obsessed with the interior design of a building, the specific esthetic choices that are made. But of course, on the other hand, we work at Bloomberg. We have a big office in.
London, many beautiful buildings.
Many beautiful buildings, lots of glass New London HQ, absolutely gorgeous building et cetera. And so we do live surrounded in this world that the world we live in is one that was built by architects or designed by architects.
Absolutely, And this was the other thing I was thinking about architecture in relation to economics is when it's done well, a beautiful building ends up being a public good. Right. It can boost an entire neighborhood, it can revive a particular city, it can improve the flow of traffic, improve energy efficiency, do all these things. But so many buildings are still designed by private developers, and I'm not sure
they're always incentivized to do beautiful design in that way. Like, how do you incentivize a private develop to do something that ends up being a public good.
It's a fascinating question. I hadn't really thought of it framed in that. But like, for example, again, like the new JP Morgan building in New York City.
I like it.
I don't I don't work there, but I think it's like a cool addition the skyline, it blinks, et cetera. There's a lot of cool things, But how do you design how do you incentivize the public good as a good way to frame it?
Well, since you mentioned the JP Morgan building that is a bit perfect, Yes, a huge clue. So we do, in fact have the perfect guest for today's show. We are going to be speaking to a very famous architect, Lord Norman Foster. He is of course the founder of Foster and Partners, and we are here with him in Madrid.
In uh in his studio and his foundation.
Thank you so much for coming on the show. Thank you so How much of architecture is about dealing with real world constraints because I always think there's not just physics and finance, but you're also dealing with things like zoning and I guess in the UK you're also dealing with listing requirements and things like that. How much does that constrain you.
It's totally rooted in the process of design, so you cannot separate. Design is really a response to constraints and whether those constraints come from the codes, whether they come from the requirements for the building. Because a building is a response to a need, it then takes on more layers. Yes, it's in the public domain, but it's shaped by constraints, by needs. It's a response. So if you don't have those constraints, if you don't have those demands if you
don't have to meet certain requirements performance. Some of those are tangible, you can measure them. Some are less obvious, more subconscious, perhaps below the surface, but nonetheless. So it's a design is a response to needs.
We're in this gorgeous building of yours, and we were just looking that you know, over there on the show of Dirt for a series of wood samples, for example, different types of wood from different ustry.
Wood plumb would at.
The highest levels of architecture to do a great building. How much do you does the architect really need to know? I guess maybe material science, or at least the true nature of specific materials.
I think the more that you know about the issues around any assignment, the more you're empowered as a designer. So that has led me over decades to promote a particular way of designing, which is counterintuitive. It's against everything that we're taught in a school of architecture or engineering, and that is you bring all the disciplines to get around a table and you work from the outset together. Now, a critic of that will say that sounds like a
committee architecture. It's not. I mean, basically, the team is going to be involved in that project. So if the architect designs and then hands it over to the engineer to make it stand up, to make it hot when it's cold outside, and the reverse, you lose the opportunity of the feedback. If you get that at the outset, the designers are more empowered and the designers are really a wider team. But that needs a process of re education. Because engineers have been taught show me what you want,
I'll make it work. Architects have been taught that they should design in isolation. It goes further. Architects are taught about doing a building in isolation. A city outside is a street. You could argue the street is the essence of the traditional city. Architects and urbanists are not talked about designing streets. So planners are taught in terms of zoning, in terms of the legalities, architects have talked about individual buildings.
So in a way, we have to reassess how we educate and in our terms we re educate whether it's here in a foundation preparing civic leaders for the future, enabling them to be able to tell the difference between fashion, prejudice, style and data and evidence and the same is true in terms of a building or a city plan.
Joe brought up the wood samples. I can't help but notice that the majority of items in this room are related to transportations, so cars and jets and trains as well. I also read the city and the city, but I also read in an older interview, I think someone asked you your favorite building and you replied a jumbo jet. Do you have an interest in engineering? Should you have been an engineer instead of an architect?
I love flight, I love automobiles, and I think that as designers we get our inspirations from many different directions. I was deliberately being tongue in cheek in terms of the jumper jet, but what I really wanted to do was to get the audience thinking in a different way about a jumper because when you think about it, it's a restaurant, it's a cinema, it's a hotel, and all the while it's moving from one place to the other. And also to start to think about the miracle flight.
I mean, there's still an extraordinary magic that these machines, which are weighing tons, can somehow, by lumbering along the runway, suddenly levitate and then transports vast distances. And I think there are also a lot of lessons in terms of the built world, in other words, how can we use harness technology to improve the quality of life.
I'm really fascinated by this idea of Okay, so one might think that an architect is someone who draws clients draws sketches on a piece of paper, and then maybe there is an engineering firm, and then there's a construction firm, and then so forth. I'm fascinated by this idea, and it rings true with other discussions we have. You know, we talk to traders, for example, and there's obviously a difference between thinking in your head and a good trade versus what it actually takes.
Time.
Literally, this morning, I was sitting around a table with a group of us as architects here in the foundation on a project, alongside the individual who would be going to build that building, and we're saying, well, the next stage is to do this, we really have to have the environmental engineer, we have to have this structural engineer, and that will be the next meeting. So that was the first meeting. Now we were able to go so far, but only so far, and we recognize the need to
have those other skills on board. Now we could have
and it would have been absolutely traditional. We could adjust collectively designed that building and then just passed it on, But there would be so many lost opportunities because if you think of a building as an integration of systems, I mean if I I tried to bring this back to the world of automotive design, and I found myself trying to communicate that this principle to a group of automotive engineers, not just the engineers, but those who were
making the cars. And the example that I took was a point in time in the nineteen thirties went pretty well. All of the cars, any production car followed a certain pattern. It was a chassis and then a body on top of that, which was a shell to enclose and protect the occupants from the rain, the elements from nature. And then at one point a car emerged it was the Chrysler Airflow, and the body became not just a shell, it became an integral part of the structure. So the
car was lighter and the car was immensely stronger. The promotional video of that time they pushed the car off the top of the mountain, and it kind of rolled and rolled and landed four square. Somebody comes out of the bushes, demonstrates that the opens the door, gets in and drives away. The point is then that the two separate systems of the shell and the chassis have merged into one element, which is doing both jobs better. So
it's doing more with less. Now imagine that we're talking about the exterior of a building, heating and cooling it. If you think of integrated design, then you're going to end up if all those skills are working together, you can really do a system approach to design. You can start to get things doing duty, performing more less components, higher performance, more quality, and better quality of life. Whether that principle, whether it's in a city or a building, is all of that is to a social end.
How do you think about the social end of buildings when you're given a particular project. So I know that you often do public buildings, and I imagine that you are in dialogue with cities and states around the world when you're doing those. But when you're given a private assignment such as a JP Morgan building or a Bloomberg office, how do you think about the public good aspect?
Of design, thinking simultaneously of how that building works from the inside out, and you're also thinking simultaneously from the outside inn because arguably there are two completely separate groups of people private inside public outside, but the building is in the public domain. So if I took the headquarters of Bloomberg, then an early decision was to intersect the building with Wattling Street. Watling Street was the old Roman
road opposite. If you acknowledged that, and you continued that and it became an arcade through the building and you had connectivity over that arcade, then simultaneously you were breaking down the scale of the building. It was then more human and the public spaces bringing in an artist to create water benches. That was also double duty the system's approach providing security, but it wasn't an ugly bollard you didn't notice providing security. It was also bringing people together.
Then the arcade is an opportunity to introduce shops and stuff that is working with the Bloomberg philosophy of encouraging the neighborhood to benefit from this private entity coming into the community, rather than it being an island and killing off the traders. It's encouraging local traders. Now, everything I've described then is working to the benefit of the interior of the building, and the facades are starting to be able to breathe and pour lots of fresh air into
the building. So it's making the building a healthier building. But it's also on the exterior, not another glass box. It's a combination of bronze and the local stone, local stone, the stone of the adjoining buildings. So it's working environmentally in terms of sustainability, it's reducing energy, it's creating a healthier building for the occupants. And then because it's deep and low, it's not pushing into the sky, so it is reverential to the historic buildings around it of the
same mass. But at the same time it's creating horizontality, and horizontality is good for communication, and Bloomberg is about communication. Now I could describe another kind of building for a completely different kind of how can I say, client body also in the high tech business, so if I go to Beijing, if I talk about a building there, the company ethos is totally different. It's about competition between groups,
so it's the poll opposite, and I could describe that. Indeed, the point that I'm making is that as I take you through these decisions, the way that they overlap and interact, you start to realize that the process of design is about balancing, it's about reconciling. It's about creating something which is simultaneously working in the public domain, working for a visitor, working for those inside when they come outside.
Well, since you alluded to it, and now I'm particularly particularly curious about it, I imagine that in the decades ahead, you know, there will still be new JP Morgan headquarters, new Bloomberg headquarters, et cetera, but there is probably going to be a lot more megaprojects still coming out of Asia or Beijing or China specifically. And so when you describe that environment is different, what should the architects of the future know about working in these markets?
First of all, I mean I took the example of the building in China. That same need could be anywhere, it just happened to be in China. So you could have in China exactly the same requirements as a building like JP Morgan or Bloomberg, although of course no two buildings are like. I mean, each is specific to its
own organization. The values of those organizations, the aspirations of those who've created them, whether they're an individual like Mike Bloomberg in Bloomberg, whether it's Steve Jobs with Apple, or whether it's much more corporate, more anonymous, But nonetheless there are those values. I would say that common to any building anywhere is how do you anticipate the future? So if I go back to an early building which recently celebrated its half century, and that was the Willis Faber
Building in Ipswich and insurance headquarters. And in the life of that building, that building had a high degree of flexibility, and nobody in their wildest dreams anticipated that that flexibility would be used. But in no time at all after it opened, it opened with typewriters, and in no time that building, and it was the only building in the insurance industry which was as a headquarters able to adapt.
It adapted to the digital revelu to screens. And the same was true of the Hong Kong Bank, the Hong Kong Bank, which I also recently went to their fortieth anniversary as opposed to Willis Favor and their fiftieth anniversary, so literally a few weeks ago, I was there at that celebration and the same thing there. That building, quite radical at the time and still in many ways radical.
Took the traditional central core of a tower, which contained the structure, the vertical circulation, the bathroom's mechanical plant, took all that fragmented it put it at the sides of big, open loft things. Nobody anticipated that in the life of that building, in the early life, there would be something known as a trading floor, where you need clear line of sight. That wasn't a need in the nineteen late nineteen seventies when the competition for that building, but it
was able to absorb. So I think that the whole thing about the future is that by design you can, if I say that, you create a building for the needs of today with an awareness of the past, but to as far as you're able to anticipate the future,
which is largely unknown. But the perhaps in terms of infrastructure having been backwards and forwards to Asia, and if I say China more specifically over the last thirty years, I mean the changes that I've seen, which interestingly I was communicating earlier this week to the Bloomberg event audience here and sharing that experience with them and showing them the China when I first went there and it's foggy, it's misty, you can't see the cities now unbelievable, I
mean clean air, ninety percent of the vehicles electric, and an extraordinary amount of green. I mean Shanghai is fifty percent, Beijing fifty percent green. That's happened over the last few decades. And in terms of connectivity, just over fifty four thousand kilometers of high speed train two hundred and twenty miles an hour, three hundred and fifty kilometers an hour connecting. By this, ninety seven percent of Chinese cities on a
pig day, thirteen million travelers achieved in sixteen years. And in the UK they gave up on the London to Manchester. It goes as far as Birmingham. Short term ism. They have a department for leveling up. The ultimate leveling up is connectivity. They just didn't get it. And that fifty four thousand kilometers is more than the rest of the world put together by a huge margin.
Why do you think certain countries And you brought up the UK there, but you could possibly say the same for the US as well. Why do you think certain countries big?
Because at every stage in the emergence, the emergence of a nation, whether that is the United Kingdom in its empire days, the Industrial Revolution. It led the world. We're still trading right now on that. I mean, the Thames Embankment was a response to cholera. It created, if you like, systems thinking and doing more with less. It also introduced below ground high speed public transport. It cleaned up the Thames. So that period you had the expression of that civic
pride I started. I started work at the age of sixteen in Manchester Town Hall, which was the ultimate statement of civic pride. And it was a competition and Waterhouse won that competition. That was my first experience of architecture. It took me a little longer to eventually discover that I could study architecture. So I was a late starter at the age of twenty one. But I can remember vividly right now details of that building. I mean, that
really lifted my spirit. So that whether it was the great train stations, and of course today it's the great airports. So if you really want to see that the most advanced airports in the world, where do you go? I mean, it's obvious we know where you go.
Right there's a mockup.
There's a huge model immediately behind us here. The Basing Airport was built in five years now. At the same time I drew a parallel with Terminal five, which I think took twenty years and was the fraction of the size and is really a sort of band aid on top of Heathrow, which is still embedded in the heart of you overfly metropolis together. So there are a lot of messages perhaps mixed up in these analogies and comparisons.
No, it makes sense, and I didn't necessarily expect the interview to go in dis direction. But I'm actually just going to press you further on this specific point, which is, what is your diagnosis of why certain countries do seem to have given up? Was there a moment when you felt it, for example, in the UK, was there a moment where you felt the ambition is not the same as it once worth.
It's interesting. I'm working on a project right now, and so I'm with a team of relatively young architects, and so I'm saying, well, in terms of domes, of course, it would be interesting to make a comparison with a particular dome in the Festival of Britain nineteen fifty one, and everybody looked at me quizzically and I said, but you've never heard of it, because nobody ever heard of it. So I said, well, check it out and the next meeting will talk about it. The next meeting they came
back and said, why didn't we know about that? This was nineteen fifty one. It was the biggest dome in the world. It was demolih for political reasons. Interestingly, so they were in awe and the images, I mean no extraordinary. So nineteen fifty one was it more or less hard on the heels of World War II, and Brittain was
in true austerity mode. You still had rationing, so you had a little book and when you went to buy food or clothes then you could only buy depending on the number of coupons like postage stamps that you'd got left. But that period was the first nuclear power station, was the first commercial jet. It was the de Havelan Comet was in terms of cars created the R type Bentley one hundred and twenty miles an hour hour on hour. It costs twice two houses at that time, the semi detached,
So this was an extraordinary era. Now since then for a whole variety of reasons, many of them political. It's no longer the leading at that level of innovation, manufacturing and so on, and that factors are quite complex. Some
of them are political and others social. So you do have this sicklical and you can look at the rise and for the Empires and the relationship between the way in which that might be celebrated, either through the technology or the architecture of the time, and the architecture of the Festal of Britain at that time was absolutely extraordinary. And that was the achievement of one administration. But literally when the next administration came down, for whatever reason, I
would surmise that it was seen as a threat. So it was amout. The only element which is still standing on the South on the South Bank, and you know there is the Festival Hall, of course, but that was part of that of that creation.
I had no idea. Yeah, that's fascinating. Since you brought up rationing, how do budgets work for buildings? If I'm a client of Foster and Partners, one can dream and I come to you and I say I want to build a building. Do I present you with a particular figure or a range, or do you study my needs and then you come back with a suggested buddy.
There's no absolute way around this. I mean, it may be that the budget is absolutely fake. We have that amount of money, how can we optimize how can we maximize the value. Well, first of all, there is not the relationship that you would expect between quality and how much you spend on a building.
Hmm.
There are so many buildings I could point to where a fortune's been spent and you just wouldn't near You wouldn't want to go near that building. There are buildings where they're noble buildings and they were built on very very tight budget. So quality is an attitude of mine. It's not how much you spend, it's how wisely you spend it. So that is philosophical, but it's tangible in terms of the end results. So you may have somebody who says that's it. This is my this is my resource.
And there are three resources and one is the most valuable. So you have money, you have time, because time is also money. The longer you spend on your project, most likely the lower you've actually going to get. Because so that in many ways, when you can do something faster within reasonable limits, then you're maximizing. Often if you have a fixed amount of time and you draw that out and draw it out, the money is losing over that bit.
But the third resource is creative energy, and that is far and away the most valuable because that's going to determine what you get for your money. So we know what happens with whoever comes along and their pot is fixed. What if they don't know, then I think you have the importance of simulating or modeling and saying if you go in this direction, then it's going to cost you that. If you go in this direction is going to cost
you that. And in many ways, if again, if I try and find a simple analogy, if you take a car, the base cost of that car in many cases is relatively low. The cost of driving it out of the showroom, depending on the extras that you have either agreed or brought into, is going to change the cost of driving that car out of the showroom. And in many cases that is obviously true of a building. So it's a part of the creative process to actually define that budget.
But notwithstanding illusions, the reality is that cost is always a factor. But the important thing is also, and it's overlooked, it's not just the cost of how much it costs to buy that building, how much does it cost to run and then over the lifetime of that project, the decision to spend that amount of money on that kind
of building or another kind of building. So, for example, how do you put a price on the ability of the Hong Kong Bank to be able to introduce that dealer's flow, or for Willie's Faber not to have to build another building because they can incorporate the new digital technology.
How do you put a price on that? And how do you put a price on a building which significantly improves productivity because in the longer scheme of things, the first cost of a building is a relatively small proportion of the bigger financial pature.
You mentioned creative energy, and of course one of your famous relatively recent buildings that, of course, the big circular building for Apple. And that's a strange situation, I imagine, because here is a company that is also known for an insane amount of creative creative energy in more or less the same realm as yourself of visual design, right, et cetera.
Was that a unique experience or distinct experience to work on a building for a company whose main thing is also in large part visual aesthetics.
No, I don't think it was, because I don't think that ever came into it. So Steve had the ability to be able to be on his hands and knees worrying about the detail of a plug in a socket and at the same time be sensitive to the big picture. And I think that that there are relatively few people that you come in contact who have that appreciation of
the importance of scale. Mike Bloomberg, by the way, and I'm not just saying that is another individual who has in any conversation will challenge a tiny detail or like the idea of having a wooden floor, and then all kinds of things follow from that. But obviously is a big picture person which which we know and we take for granted less. And so perhaps Mike's ability to challenge a lifting consultant about the elevators and so on, so
and I have to say that's fantastic. I mean, the most most interesting individuals to work with those who challenge, there's no question. And the more that you do have that ability to challenge each other in the process, then arguably the better the end end result.
You know, you mentioned productivity earlier, and this is slightly tangential to architecture, but I would be very curious to get your thoughts. We've seen productivity gains in virtually every industry on Earth in recent decades, except famously the construction industry. In the US, construction has lagged behind in terms of productivity. I'm pretty sure it's a similar story in the UK and perhaps some other countries around the world. Do you
have a theory for why that is? Why hasn't construction I guess developed as much as a lot of other industries technologically.
I think that some societies, and it's interesting we were talking earlier about Asia China. There is a book called Breakneck by.
He's been on this podcast many times.
And as you know, the thesis behind that book is that China is hierarchically, is run by engineers and they're about doing things, and America is run by lawyers and they don't have necessarily the same priorities. And I think that that's perhaps an extreme example of the fact that some societies the status is associated with the ability to make of craft. Switzerland has that, so in Switzerland the cabinet maker. Those who make have that standing in society.
If I go to the United Kingdom on a building side, it's probably likely to be polic speaking. Why polic speaking, because those craft skills are still alive and well in Poland,
and they've been exported. And we talked earlier about that time in nineteen fifty one when I was sixteen and was I sixteen in nine Yes, now, in that in the period between now and then, you had and this is not a criticism of one particular party or one individual, but Margaret Thatcher, who did a whole number of positive things. One of the negative things was to dismember the industrial base of the United Kingdom, and not surprisingly, perhaps then
the status of those who make accordingly suffered. So I think that the rather complex answer to your question is that some societies encourage and and noble. And I mean it's interesting. I mean, my daughter is just graduating from Yale in architecture and one of the great things about the Yeir School of Architecture is, unlike I think any school that I know, in the first year, they make a building, They design a building, and then they make.
It, they actually build it.
They actually build it I mean, obviously they have supervision from skilled builders, and then it it's handed over and a family lives in it and they see the success or otherwise of their endeavors, which is absolutely fantastic and one of the reasons why. And here I you know that I'm a graduate of Yale, so I'm a Yale alumni, so I have a certain But the point that I was going to make was that my daughter called me
and said, I just started work on the building. I'm on a building site, and she said, you know what, for the first time, I really appreciate manual workers. I know what it is, and it's that you know, the the making of something. I mean, when you go on a building site you think, is this ever going to turn into something that can be habitable? Is muddy boots. And part of the practice we were talking about, or indeed anything, whether it's here in the foundation doing a project,
whether it's in the practice, it's we push. You get on the building site, you get the hard hat on, you get into the factories, you engage with those. This is not fashionable. This is not necessarily taught. Yeo School of Architecture an exception, and there is a nobility in making it, and there should be in the same way you know that those who protect us, those who keep us healthy, that they should have a much higher standing in society.
This sort of leads to my next question, and it kind of relates to, I guess the sort of cliche what should young architects or aspiring architects think go about? But one dimension that I'm particularly interested in is, Okay, you talk about how in the ideal scenario, the engineers, the construction firm, the architects, they're all there from the beginning. That's not handoff, and that sounds really good, great, and it seems to.
Old, but you're breaking down silos too.
On the other hand, that model also means that when you know the client comes with the budget, the architect just gets one slice of it right And so perhaps you know, architects in the US it's sort of famous for as professionals on like say doctors, lawyers, et cetera. They're not paid as well as others. And maybe it's because you know they're sharing, they're sharing the pie with
many other entities. What should aspiring architects think about to just have like a satisfied career, but also a remunerat or remunerative career that can sustain themselves.
No, you're absolutely right. I think that it's it's rooted in the birth of the profession, which was always an aristocratic element. It was always a kind of gentleman's pursuit, and that may have been appropriate at a point where architecture it was a very very tiny slice of the buildings that society needed. So it was your cathedrals, it was your maybe your town halls, but the whole I mean, the hospital was most likely a converted other kind of building.
Airports didn't exist, railway stations didn't exist. So the whole building spectrum has grown, but in many ways the importance of the architecture as an integral part of that and a decisive part, because design determines so much of the outcome, the cost of a building, the performance of a building, how much it meets the needs of the public at large, or the everything we've been talking about that is underappreciated,
it's undervalued, and it's underpaid. And those of us who are able, we try to do what we can to change that. That you're needing, really to bring in the profession at an earlier stage of decision making.
I'm sure this question will not be unexpected for you, but what happens to architects in the age of AI, Because you could mount a very clear argument that if we have new technology that's able to do pretty much everything, including potentially modeling and designing buildings to very specific specs and needs, that that will mean that architects are perhaps even less well remunerated than they are now.
I could argue an opposite point that if you could do more with les if you had the enhancement of such a tool. But if I go back to square one, AI is not something that happened yesterday. It's been evolving gradually over time, gaining momentum, gaining awareness in the same way that the whole issue of sustainability. Sustainability was at the core of the practice when it emerged in the nineteen sixties. You could argue the rest of the world
has finally caught up with that. But many of the things that we were doing back then were fringe activity. Now their mainstream. They're in everybody's from page headline. And if artificial intelligence is the accumulation of everything that has gone before, then some of the most interesting things that
we've done architecturally have not gone before. So the points that I was making about creating a tower without a central core and taking that central core, artificial intelligence is not going to tell you about that is going to tell you everything that it knows about central court buildings. So artificial intelligence is accumulated history. What is history, It's the past. So that is going to make it even more important for those who use all the advantages of
artificial intelligence but are not inhibitedly dependent on it. Maybe it's a bit like going into the home of Steve Jobs and finding a rare book on a pedestal. The rare book becomes even more in the digital age.
I have one last question. I don't I have no idea if you like the term or find the term starkitect annoying or not. But you know, when you see a list of them, you're one of them. But there is a generation of them who the people who are called starkitects, And there doesn't seem to be a lot of new names. And I'm curious, if you perceive the next century, could there be another person to the extent
that anyone ever knows the names of architects. It's always going to be somewhat narrow, But will there be architects who emerge in the next century that everyone knows the name of, or has something changed such that that individual won't be a pop culture figure.
In the same way, I'm often invoking buildings from the past for their importance, not just in terms of nostalgia, but for the lessons that we can learn from them. So if I take the solar powered community of an educational institute like Masdar, which is totally solar powered in the desert, that was only made possible by applying the lessons from an architecture of the past which didn't have
access to instant electrical energy to power air conditioning. So it was about scaling streets for people and not cars, creating shadow orientation. It was about evaporative cooling, which meant bringing in vegetation. It was about colonnades for shade. It was about layering a building. It was about capturing the cool air at a height above and funneling it through
wind towers and so on. Applying all of those lessons and then the technology of our age so able to demonstrate that you can have the living qualities that we take for granted. But solar powered in a very very hostile environment. So that is learning from an architecture without architects. Obviously those architects were there, they didn't have a name. It was more anonymous. If you fast forward, yes, names are known. I think your star architect really inevitably, some
architects do the kinds of buildings that attract attention. But also if I take and you know you're looking at me when you're using that word, but but I would, I would like to take you to a little building in Manchester called Maggie's, which is a cancer research station. I like to take you to a small chapel which is the tiniest building that we've done on an island in Venice. And each in these different ways, particularly the Maggie or some of the hospital health work that we've done,
is in its impact really really significant. But it's not necessarily newsworthy because it doesn't happen to be pace the model behind us, the biggest of its kind at that time, or the highest of its kind, or if it's MEO fired up. So in many ways, what is newsworthy is necessarily what is the most important of its time.
We'll definitely take you up on that tour.
If that's a real offering, absolutely.
All right, Norman Foster, thank you so much for coming on odd Lots really enjoyed it.
Thank you, Joe.
That was a fascinating discussion. I feel like I have a new appreciation of arche texture, not that I didn't appreciate buildings before. Sure, maybe I should say I feel inspired to start knocking down walls in my own my own house.
Go for it, Tracy, I think you should. You know, I have to say I did not expect that conversation to really veer so much into like political economy basically and some of the you know, to discuss the econom or why basically countries like the UK and the US decided to stop attempting to build great things, and the connection between the era of building great things and consumer rationing, and of course, you know, China building a lot of
great things, also famous for financial oppression of various sorts. So I was not expecting to hear like that crisp economic idea that we talk about a lot articulated in this particular conversation.
By Norman Foster. Yeah.
No, I also not expecting didn't read the den lingo.
That's right, Yeah, what a reference. We'll have to tell Dan about that.
Yeah.
Well, the other thing I was thinking, going back to the interview we did with Allentown Mayor Matt Turk, was this idea of small scale manufacturing. And I don't think he used this specific term dignity at work, but this idea of you know, making things and then making the job of making things desirable, allowing people to like be
close to where they're working and things like that. And you could see some parallels with the construction industry today, right, Like you want people to feel proud making things, and you want the process of making things to actually be an enjoyable one.
Everybody wants those glistening like Shenzen skylands, but nobody.
No one wants to build them.
No one wants to allocate those societal resources to be part of the you know, the construction crew that does that. That seems like the one of the big challenges of our time.
Yeah, shall we leave it there.
Let's leave it there.
This has been another episode of the Audults podcast. I'm Tracy Alaway. You can follow me at Talloway and I'm Jill Wisenthal.
You can follow me at The Stalwart. Follow our producers Carmen Rodriguez at Carmen armand dash Ol Bennett at Dashbot, Killbrooks at Kilbrooks and Kevin Lozano at Kevin Lloyd Lozano. And for more odd Loots content, go to Bloomberg dot com slash od lots, where we have a daily newsletter and all of our episodes and you can chat about all these topics twenty four to seven in our discord discord dot gg slash od lots.
And if you enjoy Odlots, if you like it when we take the occasional foray into architecture, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform. And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes absolutely ad free. All you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there. Thanks for listening