I realize that having a style would be very beneficial for my practice from a marketing standpoint, but I can't do it. I believe my responsibilities as an architect are to design the most appropriate building for the place. Each place has a distinct culture and function, which for me requires an appropriate answer.
Interpretation
Cesar Pelli emphasizes the importance of context and culture in architectural design over adopting a personal style for marketing purposes.
In this quote, Cesar Pelli argues that while having a recognizable style might help with marketing an architect's work, it is far more crucial to consider the unique characteristics of each location when designing buildings. He suggests that architecture should respond to the specific cultural and functional needs of its environment rather than conforming to a personal aesthetic or trend.
In practice
In a presentation about sustainable architecture, you might quote Pelli to highlight the need for responsiveness to local environments.
Architecture adds dimensions to my life that would be impossible to acquire if I retired. The beautiful thing about architecture is that every project is brand new. I am forced to renew myself with every project. Isn't that wonderful?
I'm particularly interested in the public role that all buildings play. I believe that we architects should try to go beyond our basic obligations to the public, and our opportunities to do so are many.
I'm a bad customer for my own buildings! If I'm choosing an apartment, I choose one about five or six stories high so that I can see the people, the trees, and the world on the street. Beyond that, I lose contact with the ground!
If architecture is going to nudge, cajole, and inspire a community to challenge the status quo into making responsible changes, it will take the subversive leadership of academics and practitioners who keep reminding students of the profession’s responsibilities.
The architect must get to know the people who will live in the planned house. From their needs, the rest inevitably follows.
We're always taught that we're building for permanence, but why? I like the idea of a prosthetic architecture! When a section is removed, the building readjusts its weight distribution, like a living body.
Why should we build very large spaces when they are not necessary? We can design halls spanning several kilometres and covering a whole city, but we have to ask, what does it really make? What does society really need?
We used to build temples, and museums are about as close as secular society dares to go in facing up to the idea that a good building can change your life (and a bad one ruin it).
A greater focus on design in all new homes would make the best use of land, create homes and public spaces, and reinforce the structures of urban life.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.