Rafael Vinoly Architects New York Office
50 Vandam Street, SoHo, Manhattan
May 8, 2008
In 1989, Raphael Vignoli's design competition for the Tokyo International Forum won 395 projects from applicants from 50 countries! This grand urban complex was built in 1996. The beautiful dramatic structure, over 230 meters long, surrounded by curtains of glass facades, rests only on two graceful supports, spaced so far from each other that it seems as if the structure hovering at a multi-storey height is hovering in the air like an airship floating in the sky.
The architect was born in Montevideo, Uruguay, in 1944, and from the age of five grew up in Buenos Aires with his parents, a mother, a math teacher, and a father, a theater director and producer. At the age of 20, as a student, Raphael became one of the founding partners of Estudio de Arquitectura in Buenos Aires, which soon developed into one of the most productive and successful offices in South America. In 1979, after leaving Argentina, where by that time a military dictatorship had been established, Vignoli immigrated to the United States with his wife, an interior designer, and three sons. In the early years, the architect taught at Harvard and led construction projects as a developer. In 1982, Vignoli resumed his architectural practice. Rafael Vinoly Architects is now a leading international practice in New York, London and Los Angeles. In total, the company employs 250 architects.
Architect's most famous projects include the Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts in Philadelphia, the Lincoln Center Jazz Theater in New York, the Science Center at Bard College in New York State, and the Van Andel Research Institute in Michigan. Rafael Vignoli is currently designing several residential high-rises for the new Park City district in Moscow.
I have been to the architect's three-story studio in SoHo more than once. The studio charges with creative energy, delighting with frequently changing expositions of large layouts and framed photographs of the bureau's recent projects. The huge common room on the second floor is the largest and most impressive design space in New York City. And the basement model workshop, completely visible from the sidewalk through a long row of beautiful arched windows, draws many passers-by into the fascinating process of architectural design. Our conversation took place in a spacious study at a large round table next to two black Stainway grand pianos.
“Based on the number of times we've rescheduled our meeting, you might be the busiest architect in the world. What projects are you currently working on?
- We're really very busy. Among the most interesting projects: an office tower in the heart of London. Theater and Visual Arts Center in Leicester, England, a mixed-use facility in the United Arab Emirates, a new terminal at Carasco International Airport in Montevideo and a refurbishment of the Cleveland Museum of Art.
You travel a lot. What do you think are the most fascinating places where urban transformation is undergoing significant changes?
- It is quite obvious that such a place is the Persian Gulf. This is an amazing phenomenon. The concentration of power and wealth in this area today is akin to the richest empires in the history of mankind. This is reminiscent of what happened in St. Petersburg in the 18th century, for example, when Peter the Great decided to build the new capital of Russia in the swamps. Therefore, it is important to take into account what level of responsibility, the course of development and what ideas in general possess the society and the elite in the implementation of grandiose urban planning visions. I pay particular attention to the countries of the Persian Gulf, because they all have a common denominator - the desert, which is essentially the Tabula race.
Do you mean the phenomenon of instance cities?
- It seems to me that the concept of an instance and consolidated city is the fruit of a very confusing idea. The natural development of the city is a very slow cultural phenomenon and cannot be forced. And today the culture cycle is 60 seconds or something. It used to take 150 years to build a city, then 50, now 30, and this trend continues to shrink. What makes instance cities possible is a single source of funding and a consolidated power structure. On the other hand, in a democratic environment, any new construction takes place in an hour, a teaspoon. It is characterized by a slower and more natural development, and therefore the idea of an instance city in the West is not so realistic. It seems to me that such an idea will make sense only when new cities can die as quickly as they arise. Imagine - cities arise, function for ten years, and when the need for them disappears, they are disassembled, packaged and redeployed to some other place. In the meantime, modern technologies cannot offer this.
Let's talk about your residential project in Moscow and how did you get this order?
“Our site is part of a very large Park City master plan that is being developed by KPF. They recommended us to the local developer. We got a very interesting plot along the bank of the Moskva River with the idea to build five residential towers. We are designing three of them, and Lebanese architect Nabil Gholam is working on the remaining two.
How original will your towers be? Are you going to connect high-rise buildings with residential bridges like the ones you built in the 70s in Buenos Aires?
- Unfortunately, we did not have the opportunity to experiment too much, because the shapes of the buildings were determined for us by the architects from KPF. Their idea is to have five buildings of different heights, gradually increasing the number of storeys in the direction of the Ukraine Hotel, one of the seven Stalinist skyscrapers. All new towers are round in plan. Such an organization involves more of all kinds of views from the windows than traditional orthogonal buildings have. However, I am aware that these towers are far from ideal proportions of one to nine. They are a little chubby and not very exciting.
Tell us about your relationship with the customer
- We do not contact the customer directly. This is done by the architects from KPF. All documentation goes through them. About six months ago, I presented our project to a large group of investors in a crazy Moscow nightclub. The spotlights dazzled my eyes so brightly that I didn't really see who I was actually showing my project to. I usually enjoy the bureaucratic side of design a lot - meeting with city officials, presenting a project to the public, and so on. In Russia, I didn't succeed. I agreed to such working conditions only in order to have a chance to work in Russia and get in closer contact with a culture that I know firsthand. Living in Argentina, I was surrounded by Russian culture and, as a teenager, I accompanied my father more than once on his trips to Russia. I was friends with a photographer who was a Russian immigrant. He was a very close friend of my parents. I even studied a little Russian and still remember a few things. For me, architecture and culture are one and the same.
Did you have the opportunity to see some buildings in Moscow?
- I know the city more from publications and books. I know what Norman (Foster) is designing. These are colossal objects, but I am sure they are not his best works. Over the past year, I have been in Moscow five or six times to familiarize myself with the site and the project team. Basically, I saw historical monuments in the city center and only at night, after meetings. But it seems to me that I feel this city very well and can imagine it very clearly.
Do you feel that a new fantastic city is rising in Moscow?
- It seems to me that it is difficult to erase the traces of architecture, which was built in such quantity during the Soviet era. Although I must tell you that I was shown one building about which people said it was a disaster, but I really liked it. We are talking about a very monotonous residential megastructure, at least 700 or 800 meters in length. It looks like part of the country's geography, not architecture. This is a terrible thing! Unfortunately, I was not able to visit more than one constructivist site. I know them well from books, and a few years ago I was at an amazing exhibition in Paris. This architecture has had a key influence on many of today's leading architects in the West. Think about it - most of the images on which the advanced architecture of today is built is based on what was done so many years ago. It was a very fundamental period - not only in terms of new architectural forms, but also in terms of inventing new social life forms. It was a fantastic time!
Touching on this topic, Vignoli drew the outline of a five-pointed star, circled it with a sickle and stated emphatically, implying the Russian constructivists: “These people invented everything. It was a fantastic moment. If they had more time, their architecture would change the world.”
Do you consider it useful to invite foreign architects to Russia?
- To be honest, I'm not at all sure that this is so important. It seems to me that the question is not whether the architects are foreign or not, but whether they are good masters. A good architect can work anywhere, because he will not come to a new place with a ready-made project that was successful or was rejected elsewhere. In our time, branded architecture and a large number of superficial stylizations are popular. There is no need to strive to import it into Russia. There are enough stylists of their own.
Which of your own projects do you consider the key?
- I think the Argentine Center for Color Television in Buenos Aires. I was in my early thirties and I completely personally led this project as I saw fit. We started the construction of the complex even before we decided on the design. It was a unique opportunity for me to have a great school and professional satisfaction.
How can you start construction without approved working drawings?
- It's very simple, you draw lines right on the construction site, and then walls are erected in their place. We carried out this construction the way I think all construction projects should be carried out - on the improvisation of conceptual and working drawings. We spent whole days at the construction site and directly told the contractor - do it from now until now, otherwise from mudflows to mudflows. There were so many improvisations in that project! This makes the architecture fresh and dynamic. The Tokyo International Forum turned out to be the exact opposite case. The project was carried out in a very calculated, precise and controlled environment.
I heard that the idea for the Tokyo International Forum came from the Pan Am logo. It's true?
- Yes. I decided to stop the competition project, because I could not come up with an interesting idea and, to unwind, flew to Paris, by a lucky coincidence, on a Pan Am plane. Lunch began to be served on board, and suddenly I noticed the company logo on a napkin - such ellipses embedded in a circle. Until then, I had been unable to connect curved railroad tracks with the very rigid geometry of the grid of orthogonal streets in contact with the project site. And when I saw this logo, everything was resolved by itself and very naturally. It really happened that way. I landed in Paris and immediately flew back to New York to finish my project.
“You know, these days architects say that they no longer have such integral visions. They believe that projects do not arise on their own, muses do not whisper them, and even more so do not evoke random associations. They are made up of well-coordinated teamwork. Large teams are working on such projects, because today the profession has become so complicated that an architect cannot cope with solving such complex problems alone
- Yes, I heard about it.
Have you heard about this? And how does something like this happen to you?
- This does not happen here … And not because I am against the idea of cooperation in principle, but because I am against projects that are generated by mini-contributions. Architecture, despite what architects tell you, is primarily a compositional matter. It's like jazz. If you've ever played jazz, you know that it is amazingly free. But it is built on more rigidity than people think. I mean, jazz has structure. It features free moments, but you should definitely have a cohesive composition. It's the same in architecture. You must understand the organizational and functional complexity of buildings. If you think that architecture is 90 percent pictures, you are wrong. Only if you clearly understand the complexity of the spatial organization and understand all the necessary systems, without which the functioning of buildings is impossible, and if you are able to quickly revise the various components and interrelation of spaces in the design process, then you are able to control the overall composition. I know how architects work and, even if they are involved in a collective creation, there still comes a point when someone has to take responsibility and put everything together properly.
“I may be wrong, but in New York and London you are famous for your reputation as an orchestra man. In other words, you do everything yourself. It's true?
“Of course it’s not true. How can this be true? There is not an ounce of truth in this statement!
I mean that you develop the concept and work through the entire project, down to the last detail, alone, without involving your employees in this process
- You understand, architectural practice is a complex, multifaceted and collective field of activity. It's ridiculous to assume that one person can do everything himself. I do not pretend to be. However, let me emphasize this - I don't believe in multi-designer practice. I decided for myself not to practice in this way, because in my opinion such a position is unethical. If you sell products from designers who have been dead for a long time, then you are building your reputation and career on the talent of other people, not your own. Therefore, if I were a customer, I would like to see the products of a specific person, and not the entire company. This is where I see the problem of corporate offices.
Speaking specifically about design, how much is what your office does by you personally?
- As for the design, I control everything that comes out of these walls. Every last detail.
Tell us about your working methods
- A few days ago I was leafing through a book of photographs illustrating Ero Saarinen working on his models. These fantastic photographs were taken by a model designer from the architect's studio. They convey an amazing degree of immersion of the master in solving design problems with the help of collapsible working models made on a large scale. This way of working I took over from Caesar Pelly, and Pelli and Saarinen took over from Lewis Kahn. It's a fantastically productive way of working. This is what makes a designer an architect. Therefore, I do not believe in gatherings with brilliant consultants who will tell me what and how I should do in order to fit into the parameters dictated by them. At first I draw a lot, and then work out my ideas with the help of layouts.
Are you not indifferent to the fate of your bureau, when you are gone?
- I care. But truth be told, that's not my concern.
Are you preparing your shift?
- Of course. We have amazing architects.
And would you trust them to start a project from scratch without your participation?
- Never. I'm not ready for this.
How many projects do you have at the design stage now?
- 44 projects in nine countries around the world, which we conduct in three offices.
Let's talk about music. Before your passion for architecture, you began your career as a concert pianist. Does music still play a big role in your life?
- Of course. You can see it even in this office.
How many grand pianos do you have?
- Nine or ten. I loaned some to friends. One is with my son. The other one is kept by my brother-in-law.
You even built your own concert pavilion for close friends on Long Island, opposite your home
- For me, this pavilion is a kind of refuge. He brings me a sense of peace and comfort. There are no visual effects - just very cozy.
You mentioned Lewis Kahn. He's your idol, isn't he?
- If you want to see great architecture, you need to visit the Kimbel Art Museum at Fort Worth. We've all seen it in pictures. We know it from layouts and everything else, but when you get there directly your feelings only partially depend on what you see. The main thing that you feel, and this is what distinguishes great architecture, is the subtlety of the details.
You studied music and architecture. Do you think there is any connection between these arts?
- No connection. Zero. These are completely different things. The only thing that connects them is the mission to achieve composition and build a chronological sequence of events from one moment to the next. From this point of view, architecture and music are identical.
Your office sponsors a special research program for young professionals. Tell us about her?
- We initiated this training program three years ago. The challenge was to encourage young architects to find new ways and methods of design. For the first two years we had one researcher each, and this year there will be four of them. In architecture schools, theoretical debate is encouraged, but too little attention is paid to specific steps in the design of real buildings. Our program has already produced interesting results. So, two years ago, Joseph Hagerman won a scholarship and researched the specifics of green roofs within the walls of our bureau. We are now planning to use his idea in one of our projects in the Bronx. I also teach a special course in our office. We form a group of 20 - 25 people. The set is for everyone. I teach the specifics of conducting professional practice on the example of specific projects. Classes are held every two weeks for four months every fall. This practice will help improve the quality of training for young professionals. Teachers should pay more attention to improving professional skills, rather than cultivating talent, which is very difficult to determine if this talent exists, is not it, and if there is, how much. The best way to learn how to lead an architectural practice is by working in an office and watching your mentor or any other experienced architect work. There is a lot to learn in architecture. And this education is not at all limited to your ability to draw well. As in any other profession, in architecture it is important to understand the availability of all kinds of tools and methods for their application. From this point of view, mastering the profession of an architect is like learning music. In the sense that you can't just talk about architecture. You must be able to demonstrate something.
What advice would you like to give young architects?
- Work. Work hard and hard. Try to be close to a real professional who knows the architectural design process. The main thing in architecture is to develop the ability to build spatial composition and you cannot entrust this to anyone else. The question is how to correctly use and correlate certain methods of the design process. These things can be taught and should be learned. Do not think that some are given this and others are not.
What qualities or sensations would you like to draw people's attention to in your architecture? What coded messages do you send to people?
- The first thing that defines a good building is the desire to question the typologies of buildings accepted as the norm, and not in the sense of inventing a grotesque form, but in the desire to transform the space. I believe in evolution. If you planned your home in one way, there is probably some other option that is even more successful. And secondly, such a single aesthetic phenomenon as harmonious proportions should always be present in architecture. You need to learn to feel them. This comes with experience, and construction, not pencil. This is such an ability that if you master it, you will feel completely free and confident. And yet - this is quite enough to create stunning architecture. This dimension has no time or style, and it doesn't matter if you are at the foot of the Great Pyramids or in the Kimball Museum - the key to an emotional understanding of outstanding architecture - in proportion.
