Good artists copy, great artists steal. That famous quote, most often attributed to Pablo Picasso, explains the essence of truly influencial work. Even if it’s done subconsciously, all successful, creative people “steal” from other successful, creative people. These days we refer to architecture styles or specific projects as being inspired by this, or influenced by that. And that’s OK. Kobe Bryant was influenced by Michael Jordan. Jordan was influenced by Dr. J. It seems imitation really is the sincerest form of flattery.
That said, architects in the United States are being influenced by projects and architects from around the world, and vice versa. Thanks to large architectural firms expanding beyond their home county’s borders,architects are being exposed to all kinds of different designs all over the world, and are naturally influenced by these projects. But before we examine the influence, let’s find out why architects are working abroad.
According to Thomas Vonier, FAIA, RIBA, an architectural consultant and the international director on the Washington, D.C.-based American Institute of Architects’ board, the motives for firms to expand into foreign markets vary widely, but the search for more profits is almost always the reason.
“The immediate benefit is obvious-you keep staff employed and you keep the business running,” said Vonier. “Peter Drucker, the great theorist of corporations, said the first responsibility of a corporation is to stay alive. Long term, I think it’s like any professional service enterprise: one project usually leads to another if it goes well.”
Yet it seems other countries are better at exporting their architectural talent than the United States. Why?
“Firms in the UK and Asia are good at exporting their series outside their country’s borders. Architects, often linked with giant construction and engineering companies … and large firms are sometimes supported by national governments and by publicly-funded foreign export promotion organizations,” wrote Vonier in his 2009 paper, “The Export of Professional Design Services by Foreign Architecture Firms.”
“Aided by active and sophisticated ‘business intelligence’ functions-some lodged within ministries of trade and foreign affairs, with employees working overseas-Japan, South Korea and China keep close tabs on foreign business opportunities, inserting themselves effectively in competitive bidding processes and tracking the progress of major projects in which they could play a role,” he wrote.
Intrigued by his unique perspective, consulting on architecture in both Washington, D.C. and Paris, Metal Architecture spoke with Vonier to get his expert opinions on exactly how the economy might push U.S. architecture firms into looking for work beyond their geographical market, and how the architectural style of the United States might be affected by this architectural “cross pollination.”
MA: In this economy, are U.S. architects looking for more jobs/projects in other countries?
Vonier: Many firms that are well established abroad are keeping some of their U.S. offices employed with work that takes place abroad. [For those that are not well established overseas], there is some effort to glom onto the relative boon in China, India, to some degree still the Middle East. I think in general,yes, firms have been looking outside of traditional market areas for work that is no longer available to them in the market they are in.
There is a sort of truism that prevails-no firm that is not well established at home is going to do well abroad. And that’s not just for professional services but for any kind of business activity. So I don’t see much success, in my experience, for firms that have not been working abroad, getting work abroad, if they’re not healthy at home. It’s not as though you can quickly jump from a domestic market to a foreign market.
MA: What are the challenges (codes, specifications, etc.)?
Vonier: It’s almost invariably the case that a U.S. firm will associate with a firm in the host country or the project country. Those firms will have people who are trained in the local code and technology matters. That’s less of an issue than it might appear to be on its face. I think what’s more difficult might be customs and practices with respect to dispute resolution, regarding payment-just the cultural difference can sometimes make negotiating a different matter than maybe it would be in a North American context.
Language is always a problem, and I think most firms that do substantial work in a country where a language is spoken other than English, have somebody who is a native speaker in the job country language and also speaks a high level of English who can go between the associates in the United States and the people overseas.
MA: Is most of the work done remotely, or are U.S. architects traveling to other countries?
Vonier: I think both happen. There’s plenty of commuting that goes on, but that’s an expensive and wearing thing to do. It also has to be said that when a client hires a notable firm from the United States, what they’re really looking for are the people from the United States who have built the firms’ reputation or who have done a project they’ve admired.
There’s always going to be some element of that,but over the evolution of a project, a firm that is not established at some point has to decide whether or not they want to be established. And if it’s just one project,then probably not, but if they see an opportunity to become established and actually open an office other than the project office, then it probably does require the involvement of a U.S. principal, or even more than one.
MA: It seems that metal is used much more in places like Europe than North America. Do the U.S. architects bring their own style for a metalproject or conform to local style?
Vonier: I think both things happen. Climate is a very powerful force, and you cannot do in Saudi Arabia what you’d do in Chicago. The climate factors are just so very different. There’s also the question of context and cultural context. I think architects are always trying to make a gesture, more or less profound, to cultural context.
It’s also true that materials kind of dictate things, and architects tend to become established and expert in certain kinds of materials.
Many of the great theoriticians of industrial building systems and the advocates of factory produced buildings were European. Some came to this country to promote some of the same ideas here, but many stayed in Europe and were successful there. There is sort of a tradition or legacy that makes Europe generally more agreeable to metal projects. On the other hand, they don’t have the ‘shade and shelter’ market that the United States does. There’s not a lot of marginal ‘boom and bust’ building in a place like Europe. But, in oil producing countries in the Middle East, Africa and East Asia, there is a market for large-scale industrial and warehouse ‘shade and shelter’ kind of buildings, but that’s not really a market in which architects are really involved.
MA: Is there truly a U.S. style of (metal) architecture?
Vonier: I think in our generation for the last 35-40 years, architects have become very personally indentified with a style or a look of buildings,so I think there definitely is [an American style of architecture]. They become known for doing museums or hotels or certain kinds of buildings with panache and style, and a certain way of doing things. It’s even become something like acquiring a work of art. It’s a matter of prestige to have one of those buildings.
Europeans are very strong, and the legacy of empire from European countries means that Great Britain, France and to some degree Spain, have tentacles into their former colonies-which we simply don’t have. Therefore, architects from those countries, particularly for airport design and some infrastructure, are very strong and sought after … not so much for style but for competence and excellence.
Metal is a relatively high-technology commodity-it’s not like making sun-dried bricks and having low-skilled labor-it takes something more than that. Until China and India had become expert in these things, [metal architecture] was pretty much the domain of North America and Europe. Now the developing world is getting its own grounding and competence in these sort of things, and I think meeting its own demand to some degree.
The other factor is that up until 9-11, many,many hundreds, if not thousands of foreign students came to the United States to be educated.They learned architecture here; our standards; our technology; our way of doing things. And I think that has been beneficial for both American architects and product manufacturers. Because these people return to their countries, they know the American way of doing things, there is value in the American way of doing things, and that carries through.
MA: Is the world influencing the U.S or is the U.S influencing the world?
Vonier: I think both are happening. Certain European architects are very successful in the United States and certain U.S. architects are very successful in Europe and across the world. It is very much a global business for the larger firms and larger buildings. The grunt work of making a large building can take place on several different continents. Engineering in one place; drawings in another; design development in another … so it is a global enterprise that is really made easier-made possible-by communication technologies and easy travel.
MA: In the near future, do you expect to see more international influence on design, or will a more “nationalistic” U.S. or North American design style crop up?
Vonier: Much depends on where the work is. Most people seem to think that recovery in the U.S. will stay ahead of recovery in Europe, and therefore there will be more building here in the next 5-10 years. I don’t see a movement to create a U.S. style. I don’t really see nationalistic tendencies, in fact, most of the buildings that have gotten attention and acclaim you could say are sort of “international” designs.