Interview with David Adjaye

Uta Abendroth: Mr Adjaye, some time ago you said "Architecture is losing its relevance to life. It's more about spectacle than buildings." What are you doing against this trend?
David Adjaye: I try to avoid monolithic statements and to create architecture that provides access to a collective consciousness while offering the chance for dialogue between different generations and social groupings. This is the core of my work.
 
How do you define good architecture?
I think that good design can provide a critical inquiry into social responsibility and civic consciousness. I have always sought to work out the aesthetics of this inquiry in my work. At its best, architecture should contribute to a social change agenda.

It’s said you do not have a specific architectural language. How would you yourself describe your style?
I am part of a generation of architects that has moved away from the idea of a signature style. My work is more about the specifics of culture, place, geography and so on. If there is a unifying element – it might perhaps be my approach to light and its treatment as a primary material. But every context is different, and every context has a new scenario. Rather than searching for the universal, I look for the specific. This is what defines my projects and roots them to their context within the city at that time, or the group of people that might be bringing up that project at that time. So I find that even if I may want to, it’s almost impossible to make the same project again and again.
 
You have offices in London, Berlin and New York with more than 30 employees. Is there a city you actually prefer to work in?
We now have more than 80 people worldwide – with additional offices in Accra and Shanghai. I like the diversity of working in many cities – it is always a learning curve in terms of understanding the history, culture, geography and climate. This is very exciting and I have a permanent research team which works on all of our projects at the outset. The interpretation of identity, history and memory in my buildings is the starting point for me. I try to gain an understanding of exactly these qualities and to use them as the essential drivers for the form and the materiality of the building.

Your practice's largest commission is the design of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of African American History and Culture on the National Mall in Washington D.C. Further projects range in scale from private houses, exhibitions and temporary pavilions to major arts centers and civic buildings. What sort of commission do you like best?
I am interested in the broadest possible spectrum of projects and I am always keen to look at new typologies. Most important is to collaborate with clients who share a sense of inquiry and to find projects that push me intellectually.
 
Whether a building succeeds eventually or not is also determined by factors beyond architecture and the influence of the architect. Which experiences have you had with your projects so far?
Unlike many architects, I very much enjoy tracking the development and use of the buildings I have designed – because the human narrative is a continuum and very much part of the design trajectory, as far as I am concerned. I have a number of repeat clients – and this is often a very good barometer of whether or not they were happy with the building – but aside from this I don’t tend to think in terms of success or failure. Nor do I do I see buildings as isolated entities. It is exciting to see how the buildings adapt and morph once they become part of the urban landscape. The unpredictability of a building’s future is precisely what inspires me.

Architecture is a long, sometimes grueling affair. How do you manage to see through the long development and construction phases?
I enjoy the process – the dialogue. I would say it is mostly compelling rather than grueling. Also, I work at many different scales – so some projects, such as pavilions and exhibitions, have a faster turnaround.
 
Due to the length of time architectural projects swallow is that a reason why you like to make excursions to other disciplines, e.g. the “Sclera Pavilion“ for the London Design Festival in 2008 or the installation “Genesis“ for the Art Basel Miami in 2011?
It’s not the reason, no – but it does offer diversity. I have always sought to cross creative platforms, collaborating with artists and designers from different disciplines and focusing on the creative discourse surrounding the act of making things. It is the dialogue – the cultural intersection - that excites me. This is relevant to both the larger, longer-term projects as well as the smaller ones.

This spring you presented your first piece of furniture, a chair for Knoll International. What is it that makes architects design preferably chairs?
Initially I was apprehensive – I am an architect, not a furniture designer. But when I understood that it would be an opportunity to express my position in terms of materials, silhouettes and forms – in fact an extension of my work as an architect – then it became more interesting and I felt more confident with the idea.
 
And what do you like especially about the Washington Chair?
It was very much an exploration of the “body in space” – but on a smaller scale than my architectural work. Knoll has always had an amazing ability to produce furniture that is a distillation of the zeitgeist of the age – it was this relationship between life, space and objects that resonated with my own work. Finding specific conditions, amplifying them and making them aesthetic while giving them the potential to be part of our world is what I am interested in.

You were born in Tanzania and before moving to London when you were 9 years old you had lived in Egypt, Lebanon and Yemen. Do these experiences influence you a lot?
When you move around a lot, you start to realize how explicitly different geographies inform the ways of cities and places. My background certainly shaped my appreciation of space and of course I draw from Africa – it’s my heritage. But I also draw from many other things – that’s what architects do – we are planetary creatures.
 
A bon mot of our times is “think globally, act locally.” You work on different continents and within different cultures. Do you see an international language in architecture and design or do you especially value regional traditions?
I believe it is crucial to deconstruct the idea that design can be universal and instead, to think in terms of a regionally specific vernacular. An architecture that derives inspiration from “place” will articulate a compelling sense of place and have a stronger social relevance. Regional specificity can more effectively negotiate the contemporary needs of society.

Uta Abendroth is a freelance journalist specializing in design and architecture. She was editor at Design Report, Architektur & Wohnen, Schöner Wohnen, Häuser and Brigitte. She is based in Hamburg, Germany.