The importance of architectural travel is really to see different cultures respond to similar problems. It’s informing you about different ways of solving problems that you wouldn’t have imagined, because your place of origin does things differently so it is just realizing another way of seeing, of interpreting architecture and space that it is sometimes foreign to your culture.

We have 14 offices so I travel all the time between each office and my role is to bring the global thinking through travel, through experience, through local stuff and bring them into new projects and reinvent scenarios from that travel experience.

What is the importance of traveling, especially for Architects and humans in general?

It is to place yourself outside of your ordinary every day, to remove your body of repetition, to put yourself in an exposed environment, to be fragile intellectually.

What do you think is the added value that Architecture creates within a city?

Architecture is the city, people are its performers, and the two of them are naturally linked. Sometimes we forget the importance that can buildings and spaces between them or roads can affect the way humans interact with the city, so the two humanity and architecture together are actually what the nature of the city is. It’s both working together, so without architecture cities don’t exist.

What is the importance of Architectural events (like WAF that is hosting us here) worldwide? Which are the profits for a city holding such kind of major events?

This is one of the few events that have a global portfolio so delegates can see work across many regions that they normally not see. They see projects in Iran, projects in the Middle East, smaller projects that you are just not aware of.

This exposes everybody to the diversity of architecture and the importance of this is to ensure that work doesn’t become homogenized, problem solving isn’t the same, the western approach isn’t adopted as the answer for everything but there are other ways. This is pivotal form for architecture and I think it’s more important than the local awards like the RIBA, the institute of British architects. It’s almost irrelevant compared to English projects being set in this global form.

:: You work as an architect at the architectural office “Woods Bagot”, based in Australia. Your work crosses many boundaries, ranging from master planning, civic and commercial buildings and intimate interiors.

How would you characterize modern Australian architecture?

Australian architecture has the freedom of the lack of history, that’s what makes it different. All other countries that I’ve travelled have deep cultures, deep storytelling, and layers of architectural history. Australia is a blank canvas, it is totally free, it is one of those few countries where you can invent anything, you can invent the way people live and people are very perceptive in Australia of alternative ways of living and how buildings make new identities for the city so it’s beauty in Australia the ability to build new identity for the countries.

That’s why it is so stimulating architecturally and that’s why there are a large number of Australian candidates here representing various ideas.

You have designed buildings worldwide. How can an architectural firm achieve in getting commissions beyond its countries’ borders within a huge international antagonism?

It’s really simple; it has to do with the attitude of the individual travelling. If they’re open in their approach, if they’re not taking any baggage with them, so when I go visit countries like Russia or China I really try and empathize with the Chinese. I don’t say to them “you need to build a western building in china” or “you need to build a western building in Russia”.

It’s about deep understanding of their culture and when they see that you’re engaged with them they actually welcome you in slowly. You never get this “hello please come and solve our problems”. There’s a little bit of interpretation at first but then they see that you’re committed to their way of thinking and it’s because of that interface with the local culture that the doors begin to open. They have a phrase: “to do Russian work you have to put your foot in the door”, so it’s that quality to really engage with the cultures that allows us to expand.

Is the world financial crisis an opportunity for everyone to reconsider the ways that we design and construct the buildings and the urban environment?

Global financial crisis was the best thing that could happen to architecture in my opinion. It stopped a lot of fancy full architecture that was computer generated and totally divorced from cultures, economies and pragmatism. It just said to the world stop it, this is silly, you need to start thinking seriously about the responsibility we have as architects, and so for me if it didn’t happen I would be very skeptical about the future of architecture.

Because it has happened it’s now put us on a path where we are now responsible economically, we are responsible to our clients, we build projects that are sustainable so some god must be looking after architects and said “I am going to give you global financial crisis because you are making big mistakes”.

In recent years attention turns to green urban regeneration. Do you think that it is imperative for the city or it’s just a new fashion with economic outcomes and covertly interests?

If green urban regeneration is going to work, it needs strong relationship between the developer, the architect and the city. Without those three people participating together it is just their marketing. If we are going to change significantly all three parts need to come together to really transform the built environment, to really make the possibility of zero mission happening.

You cannot have a zero building that is alive in a city, not a building of its own, without corresponding contribution through harvesting. The whole three need to be together. Chinese are beginning to understand in the design of new cities that it is possible but that is the real moment that we’ll see transformation of cities.

At the end, can you please provide your personal proposal for 10 buildings (constructed and visitable) which you think as the most important worldwide that someone must visit anyway?

I think Education City in Qatar is really interesting because that’s some sensible development for the Middle East architecture. They’re really beginning to create a new identity for the Middle East so I think they’re important.

There is also some similar Chinese work done by Chinese architects, not by international architects as a few museums, again they’re important. But for me it’s the local architects doing work with international architects and practice to create a unique new Chinese architecture and new Middle East architecture; experimental buildings that controversies you.

CCTV was a knockout building, it redefined the high typology, even though the Chinese hated it because of the symbolic of the big hall but I think that building really changed the way we think and there are only three or four like that in the world.

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.