Architectural offices have long run on the same model: the architect/owner heads and directs a group of architects and staff in constructing new buildings. Offices acquire funding from private or public clients interested in using their services to build projects, allowing the firm to grow its reputation and build quota. Having consistent building projects throughout the year is central to keeping the office afloat financially, and the retention of a strong portfolio. With the construction of these buildings comes 21% of global greenhouse gas emissions that threaten the environment. These numbers are becoming more relevant to the practice of architecture and how architectural offices can begin to limit their impact on global warming;some offices have chosen to operate in a non-traditional manner that puts the public good – whatever that may be – before building and construction at the centre of their work.

OFFICE is a multidisciplinary design and research practice based in Melbourne, Australia, run by architect Simon Robinson and landscape architect Steve Mintern. Together, they have built a mode of operating that proposes a novel way to consider the architect’s role in the built environment. Joanne Choueiri interviews Robinson and Mintern to discuss their OFFICE and approach towards developing ethical projects.

JOANNE CHOUEIRI In the description of your practice, you claim that you are a "not-for-profit" multidisciplinary design and research practice operating as a charity. Can you elaborate on how this novel design practice model has aided in achieving your goals and expectations?

SIMON ROBINSON (SR) We are a not-for-profit and a registered charity. These models aren't unique; many not-for-profit charities exist in Australia, but we are the only registered architectural practice that is one, so we are quite different in that respect. As a charity, we have a legally binding constitution, which dictates the type of work we can do and the outputs we can achieve. Interestingly, when this binding constitution is applied to the built environment, it means we can only practice in a certain way and the main regard is for the public good.

JC You mentioned in an interview that several not-for-profit architecture firms exist worldwide. Could you name some of them?

STEVE MINTERN (SM) There are lots that work differently, and there are lots that are not for profit, such as Kounkouey Design Initiative, who operate in Niarobi and LA. Some practices are more NGO-based; some are more research-based. In other parts of the world, it is common to have different models for practising architecture and design and different structures of setting it up — but in Australia, basically, every firm has the same structure; whether they've got one director or four, it's the same company structure. We are interested in how that company structure informs the work that you do — because it does inform the work that you do, whether you think about it or not. It will, so it is worth thinking about it to positively impact the work that you are undertaking.

JC From a financial perspective, how does a "not-for-profit" design practice operate? How are your projects or research funded? And since it operates as a charity, is the money invested back into it?

SMI’ll answer the second part first. As a non-profit, the difference between us and a regular company is that we, as the directors, can't just take money out of the business —whereas in every other business, the money is in there, and it can be taken out. In a non-profit, it must be reinvested into the practice and used on other projects.

SR To add to that, the structure of our not-for-profit isthat we have a board of directors, which Steve and I sit on, but weare also employed by OFFICE as staff and paid a salary.

SMIn that way, as a day-to-day practice model, it might operate in a vaguely ‘normal’ way, where we have staff that get paid accordingly. But we also have this board that oversees all the work that we do and ensures that we meet our constitution — and makes sure that all the projects we do are for the public good.

JC And how do you get money to do the project?

SM We have to maintain diverse ways of funding projects. We do have clients that pay us in a typical way. As we are a charity and non-profit, we then have the opportunity to apply for grants. We also do crowdfunding for some projects, like the publications that we put out. A range of different ways, depending on what the project is.

JC "The Constitution" sets out the goals of your practice. You divide your practice between built/research/discourse and education. How do you navigate between these four areas? Are there specific goals in each area required to be met per year, or are they more fluid?

SRThose four areas or poles of interest come from the legally binding constitution; they are formally written into our practice. We do not have quotas regarding how many projects should fit each pole, although what we have found in reality is that our projects tend not to cover just one alone. Some projects will cover all four areas of interest. As our practice develops, I imagine we will need to be more conscious about spreading the outputs across them all. It keeps us accountable and holds us in a certain direction in how we take the practice, and as Steve was saying, the board is there to ensure that we are achieving these things.

JC Are your academic studios linked to the work that you do?

SM They are always linked to research or real clients that we are working with. An example of that would be the book series “The Politics of Public Space”, which started as a lecture series that ran alongside our teaching. We were teaching a studio class one night, with a public lecture series that ran outside of class hours. We kept doing this over four semesters — that’s how it ended up being a series of five publications. Other design studios we’ve taught have been linked with another not-for-profit or a community group that we partnered with. We always try to link the academic studio with real-world or live projects, because we think it is beneficial for students to be able to engage with those clients. It is also important for students to see how there are different ways to practice architecture with equal importance; that there are different sorts of clients.

SR That comes from our interests in research and academia to some extent, but also building and engaging as practitioners in the built environment. The practices that we admire tend to work in both areas, whereas other practices get stuck into either being practitioners or working solely in institutions. Those four poles discussed earlier allow us to bridge across research and practice.

SMIt keeps things interesting as well.

JC How do you view the architect's role in Australia from a socio-political perspective?

SR We have never called ourselves an architectural studio; rather are a design studio, which is telling. This is also reflected in the books that we released since it is not about foregrounding the architect; instead, we are saying that the built environment comprises a huge number of professions, and perhaps we, as architects and landscape architects, do not have that much agency. Recognising that can be more beneficial than restrictive.

SM The traditional role of the architects on some of these issues has yet to have any actual agency within those projects. That's kind of what we are trying to do with the research and self initiated work. Typically as an architect, you are given a brief and respond to it. You are not actually engaging in any social-political discourse at all. You are just working for whoever has enough money to pay you. So, that's not engaging in any productive way towards dealing with some of the issues contemporary society faces.

JC Could architects do more, and to what extent do architects involve themselves in local or national political discussions?

SM Collectively, the profession should be more honest about what we actually do. As a profession, we work for private capital to gain more private capital. This is our role, and we have not had an honest conversation about that. Until we do that, the idea of doing more is probably not great because the way we currently work is deeply problematic.

SRWe are forced into the way we work because of our constitution. For instance, if we want to look into housing, we have to look at housing that produces a public good: social housing. We are held accountable by ourconstitution for the type of work we can do. Other practices are not legally bound to an output, so it's a lot easier to take those kinds of jobs and engage in those types of development.

JC What are the issues to be considered when approaching a community?

SR With all the public housing research that we have been doing, we always look to be invited in by the residents and tenants — for them to ask us to do the report rather than imposing ourselves on them. It is always about making sure that the residents are comfortable with us approaching them. From there, it is just about treating them as clients, asking: How do they want to live? What do they want from the projects? And are they comfortable about some of the attention that will come from us putting their names out there? We are very aware and conscious that we deal with vulnerable communities; respecting their needs is always a priority for us.

JC A part of your work involves using different formats for sharing your work whether through sharing published reports, an editable website, a book series, and exhibitions. Generally speaking, few offices use these formats. Why have you chosen this format, and what does it afford you?

SRWe are legally required to make our research public. That's the intention behind everything you just listed, even the website. How public can you make a website? In terms of which format we choose; it comes quite naturally. The exhibitions are usually held around fundraisers, allowing us to bring the community together: celebrating whatever we are doing, and raising money by selling works, drinks, or food. The book series was intended to create something more permanent. We had some feedback from the lectures we held originally: people wanted to listen to our recordings; they were interested in our conversations. So, we understood that the book format would be useful and accessible, predominantly for students. This is also why the books were so cheap, to make them accessible to students and other practitioners. When we sold out of the books we uploaded the PDFs to the website so people can now download them.

SM The other thing I would add to that is that at the end of our housing projects, the Barak Beacon and Ascot Vale projects, we did an exhibition at each of the community centres on-site — as close to the site as we can get, anyway. It was a chance to invite all the residents, whether they were residents of that specific building or its surroundings, as well as politicians and local counsellors. The residents have a chance to interact directly with these people, interact with the work directly, and meet other residents to build some solidarity around fighting against what is happening in their communities.

SR We recently held a remote housing exhibition inviting 20 Warumungu Mob from Tennant Creek up in Australia’s Northern Territory, all the way down to Melbourne. We organised a forum at the NGV (National Gallery of Victoria) alongside an exhibition. This was a chance for the community to tell their stories, and we gave them a platform and opportunity to do so. The Australian Broadcasting Company recorded the forum. Using our capacity as Melbourne designers to give these groups a platform is important.

JC In the five-volume publication “The Politics of Public Space” you discuss politics’ role in shaping public space with architects, economists, political scientists, philosophers, and artists. How has this series informed your current work on social housing?

SR The work on social housing was inspired by the public lectures. Being a public practice,we were interested in learning from experts about what public space is. That was the impetus for that series. One of the speakers in the lectures was urban geographer Kate Shaw from the University of Melbourne, who spoke on one of the public housing estates that had been demolished, renewed, and privatised.The lecture sparked our interest in what was happening in Melbourne regarding housing, and the fact that there had never been a refurbishment study done before the demolition of these buildings. It was directly from the lecture series that we saw how we could play a role as designers on these issues.

JC Do you find adjacencies in how the government and the community relate to public space versus social housing?

SR We released four publications and spoke to 39 practitioners, and our understanding of public space became blurrier. One of the biggest insights to come out from those conversations was the privatisation of public space. What we perceive as being public is actually private space. We have also found this act of privatisation within the public housing renewal that the government is undertaking.

JC Melbourne, Australia, is witnessing a rise in social housing demolitions, targeting underrepresented socio-economic communities and threatening their homes and shared communal space. Under the slogan "Retain, Repair, Reinvest", OFFICE proposed a feasibility study of the Ascot Vale Estate and the Barak Beacon Estate, which counters the government's demolition agenda and offers a repair and reinvest strategy. Although Barak Beacon Estate has been demolished, how did the government receive the report initially?

SR Well, it is hard to quantify our impact. Things are definitely happening behind the scenes which could be a result from the advocacy work we have done. The state government is currently doinga walk-up asset class retention feasibility study of all their public housing walk-ups. Although this is being undertaken by a different set of architects, you would have to say that our reports may have triggered that. There's also word that the Ascot Vale Estate will no longer be demolished. But again, there's been no dialogue with us about that. Whether or not we can claim it, we are not sure — and that’s not the point, anyway. After those two reports, we can say that the agenda is moving towards refurbishment more so than it was two years ago.

SMIt is a strange way of working. It's a way that advocates for the work of other fields, but as designers, it is not how we typically work. As I said before, typically, a client comes to you, and you provide a service. It is strange to see that you have advocated for an issue, and then potentially something is happening based on the advocacy work: that’s great. It is a good outcome for the public housing residents, which is the whole point of all our work.

JC In Australia, the pre-demolition process entails consulting with the community before demolition. From your experience, how much has the government considered this process and its results?

SR The government organised community engagement sessions before the Public Housing Renewal Program. We have seen some of those reports, and the questions that are asked are geared to a certain answer. The questions are usually about the new homes that would be built on the site; the residents are never asked if they want to stay in the homes they have. In the two case studies, Ascot Vale and Barak Beacon Estate, we found that the questions asked are geared towards a certain outcome. For the public housing towers, the residents were not informed until the day that it was announced on TV. So, there was no community engagement, and now they're starting to do that.

JC Does the government help relocate the community during the construction process of the new Estate?

SR Relocation teams will find residents a home and then relocate them there. In most cases, the homes are not in the inner-city suburbs; they are relocated to the outer suburbs, away from their existing communities. Because there is a waitlist for public housing, the government also has to find homes. There are stories of the government purchasing apartments off the private market to relocate residents. These residents are promisedthe right to return to the estates after construction, but the reality is that some of these estates that were demolished five years ago have not even started construction yet. You can be relocated away from these estates for a long amount of time, where you start a new life and perhaps don't want to be relocated again. The dislocation and the displacement that these programmes cause are the biggest issues because of the huge health and social impacts on residents. In our studies, we suggest working out ways of construction so that the residents can stay on-site and not be forced away from those communities.

JC How do you envision your work growing in the future? Do you imagine it can grow to become Australia-wide, given that social housing is a national issue?

SM We currently have projects in the remote Northern Territory, in New South Wales and here in Melbourne. The housing crisis is pervasive throughout Australia. As a practice we try finding out whether there are communities we can assist with our limited resources. We are also conscious to over-promise ensuring we are honest with people about what we can help with.We always make sure we are clear about that: this is what we can do; we can give you resources and assist you to advocate for yourself. The residents are the ones who advocate for their own outcomes because they're the ones who have lived experience.

Bio

OFFICE is a not-for-profit multidisciplinary design and research practice based in Melbourne. Our projects span the intersections of built form, research, discourse and education. As a registered charity, the studio’s operations, processes and outputs are bound by a constitution to make projects for the public good.

Joanne Choueiri (1986) is a researcher, architect, and artist from Beirut, Lebanon, based in Brisbane, Australia. Her interest in memory, space, politics, and the archive has motivated her various works. Influenced by her context, particularly the Civil War, she recognised the importance of uncovering different facets of the past in an undocumented setting. Based on deeply rooted archival research, Choueiri mixes the architectural language of drawings and models with photography and media installation, producing stories of spaces. By exploring different scales of the city - the house, the building, the square- and their memory, she continuously seeks to create and recreate the archive, exposing aural and visual narratives from different contexts. As part of her PhD, she created a living archive commemorating demolished buildings in Beirut and Brisbane and the holes they leave behind – physical and psychological traces.