Inside/Out | Carla Swickerath from Studio Libeskind

I enjoyed the Inside/Out lecture with Carla Swickerath from Studio Libeskind. The lecture delved into the firm's distinctive approach to architecture, which emphasizes the importance of memory, history, and culture in the design of the built environment. Some of the firm's most well-known projects, such as the Jewish Museum in San Francisco and the World Trade Center redevelopment, were highlighted as examples of this approach in action. I have always loved their work and have clear memories of my first Architecture books showcasing their Jewish Museum in Berlin - the opportunity to speak with Carla and hear her speak via Inside/Out felt so special. 

The concluding questions and comments delved into what I found to be the fundamental spirit and ethos of the firm, providing valuable insight into the driving forces behind their designs. Especially given their experience of making places that resonate with a large number of individuals who may have different belief systems, traditions, and religions, it is important to navigate aesthetic and meaning-making principles carefully. This involves considering the diverse perspectives of all stakeholders, including those with different cultural and religious backgrounds. The challenge is to find a way to incorporate these various perspectives while maintaining a cohesive design that effectively conveys the intended message. To achieve this, designers must engage in meaningful dialogue with stakeholders, practice empathy and radical listening, and strive to synthesize different perspectives to create a memorial that is inclusive and respectful to all.

Carla underscored that the tragedy of the World Trade Center was unique in that it affected people from all walks of life. The loss of 3,000 lives impacted families of different cultures, religions, and backgrounds. From the brave first responders who ran towards the site, to the executives who worked in the building, to the visitors from around the world, everyone was affected. 

CS: As architects, our primary tool is communication, and the key to effective communication is empathy. They try to approach our work with a deep sense of empathy, trying to understand the people we are designing for. We are often building in places we have never lived or in cities where we are not the experts, so we must have humility and listen to what people are saying, not just convince them of what we want to do. Empathy and listening are essential skills for designers to develop and practice. It is crucial to engage meaningfully with all stakeholders, not just the victims' families, but also those responsible for moving the project forward, working within budgets and regulations, and meeting city and state requirements. Synthesizing different perspectives is a valuable service we can provide to the communities we serve.

Libeskind is also known for bold forms that really make an impact on its visitors.Do you get pushed back from your clients at all about unusable spaces? And how do you defend your decision?

Carla emphasized that architecture is not just about aesthetics, but about making a statement and communicating meaning. For example, with the Jewish Museum, they had to cut into a historic building to achieve the desired meaning, and the client was on board with it. However, achieving complex geometries is not easy, and it requires a lot of work, from drawing more details to doing more models and mock-ups to ensure that the design is not just for aesthetics. They spend just as much time working on the back of house and ensuring the building is successful for the client's needs. They don't want our buildings to be mere follies, but to transcend the experience and answer our clients' needs. Therefore, we also push back to make sure the design is not just aesthetically pleasing but functional. For instance, the idea for the Denver Art Museum's unique form came from folding a physical model of a line on a walk.

CS: You almost have to work harder, and you have to draw more details, and you have to do more models, and you have to do more mock-ups to really make sure what you're doing is is not just for aesthetic sakes. So I think many of the projects of the ones you I showed today, and many, many others, we spend just as much time working on the back of house, and how we get the trash out. We don't want our buildings to be follies.

The last question was about their dynamic forms: 

Have you seen that the method of making change? And how has that been impacted by 3D modeling?

CS: “During my time in graduate school for architecture, we didn't have Autocad, and drawing everything by hand was the norm. I remember the year I graduated, every desk had a computer, and I thought to myself, "oh, I'm in trouble." It's fascinating to reflect on the consequences of drawing by hand versus using technology. For example, Daniel's first project, the Jewish Museum, was entirely drawn by hand. While this was radical at the time, it shows how much you can achieve without relying on technology. However, at the Denver Art Museum, which was at the forefront of threed modeling technology, we were able to deliver a more dramatic and complex design because we had access to those tools. When I first joined the Berlin office, we did most of our designing through physical models in the wood shop. We made decisions through those models, but we also used sketches and other tools. Nowadays, threed modeling has become the norm, but we still create physical models because they allow us to see the design in a different way. The computer is seductive and can create impressive images, but we still value the tangible and tactile qualities of physical models. At the end of the day, we consider 3D modeling as just another tool to achieve our goals. We still sketch and use other techniques, but we couldn't be doing what we're doing without technology. It's a transformational tool that has revolutionized the field of architecture.”