STORIESINDESIGN
Thoughtful, unscripted conversation with people from across the design community.
STORIESINDESIGN
Gerald Matthews, Matthews Architects
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Things get a little philosophical as Gerald Matthews of Adelaide-based Matthews Architects discusses the state of architectural education, AI and the practice's 50-year milestone.
STORIESINDESIGN
We are one of the last art forms that absolutely must have a patron. But these days, if if you want to paint, buy some paints and brushes and easels and start painting. If you want to sculpt, same, just you know, buy some play and start sculpting. Um, same for music, you know, same for dance. Like you anyone, you could just start dancing right now. But if you want to create a work of architecture, you have to have a patron. And I think that relationship between creator or author and patron, um that's something that many other art forms no longer have. And I think there's something important about it, but there's also something very complex about it.
SPEAKER_00Gerald, welcome. Thanks for joining me today. Can I start by asking where you're joining me from exactly?
SPEAKER_01Uh I'm based in North Adelaide, which is literally sort of a part of Adelaide in South Australia.
SPEAKER_00Great. Okay. We will come back to some of the uh the usual biographical information, but I want to jump into a little bit of the heavy stuff straight away because we were just reminiscing briefly off-air about an interview that we did goodness, two and a bit years ago, and we talked about some meaty issues such as AI and architectural education. Now, in that relatively short span of time, two or three years, things have obviously moved really quickly. So let's jump straight into a hot and controversial topic such as AI. Where are your thoughts at at the moment in terms of AI and architecture as a profession?
SPEAKER_01Um, I get asked almost on a daily basis, are we using AI and and what are we using it for? Um and uh it it it amazes me how frequently that question comes up. Um and I think some of that's because there's a bit of uh FOMO going on in across all sorts of industries of like I'm not using it, should I be using it? What should I be using it for? And that sort of led to the rise of this whole industry of AI advisors and people who are trying to sell different platforms to do different things. Um and you can understand why everyone in all sorts of professions is really worried about job security. I actually think the bigger issue is uh intellectual integrity or creative um quality. Um and to a degree, the the the economic ethics of it. Like we've already we've started down this road as a society, as a global society, I mean. Um the genie's out of the bottle now in terms of how will this impact jobs. It's like the industrial revolution, you know, once you start building engines and machines, even if they're powered by steam, they're gonna take away people's jobs. The the challenge, I guess, is redirecting the human intellect to better outputs. Um and it's interesting that some of the ideas that still underpin society are ideas that were first vocalized and penned thousands of years ago. Um, and that sort of came about in all sorts of civilizations during eras where suddenly they had time to think. Um, I would love to see the idea that this isn't just us displacing ourselves as a labor force. This is us freeing up ourselves to actually have another renaissance. Um exactly what we're supposed to be discovering, though, who knows? But I don't think that discovery has anything to do with the idea of getting AI to do the things that we want to do. Um, I think it has everything to do with getting AI to do things that human intellect doesn't natively do well, um, like extremely complex computation. Um, but when it comes to artistic expression, uh it's a there's a lot of chatter in now about using AI as a uh a creative prod. So it's not making a decision for you, but it's suggesting ideas. Um and honestly, I think that is just masking the idea that, well, if it's suggesting ideas, um like most people in artistic fields are very careful on what influences they allow and you know, who's whose advice, whose opinions, what works do you allow yourself to be inspired by? Um and I think an AI-fueled planet um essentially means you're getting random ideas suggested from the ether of AI and without really a sense of who is this AI. Um so I'm no less worried now than I was uh two years ago when when we first spoke. Um if anything, it has solidified my my idea that you know at the time I was thinking, you know, this is the beginning of the the last days of architecture, or it could be. And now I still think that is entirely possible, but not really because the skill sets that I think I have built my career around are less valuable, only because um they are now very imitatable. Um in the you know, AI can generate artwork that you know it can imitate a Monet, but it's not the same thing as a Monet. But you know, if if you don't care whether the artwork is actually painted by Monet or an AI reproduction, then the two theoretically have equal value to you. But some people can tell the difference, and I think in a way that essentially means there's a lot of fields, architecture is one of them, where uh a discerning audience and a discerning buyer can tell the difference and will always be able to tell the difference between something that is truly thought through and something that is essentially a simulation of the thought process.
SPEAKER_00Well, I mean, it sounds like what you're trying to center and to hold on to is a distinction between, I say, the qualitative and the quantitative in that, right? So yeah, AI can produce endless quantities of things, but it's that ability to make value judgments or aesthetic judgments about um, as you say, whether someone can tell the difference. With it with that kind of context or with that kind of framework, like would you broadly say that you're feeling or are you feeling on a spectrum of optimism and extreme enthusiasm through to despair and pessimism?
SPEAKER_01Uh I would this is sound it sounds like a cop-out, but I actually feel neutral about it. Um but the neutrality is not an indifference to both sides. Uh there are things I feel incredibly optimistic about in relation to AI and our industry, but there are also things that I feel incredibly pessimistic about. Um and if if I weigh those two two sides of the scale up in my mind, they come somewhere close to balance. But close to balance is not the same. And I think it'll take several generations before we figure out, you know, was this a net negative effect or a net positive effect?
SPEAKER_00In the meantime, while that's been worked out and you've referenced historical examples like the Industrial Revolution, what kind of agency do you think architects such as yourself have to shape these happenings and to send them in more of a positive direction rather than negative?
SPEAKER_01I think it's important for architecture as a global pursuit to reframe itself and to do that quite quickly. Um it's a very modern phenomenon for architecture to be taught at universities. And you know, that's less than a hundred years old in most parts of the world. Um architecture throughout most of human history was something you either apprenticed into or you developed your own skills to the point where you know people refer to you as an architect. And the origins of the word kind of give us that because you know, architect, architects love to point, say this to builders that, you know, architect comes from the Greek architecton, which means chief builder. Um and most builders scoff at that now, but clearly you're not the chief builder. And it's interesting that the you know in Australia certainly there is a proliferation of uh project delivery model that essentially means that architects work under the builder, which is ironic that you've got the chief builder working under the direction of the builder. Um but setting aside, you know, the the etymology of the name and you know, just just trading terms, the conceptualization of a design professional whose career is centered around designing buildings. Um the idea that you can go to university and be trained for that is now, I guess, the current model. When we live in a world that goes with um the idea that a huge amount of the knowledge requirements are devalued by the fact that you know anyone can look this up in AI, AI could essentially give anyone the tools to um take on any profession. Um then it's really, I think takes us back to a much older idea of architecture, that the architects are the ones who had deep passion and caring for this. Um, and regardless of what tools they use to get there, they're the ones that achieve great architecture. That it's not a work of architecture because an architect did it. And this person is an architect because they have achieved a work of architecture.
SPEAKER_00It's there's there's an irony in that that in a modern world of you know, hyper-specialization, hyper kind of uh, you know, extremely deep knowledge and professionalization, that what you're positing there is almost a um a flip and a return back to a kind of non-specialization.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I I have always thought that specializations within architecture are more dangerous than helpful. Um in that there's a tendency to assume, and and I understand why from a client's perspective, it sounds comforting to say, you know, we're we're delivering a hospital, we want to work with an architect who's done 10 hospitals before. Um but it doesn't take that many repetitions of a typology and architecture before you're essentially just regurgitating the same one or two ideas that you developed or borrowed more often these days. I actually think real innovation in design tends to come from people who are doing something they've never done before. Um but it's also fair to say that real disasters and terrible outcomes also come from people who are doing something they've never done before. The difference really has to do with the person and the passion and the effort and the amount of research they they personally undertake. When I started my career, no one used the word research in relation to the practice of architecture, you know, and even people talking about research at universities within architecture, and you know, you'd hear the term like, oh, I'm I'm an architectural researcher, and sort of scratch your head and be like, what is there to research? You're either doing projects or you're not. Um and now I do understand that there are definitely fields of very interesting research within architecture that aren't just preoccupied with the archaeology and history of architecture. Um but it I still think it's strange to separate that from the practice of architecture. Essentially, everything, everything I do as an architect is a form of research. But everything I do as an architect is also a form of project execution.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, always researching by actually doing. Let me pick up on the point about education, and we'll we'll we'll stay slightly within the realms of um quote unquote the real world here, because as you say, it's an accepted thing that architects go to university to be trained, right? Let's assume that that's not gonna change massively anytime soon. What would your ideal architectural education look like designed within those bounds? And that can obviously include taking things outside of university as well, you know, such as uh experience on a building side or in a practice. But student arrives at architecture school, first day at uni, they're 18, 19 years old. How do you how would you like to see the next three or five years play out?
SPEAKER_01Uh I think my views on ideal architectural education are probably quite at odds with the mainstream of architectural education, um, to the point where we've actually developed a curriculum exactly to tackle this issue. Um and I don't believe as in your practice. Yeah, so Matthews Architects essentially has an apprenticeship program. Um, the role begins uh in a position that's called the Design Studio Junior, um and it has a required reading list and a recommended reading list, and a certain number of hours every week are dedicated to self-directed study, um, really aimed at those that material. And and uh and it's a at the moment, it's a five-year curriculum. It will be expanding to a seven and then to a 10-year curriculum, but it's intended to provide an alternative pathway to a career in architecture for people for whom university is not either a viable option or a suitable choice. Um and that thought exercise um actually sort of led us to tackle and in a way answer for ourselves that question of what should uh what might a future education in architecture look like? Um so for us, it starts with um really hardcore technical knowledge, codes, standards, um, eventually products and materials, uh and and not just abstract research, but things like um, you know, learn learning things like the specific heat capacity of various materials so that you then understand their conductivity or or thermal properties, um, learning the difference between strength ratios for steel versus aluminium. So quite a deep level of technical knowledge, first about codes and standards, then about products and materials, then about sequence of construction. Um I it's my belief that this understanding the sequence of construction is really the key skill that allows you to solve details. You only need sort of two bits of information to solve a detail in in a very abstract way. One of them is to understand what is it you're trying to solve in terms of practical performance, and the other is how will it be built? And so we start through this process that's very technical and then involves understanding procurement, as in how contracts work, how buildings get built, really so that we can provide that person with meaningful time on a building site. They're not just walking through and having a look, they're solving problems, they're you know dealing with latent conditions um very early in their career and participating in um uh always under the direction, I should say, of a um registered or skilled architect. Um but once they've built this technical foundation, which so far I think we've determined takes between three and four years, um then they can begin to build a set of professional skills. And now that obviously starts earlier, but it is how do you lead a design conversation? Um and that's you know, how do you work really successfully with builders, with clients, with consultants, uh with authorities, etc. After they've got that set of professional skills, then we begin to re-explore creative skills. And um, so the first three to four years at uh technical foundation, the next sort of one to two years is professional skills, and then the uh next two to three years after that is creative skills. Um and the reason I think this is more fruitful is most graduates of architecture now come leave university with excellent design thinking, but no technical knowledge to help them actually deploy their design ideas. And they end up with broken hearts so often where they've got a beautiful idea, but it cannot be executed. Either gravity is going to pull their building down, or it cannot be detailed effectively, or more often than not, it is unachievable within the budget.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, interesting. I suppose the uh the opposing argument, or to play devil's advocate for a second there, on the point about technical knowledge versus creativity. I suppose the opposite argument runs something like this: that we need to bring young students into a university setting and strip restrictions away, maybe things that they have uh learned in school that are going to restrict to creativity, things to unlearn on that level, and we want to give them a platform to let their creative juices run wild and to foster that kind of freer side of design. And then later on, we'll find a way to you know hen that in a little bit, and then we get this perfect balance. But the emphasis being on creativity, but so to your mind, is that is that is it's a bit of a fallacy basically that if you don't have the technical foundations, then the quote unquote creativity stands for very little.
SPEAKER_01Uh I I think in a way the seed of my answer is within the question, in that I I do agree with the idea that um creativity is something that is really drummed out of us through uh it let's say standardized education processes. Um and not intentionally, it's kind of a byproduct. I mean, no one's telling you to think less creatively. But when you are being trained through uh, you know, essentially an industrial um model of an education system, with the idea that we're trying to get everyone up to this level and we're trying to get everyone to understand these same concepts so that we have a cohesive society of people who all went through similar education, you know, universal curriculum or you know, national curriculums, standardized tests is everything I'm talking about. When you go through that process, it does tend to uh slowly erode people's creativity. Um, and that's fair to say that university education in architecture there therefore is quite preoccupied with trying to reignite it. Um our model is really built based on the idea that um we're not trying to reignite it, we're trying to find the people for whom it never vanished. Um so all we're trying to do is uh give them the tools, that initially technical tools, in order to explore and express their creative ideas. So, as I say, the the real creative stretch happens in the last part of their education, but even from day one, they are involved um very in a very hands-on way in terms of finding, exploring, and and embellishing creative ideas in collaboration. So they get to witness lots of creative processes around them and participate in them. Um I I'm still sort of convinced that um like five years at university to stretch your mind and develop design thinking is incredibly valuable, but it's not valuable in the first five years of your career, really. You know, it's valuable really in the last 20 years of your career. So what we're trying to do is is uh not not subvert the importance of that model, we're trying to provide an alternative for people for whom that model just isn't suitable.
SPEAKER_00Maybe maybe there's a wacky model out there where all architects go into practice first and then they go back to uni, or they go to uni for the first time at the age of 30 or something like that, and uh stretch some of the creativity and then come back. Um I will just turn very quickly again to that. Uh it's a very it's a very catching phrase that you've used before, and you mentioned it earlier that this idea of the last days of architecture. Are there any other factors that that are in your mind in relation to that kind of phrase? So we've talked about AI, you know, a bit about technology, architectural education. Just before we move into a little bit more of the the practical level of uh your practice and your career, are there any other you know, high concept kind of things that that play into this idea of the potential last days of architecture for you?
SPEAKER_01One of them is a seed that was planted quite a long time ago, to the point where I'm not even sure exactly when this began. Um, but at the start of my career, one of the architects that trained me is a very formidable gentleman. Um uh hugely knowledgeable and and um, dare I say, impatient um with having to retrain you know graduates again and again and again. Um so he would occasionally voice his disgruntledness with the industry, and you know, graduates don't know as much as they used to know. So I I'm just saying that so that what I'm about to say has. A bit of context in terms of where where the idea came from. And at the time that he expressed this idea to me, I dismissed it as oh, he's just a grumpy old architect. You know, it's not like that. It's um and I and I for a long time I thought um, you know, every generation complains about the generation that comes next and got complained about by the generation that came before them. There is a degree to which that is very true. Um, but that doesn't mean that things aren't changing. Um and one of the things that I remember hearing about quite early in my career were uh practices that were taking a very literal production line model to the structure of their office. Um and and I started my career in an office that didn't really work that way. Um, you know, there was maybe a couple of drafters, but everyone else was either an architect or an architect in training. Um and I remember talking to friends who, you know, one of them got a job in a very big international firm and and was very proud that they'd been put in the creative team. You know, and they had a creative team, a technical team, they essentially had a managerial admin team, kind of cherry picked from various teams. And and they also had a sort of technical slash delivery team. So, you know, they have the people people, they have the creative people, and they have the technical people. And and the downside of that is I think any really great architect is all has to be all three. But if you're put in one of those teams, you're only nurtured and encouraged in one of those directions. And it's something about it really bothered me when I sort of heard that idea of, you know, that's great. I was happy for my friend, you're in the tech the creative team, that sounds really exciting. And they got to work on all of these really interesting big projects, but there's no pathway from being a junior person in that team to leading that team. You will never accumulate enough technical knowledge by just being trained creatively to ever lead the creative team. Because to lead creative design, you must already be possessed of an enormous amount of technical knowledge. Um and it's kind of the same with the people people, as in, you know, the charmers who walk into the room and you know know how to essentially turn a nothing project into a great project or know how to turn no project into a really awesome project, the people who win the work. Um it's really hard for them to earn and maintain the respect of the creative team that they're going to hand the project to, because no one ever gets to see, well, do they know how to do the project, or are they just really good with people? The ones that get comfortable in their own skin and just acknowledge that, yeah, no, I'm just I'm the guy that wins the project, or I'm the guy that just holds the client hand, client's hand through the project. And I'm sure they have great and rewarding careers, but it's a bit like being a marketing person for an architectural team. It's yeah, and if you end up in that team, it's it's very difficult then to get to the point where you can lead an entire project. Um, oddly enough, it's that team that tends to cultivate people who eventually become practice directors. Um, because they're the people people, they wield a huge amount of power in large practices. And you know, if you're the one that the client is comfortable with and talking to, and you're the one that's you know guided the client through all these processes, even if you have no idea how to design this building or get it built, um you naturally possess a lot of power, which tend to mean promotion gravitates towards them and then eventually they end up in positions of directorship. But then essentially the practice is under the directorship of an architect who actually can't do the job. Now, they can win the work, but how do you steer the healthy direction of an architectural practice if you don't possess the skills that you need your entire team to possess? And there's plenty of architects around the world who will disagree with what I just said, some of them very famous, um, who would say, Oh, you know, that's not relevant. I have I have people who look after that. But that's what I'm talking about in terms of the last days of architecture. You know, the technical team, you know, maybe they feel more threat from AI, the creative team certainly do. Um I I think true works of architecture, every single one of them that I can think of, where I've walked into a building and thought this is sublime, there's usually a single author. And almost always that single author is creatively brilliant and technically very masterful, and and to some degree, they've got to be reasonable enough at working with people to have actually made this happen. And you if you separate those into you know three or more different camps, I the problem is who leads the next generation?
SPEAKER_00There's a lot in there. Uh I'm tempted to, I can't help but want to ask a bit about how you would, I suppose, describe yourself, um I guess in terms of design philosophy, but more widely, because we we've we've referenced the fair few things here that have to do with industrial processes, architecture as production line, over-specialization, maybe over-professionalization. I mean, would would you describe yourself as some kind of uh like a romantic in in your outlook at Capital R romantic with with this, you know, like some kind of like adjacent arts and crafts um philosophy on architecture and creativity in general?
SPEAKER_01Um I think if you look at an architect's bookcase, you you probably find out a lot about what makes them tick. Um uh and as you were asking that question, I was thinking about what what's in my bookcase of you know, am I uh am I doing what I've heard other architects do, which is to to uh sort of defensively argue that architecture is a an art form. Um and I don't feel the need to argue that because I'm absolutely sure it is. Like architecture in in my mind is one of the greatest art forms, but that's not to say that um pure artistic endeavor is the sole purpose of it. Um you know it's it's a little different, therefore, to every other art form in that you know, a sculpture doesn't have to keep the room warm, you know, a painting doesn't necessarily have to, you know, keep the rain off you at night. Um architecture has very tangible physical purpose. Um, and I I remember hearing an architect not that long ago actually talk about himself as a rationalist and the idea that you know it's the fundamental principle of shelter that drives his whole thought process in architecture. Um I uh there is a degree to which I am probably a romanticist around you know the the value of architecture. Um I wouldn't say I stopped to think about that too often, but now that you're asking, that's probably true. Um I think if anything, I I see architecture as both uh like an instrument to to bring about change, but also an expression of who we are and what what we are, um what we value as a society. And I mean not so much who architects are and what we are. Um when I've designed houses, and and it'd be fair to say that I'm pretty selective about the design of houses. Um in my career, I might do maybe another three to five houses, and that's it. That's all I'm prepared to do, really. Um because for me, each house is a portrait of the client. Um you know, and there is a degree to which, yes, there is an expression of myself that I am necessarily putting into this, but it's not a portrait of myself. Um it's it is it is very consciously a portrait of who they are and what matters to them. Um and there's a degree to which style is an aspect of that. You know, I'm I'm not trying to paint in some other architect's style to stretch the portrait metaphor. I'm trying to paint in my style, but I'm trying to paint in a way that suits them and pleases them as a client. And I think maybe that's the thing that um I'm most romantic about in terms of architectural expression, is that we are one of the last art forms that absolutely must have a patron. Um, you know, these days, if if you want to paint, buy some paints and brushes and and easels and start painting. If you want to sculpt, same, just you know, buy some play and start sculpting. Um, same for music, you know, same for dance, like you anyone, you could just start dancing right now. But if you want to create a work of architecture, you have to have a patron. And I think that relationship between creator or author and patron, um that's something that many other art forms no longer have. And I think there's something important about it, but there's also something very complex about it. You know, there's there's um I hear a lot of architects express tension. I I feel fairly privileged to have had some incredibly important relationships in my life with with clients, many of whom, you know, I hope I stay friends with forever. Like they're just interesting, remarkable people. And by the time you've spent years working with someone to essentially create a portrait of them um in a built form, you you feel like you know each other very well, I would say. Um I I don't subscribe to the architectist therapist um model. With that, I know I've heard I've heard lecturers, I've heard architects talk about, you know, if you're gonna design a house, you really have to become their therapist. Like it's not that's arrogance to me to to sort of say that you're gonna somehow um uh what's the psychologically analyze and and help um a client. I think it is it the aspiration should be well, you're gonna design spaces that certainly improve their lives um and maybe create things that they weren't sure how to ask for. Um but I think it's a bit pompous to to extend that to the idea that I'm I'm gonna fix you as a human or as a married couple, like um like architecture might be capable of that, but I think that's the wrong mindset to approach a project with.
SPEAKER_00Okay, well, uh we could keep talking about this stuff, but uh I I mean I should have brought up the big milestone much earlier. So let's turn to slightly more practical matters, if you like. 50 years, I understand, has just been passed. Can you tell me a bit about how that milestone feels and also a bit of the history? Um, where did it all begin with about the Dark Tites?
SPEAKER_01Uh my father was um one of the founding directors of the practice back in 1975. Um, and I joined in 2000. So I I guess I was celebrating my 25th year at the same time the practice was celebrating its 50th year, and it's a sobering thought to think that well, I've I've been in the practice for half of its time. So half of the practice existed before I even ever joined it. Um yeah, it's amazing how fast 25 years went. You know, now 26 actually. Um, I've just tipped over that milestone. The the formative years of the practice, um, I guess being in the the mid and late 70s and then early 80s, um, Australia had a lot going on for it architecturally at the time. Um, and it'll be interesting to see how how people in the future look back on that era of Australian architecture. And in a way, I think because um mid-century modernism was a very big thing overseas, it by the time it sort of arrived here, you might call it late-century modernism and this sort of architectural modernism, and our practice was very much founded out of that ethos and mindset, um, which I think is incorrectly occasionally like it's it's misnomer as minimalism because we're not really minimalists, um, but we are modernists. And uh the the irony of that, I suppose, is that we therefore take a modernist approach to things like um heritage-related projects. It doesn't preclude us from doing uh very historically grounded things because I guess we don't see ourselves as um style on an island. And and one of that is exactly the point that um I've never quite managed to articulate successfully, but it's that each work of architecture deserves an author. Um, and style comes from a person, not a company. Um, and that's one of the reasons that we have never had a house style. And I hope that we never do. Um, there is certainly a degree to which you know every creative professional here definitely influences each other, like quite consciously, but it it has never evolved and should never evolve in my mind into a house style. Uh I think there's something important about the idea that um emotional investment and that kind of deep authorship of a of any creative output, especially a building, uh, should come from a person, and therefore the style itself should come from the person.
SPEAKER_00I did want to ask actually, um, given that you know those those decades that you've been a central part of the uh architecture and and general creative scene down there, and I, you know, I think the whole industry is guilty here in Australia, obviously, of overfocusing on Sydney and Melbourne a lot of the time. Can you give us a can you can you um make that that lens, that bracket a little bit wider? And for our listeners, just I mean, maybe just give us a kind of general overview of of how you see the design scene uh there in Adelaide and where you are and in South Australia more generally.
SPEAKER_01Um I I guess we've been fortunate enough to practice fairly nationally, like we've done projects in uh Queensland, Victoria, you know, Northern Territory, Western Australia. I don't think we've ever done one in the ACT or Tasmania yet. There's still time. Um uh but we don't do them often enough for me to uh have continuity within each of those sort of various regions of Australia. Um Adelaide as a as a place to practice architecture has the benefit, I guess, of having uh smoother peaks and troughs than Sydney and Melbourne. And it would be fair to say that there are eras that you know other cities go through where, okay, not much is going to get built for the next you know two to five years, you know, we're recovering from a strange sort of economic condition. Um and therefore there was a lot of stuff on the drawing board, not a lot of stuff getting built. Um and if you're an architect, you know, trying to get your career going through an era like that, you know, there are challenges. Um, but they also tend to have you know huge booms where, you know, plenty of work, lots of buildings that need architects. So it's sort of feast and famine from what I can see in bigger cities. Adelaide has the benefit of being, I would say, uh at a scale that means we're not necessarily at the mercy of those larger economic cycles. We have we still have economic cycles, but they are smoother and easier to predict. Um and therefore most of our clients uh are fairly sustained in the way they approach investment in in built forms. Um that sort of sets an economic scene for why being an architect in Adelaide uh essentially comes with more meaningful opportunities more consistently. Um culturally, I I think I swing between polar extremes here in that uh sometimes it feels to me like Adelaide is very resistant to embrace you know uh adventurous design. Um and I think Adelaide has always seen itself as quite conservative. Um, and one thing that in my mind hasn't helped that probably in the last 15 years uh is uh the Adelaidean tendency to um to be inspired by the wise prophets from the east. You know, you get firms from Melbourne and Sydney come to Adelaide and then almost prove a point that is uh is a itself a reinforcement of this myth. If you know a Sydney architect comes to Adelaide and does this big project, and everyone looks at it and goes, Oh, wow, that's what architecture looks like. Um but really um no one could be a prophet in their own land. Um so I'm I'm sure it's the same no matter where you go. In fact, I know it is because it was the same in London that you you um uh uh you have a much easier time being the fresh pair of eyes if you are an outsider arriving in. And Adelaide, I think, just fell into that trap of of buying this myth um that people from the architects from Sydney and Melbourne are somehow of a different caliber than architects from Adelaide. And it is 100% untrue. And and I think, you know, I I could literally walk from my office um and within 10 minutes point at 50 buildings that prove the point that it's clearly not true. Um but I think it's given Adelaide this strange sort of self-consciousness of well, we we want really nice architecture. We definitely have an incredible industry here of very talented architects who, in my mind, are not just talented within the local market. This this is sort of international level talent. And and I think that it kind of exists everywhere. Like no matter where you go in the world, you'll find very impressive talented architects. And it's really does this place embrace them? And yeah, it hence the the sort of love-hate relationship with every city. I think most architects have that with the city that they predominantly practice in. Um I I do think Adelaide is an incredible place to be an architect. Um I would liken it in some ways to uh Seattle just before Grunge broke out of Seattle. Like Adelaide's had a few moments like this where someone's done something interesting, and and every firm in town's been like, wow, that's that's interesting. Um and most of it tends not to uh be a loud enough bit of noise to get the attention from interstate. And the benefit of that is you've kind of got to let it ferment. I'm really mixing metaphors here, but you you've um there is something important about the idea that you've kind of got to let the community of design uh cross-pollinate and ferment and and and for all of these strange, unpredictable things to occur before the place itself starts to have a collective voice. I don't think we're quite there yet.
SPEAKER_00Oh, sorry, go ahead.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I don't think we're quite there yet. But we're we're you can definitely feel it happening.
SPEAKER_00I think it's almost the truism of any field, right? That the sometimes the most radical or imaginative leaps forward can happen not in the absolute core, but slightly on the periphery, where there's a bit for all kinds of structural reasons, there's often a bit of um maybe less arrogance or less chauvinism or uh just an ability to see between the cracks a little bit. Uh, but I will I'll finish with a question about the future. Uh, we've just passed 50 years, half. Well, you've now spent more than half of the life's practice in there. Where do you see Matthews architects in say another 25 years?
SPEAKER_01Uh it's hard not to contemplate that really um more often than I should, um, to be honest. When you when you reach a sort of 25-year personal milestone, you do start thinking um very overtly around, you know, where do I want to be in 25 years' time? Um, and I think this is one of those strange professions around the world where most architects that I know who are quite passionate about their field, they don't look forward to retiring. And the idea of one day not doing this for a living is a terrible idea to me. And so I I would hope that in 25 years' time I'm still practicing. Um I've never been particularly interested in doing bigger and bigger projects. I I'm I'm honestly more inspired, inspired sort of as a as an architect by let's say the small to medium scale project. You know, which in Adelaide, uh, value-wise, that's sort of the five to thirty million range. Um, and I think some of that's because the the machine needed to to do a 200 million dollar project. Um you're either a small cog within a very large machine or you have to become the very large machine. Um and uh something about that, I just don't think I'm that uh suited to it. And so I I in a way I hope that I'm still in 25 years doing like interesting and uh and when I say inspiring, I don't mean to other people. I uh inspiring work for myself, and I I have a a theory um uh which if you can indulge me, I'll try to try to cover quickly, which is that there are five motivations for any architect. Um one is how you feel about your own work, uh, one is how your client feels about your work, one is how other architects feel about your work, one is how the general public feel about your work. And the last one is how that one special person feels about your work. That one special person, you know, maybe it's your grandfather or your aunt or or um you know your your neighbor or um or your mentor. Um but I think for of all of those five things, for any architect, there is one that tends to rise slightly higher than the others. I would say every architect would have some blend of these. Um and there's pluses and minuses to every one of them. Um I think in a way it's dangerous to care too much about what the public think of your work because, well, they might not understand it yet. It's dangerous to not care what your client thinks about your work because they are going to pay for it. But I'm sure every architect understands what I mean when I say um sometimes your architect might not love the right idea first. And it's it's in my opinion, it's very dangerous to care too much what other architects think about your work. Um that in a way tends to just lead to this sort of chasing chasing the style of the day sort of mentality. And I hope I never fall into that trap. And I do care what I think about the work. Um, as in my my personal views on my work, probably it for me that would be the one that rises slightly higher than the others. Um yeah, I think it'd be an interesting thought excess to see uh how the different architects rank those priorities as in which ones matter more to them. Very few architects would admit that they care what other architects think about their work. But if you look at the effort that a lot of architects put into submission for awards um and promoting their work essentially to other architects, um it sort of says the opposite. And so it's hard for me to imagine my priorities changing because I think once I started thinking of it that way, I don't think they ever have. I think I've I was sort of uh almost ready-made with with my rankings of what matters to me in terms of good architecture. Right.
SPEAKER_00Well, I might I might steal that framework for a question for someone else sometime. Um, yeah, or all fascinating. Well, Gerald Matthews, thank you for joining me today.
SPEAKER_01Been a pleasure.
SPEAKER_00Thank you for listening to this episode of Stories in Design. Please subscribe and review, and you can find out all about what we do at indesignlive.com.