Mun Summ and Richard taught me during my third year of architecture school. I remember them having an incredible synergy when teaching, relentless in their pursuit of a greener future, and strong advocates of the Systems Thinking approach to design.
Published on Archlosophy on 16 February 2023.
1. Why did you decide to become an educator and what is your teaching philosophy?
Richard: We started practising architecture and getting interested in the big issues like what needs to change for us to reach this sustainable future. We realised that no matter how many good projects we do… individual projects don’t really move the needle very much, what we need instead is a collective understanding of what is important and what needs to change, and one of the best ways to do that is to teach, spread the philosophy and knowledge to many young practitioners, so when they enter the workforce they can change the culture and hopefully together, make a much bigger impact.
Mun Summ: Also where we are today, we are experienced and have a certain credibility in our projects. I think with our teaching, people would understand and also appreciate the advice we can give and offer. I think this is the right time in our careers and age to teach. In terms of teaching philosophy, it’s similar to our practice ethos, we feel it’s necessary to have a multidisciplinary, sort of collaborative approach to address climate change, but all at the same time you can create wonderful, liveable, beautiful architecture.
2. In your opinion, what is the most important thing a student can learn in architecture school?
Richard: I think it’s not to be afraid to try stuff, to be open to testing out ideas and new concepts, and not worrying too much about the end result. Learn to embrace the process and see what interesting things come out of it. That’s something quite scary a lot of the time because people are frightened that the end result might be unappealing or problematic in some way. But where we found the most interesting architecture comes from, is when you don’t have a very clear picture of the end result, and let important aspects of the design reveal themselves by going through the process.
Mun Summ: The other thing is design awareness. I’m not sure if everyone would be a designer one day, but being able to appreciate, understand, and see the value of design can have huge positive outcomes.
I think the undergraduate course is really about teaching and understanding design- from the process to the end result. That is very necessary. At the end of the day not all students will be in the field of architecture or design specifically, but to be able to make decisions based on design, to understand and see the value of design (and the design process) is necessary.
Richard: If people eventually decide they’re not loving design but become design-allied professionals (working for councils or mayor offices) if they have a very clear understanding of the design processes, they (council) can run better competitions, and engage better jurors for competitions. It’s not wasted even for people in school. Even after four years if one says “I don’t really enjoy designing it’s not for me”, they can still contribute towards a better-built environment.
Mun Summ: Even in other fields- like architectural journalism and project management, they also need to understand and appreciate design.
‘You all must know and remember, you all will be decision makers definitely. And you will have the power to make change. This is very important. I hope to even see some of you go into politics to become mayors, because you will have a lot of power in making decisions and doing right for people.’
– Wong Mun Summ
3. Both of you graduated in the 1980s. How has architecture education changed (or not) over the decades? What are your thoughts on them?
Mun Summ: I think in the 80s it was just after the energy crisis. The topic of discussion at that point in time was how to use passive strategies to create sustainable design and architecture. That was also our grounding in terms of our approach to sustainability. I think at that time in the 80s the focus was always on design, almost every student was taught in a way that they would become the next starchitect. I think that’s a wrong approach to it, now we’ve come to realise there’s more to that- there are a lot of disciplines, and careers that have to deal with architecture but not necessarily deal with design. As far as the current education system is concerned, they’ve moved in that direction, albeit not sufficiently.
The first part of your degree is really about design awareness and letting you understand it because architecture and design are very broad topics. In many ways professional in a very specialised field. You do need a lot of education in the early years to get that sense of knowledge. And then in Masters, it’ll be a more specialised and professional course itself, where it can be very targeted. It needs to be more multidisciplinary, more collaborative, and at the same time needs to be based on newer technologies, and a more forward-thinking approach. Currently, I think it’s still very traditional in some sense the way they see these specialised fields. I would hope to see some emergence of robotic architecture. A lot of things can be done with new technologies, even with AI now. Diving into these new topics would be interesting.
Richard: It’s interesting to see the change in technology from the 80s till now- we were sort of the last generation of students that used drawing boards, tracing paper, ink, scratching out mistakes with a razor blade. Doing it by hand you have to carefully plan your information and what you’re going to show because it was so troublesome to undo stuff. A bit like writing on a computer and writing by hand.
Mun Summ: We started our careers using the Telex machine… Do you know what a Telex machine is? (author does not know, the generation gap is evident!)
Richard: It’s a sheet that would come out and you write single sentences on a long sheet that would come through.
Mun Summ: Then came the fax machine.
Richard: We used the fax machine to send drawings overseas by printing out A1 drawings and slicing them up into A4 strips and then feeding the strips into the fax machine, and the company on the other end would tape them together.
I think the challenge for practitioners now is that there are so many things in a building. Back then when we did buildings there weren’t any security systems, besides the ones on the front door. All the Wi-Fi communications technology and data cables weren’t in buildings. There were a couple of phone lines, maybe one in the hall and living room and that was it, not as extensive as today. Buildings were much simpler objects- they didn’t have to comply with a lot of regulations like accessibility and thermal performance.
For us, each new technology came in a few years apart so it was easy to lay them in. But now for students, you get everything piled on at once- this is what a building is! It’s a much more complex problem to solve.
Mun Summ: Yes, and that’s why we need a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach because I do think you need to understand and negotiate between disciplines to get the best outcomes.
4. Passion is always discussed in architecture schools. But a high number of young graduates don’t remain in the industry in the long term. Do you think passion is overrated?
Mun Summ: No, I think passion is necessary for design and architecture. Without that, I think you shouldn’t be on this path. That would be the number one criterion. It’s a very difficult profession, and also a very complex one. If one doesn’t have the passion it’s tough to continue this career path. The fact is when you graduate, you’re still like a baby, an infant in your career. It takes time to learn the steps in the profession, and in practice. Then get to speed as a teenager with lots of energy and an abundance of testing and iterations. Only when you get past the teenage period in your 20s-30s when you feel more comfortable with design, do you become more efficient in doing your work.
For us now we’re very efficient in our work, we do things a lot quicker compared to a fresh graduate who would take days or months without coming up with a solution. For us it’s instantaneous. That’s when you need passion to get you there. It’s why people say architecture is a life-long career, the older you get it’s like good wine- you become better with age.
Richard: I think there’s a slight difference. A lot of people misunderstand passion, there are 2 types of passion. There’s a writer called Cal Newport who writes about time management and passion. He says don’t follow your passion. The book is called ‘So good they can’t ignore you’. He states that there’s passion through acquiring knowledge, where you get so good at your work which is what Mun Summ was talking about. There’s another type of passion- you’re a passionate creator and you get frustrated when people don’t like what you’re doing, or your voice isn’t being heard.
‘There’s passion through knowledge- the better you get, the better you become. It’s like a positive cycle. Then there’s the passion where you’re impatient with all those things, where you just want to leave your mark and move to the top quickly. I think this passion is a bit destructive while the first passion is really productive.’
– Richard Hassell
5. Richard, you grew up in Australia and work in Singapore. How has living in these 2 countries helped shape your views on design?
Richard: What I realised is that every city is different in the equations of how everything works. Even in Perth to Sydney in the same country. Perth is a remote city and often everything was in short supply in its history. There’s a real ethos of making do with the simplest and cheapest solution. Budgets were lower, and expectations of things done very well were lower. Of course, it’s been changing with travel and transport so I think the culture has shifted since I left. I remember when I was a student I was told that a 4 metres span was extravagant for a room! You’re in a remote country town where you’re hoarding every piece of wood and trying not to waste anything.
Mun Summ: There’s still a little bit of that in Australia isn’t it?
Richard: Yes even in project management people like to chop and slash ‘em even if it’s something very high impact. The instinct is to get rid of it. While in Singapore being a trading port, with a lot of finance and trade and fairly profitable businesses. There’s also the Asian culture of ‘showing face’ and doing things to look expensive. Singapore has traditionally (although they’re getting rid of it) for a long time has had fairly low foreign labour. Workmanship and handwork have been a lot cheaper whereas in Australia it got more and more expensive.
‘Each city is like a different instrument, you have to play it a certain way to get the best music out of it. When we work we collaborate with the local architects so we can learn as much as playing the local instrument when we design.’
– Richard Hassell
6. During your time as a student, I’m sure you’ve made predictions of what the industry would look like today. Did those predictions materialise? Changes take time- what is something that you’d like to see in the future?
Richard: I think what worries us is how slowly it changes. In terms of looking at it from where it needs to go. Each project cycle could be 6-8 years, and from one cycle to the next there are very slow incremental changes. That inertia in the profession is worrying. When you say in 2050 we want to be here, it’s hard to see how we get there with the speed it currently changes.
Mun Summ: There are projects that are more complex now, and projects with a lot of interest in it as well. Rolling out new technologies takes a lot of pushing and time. Take for example the lift. In terms of technology, nothing has changed much since it got invented. Then there’s this technology where it replaces cables, it uses a gear system that can go both vertically and horizontally. It’s been a while for quite some time but somehow it’s not been adopted, not pushed sufficiently, and implemented in design. To see it materialise would completely change the typologies of buildings for the better. Everything takes a longer time than we anticipated. We always make predictions in our projects, sometimes we realise that a technology’s availability is much further into the future than we think.
Richard: When we were in university, the idea of a computer in your hand that could access all the world’s knowledge, sounded like the stuff of science fiction!
Mun Summ: Regarding technology, if it’s smaller and more standalone like the handphone, the scale is much smaller and less complex for a person to use. It doesn’t affect many people and takes off very fast. When you talk about buildings it affects so many things, higher stakes, and affects so many people, and I think that takes a lot of time.
7. Richard, you create artworks that are curated in galleries. How similar and different is architecture from art? Is architecture art? Where do you draw the line?
Richard: Hmm, I think I do art because architecture involves so many stakeholders. Sometimes it’s nice to do things just for yourself or a small group of people. And I think that is the big difference although it can be collaborative and can have a lot of stakeholders. It can also be something where you follow an interest and you don’t have to answer to anyone. There are no budget meetings and no risk analysis. I found it a useful safety valve that allows me to not make my architecture too much about self-expression, allows more collaboration, and an outlet that’s something more than about yourself.
There are things in common- it allows you to explore ideas about form, scale, proportion, and colours that can flow into architecture. It’s like a process of personal research and development. Occasionally there’ll be overlaps with architecture which can be useful. Some of the ideas we played around with ended up being on our facades.
8. I have the perception that Richard has this artistic perspective and Mun Summ has this scientific/ systems perspective and together both of you have the combination of perspectives that complement to make practical yet delightful spaces, is this assumption correct?
Richard: No haha. Mun Summ is much more artistic than me.
Mun Summ: Yes, you got it the other way round haha… But that’s not true, I think we’re both fairly good at it. I’m a little bit of a product of the Singapore system. In fact, I started secondary school doing Arts and was good at it. My art teacher told me I should pursue a career in art. But back in that time, the Singapore system pushed people who are better in their grades to do engineering. And instead of engineering, I ended up in architecture. I think it crippled me a little bit in terms of the artistic side of it. That is what education can do to you. I think we’re all born artistic, it’s the nurturing that makes us all very non-artistic.
Richard: If you see Mun Summ’s final year thesis project his drawings are beautiful. It’s all hand drawn.
Mun Summ: I think both of us are artistic, appreciators of the arts and also engineers in mind, fairly scientific in thinking. Richard can amass data and technology very quickly so that is his advantage. His brain is like a supercomputer.
Richard: Which was revealed in a genetic test! I’m a super processor apparently, but I really enjoy science and data. When you dump in a lot of information, processing leaps with the information together with drawing, you can feel the whole thing coming together. I can’t describe how it works, and it needs some focus and concentration. Sometimes I take a couple of days to focus on a problem, I can actually feel my brain running hot! It’s a really cool feeling to be working on a design problem in a focused way. You’re like a concert pianist playing a concerto. I love it when I can get to that point.
Richard and Mun Summ reminiscing their younger years
9. On the importance and impact of Systems Thinking on smaller developments…
Richard: The principle of making the problem bigger I think can still work with houses. Even if it’s a suburban house on a small plot, if you look around the neighbourhood from a biodiversity point of view, how can I enhance it and how can I connect habitats? You can think about your water storage and collection. Are you harvesting and retaining water on site, not flooding the stormwater system? If you have a detached house with a PV roof you should be energy positive for sure. It’s a matter of ambition I think. One useful thing to say is “if every house in the suburb did this, where would we be?”
By setting yourself up as a beacon of Systems Thinking and high performance, you can shame the rest of the developments around you. One study we’ve been doing with big buildings is if every high rise in the area did this what would the temperature drop by?
Mun Summ: If you think about all the landed housing in Australia having a solar roof, I think Australia would have achieved its target of clean energy already.
Richard: For sure! Some suburbs are just old roofs, hot baking roofs in the sun, with hardly any plants. Imagine if that’s a solar farm, which no one notices because no one would look on top of their roofs.
Any project standalone has a minimum impact. You have to imagine that it’s rolled out at scale to see the true power of Systems Thinking.
-End of interview-
Thank you Mun Summ and Richard.
Leave a Reply