Scribd
Upload
108 views4 pages

Joshua Ramus: "I'M Not Saying That It'S Easy": Mr. Ramus, What Concerns You About The Architecture Industry Today?

1) Joshua Ramus discusses his unconventional career path in architecture, which he credits to opportunities given to him early in his career by Rem Koolhaas at OMA that allowed him to grow rapidly. 2) Ramus believes the architecture field has stagnated in how it deals with advancing individuals and firms, and that opportunity is based more on experience than capability. 3) As the founder of REX, Ramus prioritizes intimate engagement with users to design buildings that change people's lives, rather than seeking novelty or iconic status.

Uploaded by

siyue hu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
108 views4 pages

Joshua Ramus: "I'M Not Saying That It'S Easy": Mr. Ramus, What Concerns You About The Architecture Industry Today?

1) Joshua Ramus discusses his unconventional career path in architecture, which he credits to opportunities given to him early in his career by Rem Koolhaas at OMA that allowed him to grow rapidly. 2) Ramus believes the architecture field has stagnated in how it deals with advancing individuals and firms, and that opportunity is based more on experience than capability. 3) As the founder of REX, Ramus prioritizes intimate engagement with users to design buildings that change people's lives, rather than seeking novelty or iconic status.

Uploaded by

siyue hu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

JOSHUA RAMUS: “I’M NOT SAYING THAT

IT’S EASY”
SHORT PROFILE
Name: Joshua Ramus
DOB: 11 August 1969
Place of birth: New Haven, Connecticut, United States
Occupation: Architect

JANUARY 3, 2018 EMMA ROBERTSON

LISTEN TO AUDIO EXCERPT


Mr. Ramus, what concerns you about the architecture industry
today?

Our profession has stagnated in how it deals with the advancement of both
individuals and firms. Opportunity is rarely based on capability, but primarily
on experience: “I’ve done so many hours, I’ve paid my dues and I’ve met
certain qualification requirements.” And that’s more endemic of American
practice than it is European practice.

So what was it like for you working at OMA in Rotterdam in your


early days?

I benefited greatly from Rem Koolhaas’ commitment to ability over


experience. Rem provided us with opportunities far beyond our years,
opportunities that generated a whole diaspora of ex-OMA firms currently
doing exceptional work. But in general, young architects today are met with
limited prospects within the traditional practice model, and will likely still be
considered young 30 years from now. Alternatively, you can find your own
methods of practice; explore your capabilities. I’m not saying that it’s easy, but
there are many recent examples of successful young architects who have
established their own unique courses of practice.

“These experiences pushed me to grow


at an unbelievable speed and depth.
Mine is not a normal trajectory.”
Would you say that you’re one of them?

No, I can’t credit my position as the result of blazing a new path. I was very
lucky. I joined OMA in the mid-1990s at an amazingly opportune time. We
were very small as the firm was re-growing after a severe downturn. Yet the
office had very high profile commissions due to Rem’s recognition as one of
the most — if not the most — intellectually challenging architects of the
modern era. He placed us in situations unwarranted by our experience, and
gave us exceptional freedom.

Thom Mayne said he believes in giving people as much power as


possible and then letting them find their breaking point.

Exactly, these experiences pushed me to grow at an unbelievable speed and


depth. And they led to my opening OMA’s US office, to the US office
establishing its own identity, and to it eventually evolving into REX. So, I do
have to be cognizant that I was given unusual opportunities. Mine is not a
normal trajectory.

But maybe these unusual opportunities are simply necessary these


days — maybe we have reached a time where conventional methods
are no longer cutting it.

I think that we’re definitely hitting a moment... For the last several centuries,
intellectual inquiry developed into ever more specific silos. Over time, as
disciplinary knowledge bases expanded, these silos broke into more and more
discrete parts, advanced by more and more rarified explorations. There
evolved a silo of quantum physics, a silo of applied mathematics, et cetera. But
we are now at an extraordinary moment of “Entanglement,” in which the
borders between silos are dissolving.
What do you mean?

I think today the most profound ideas are generated by those operating at the
boundaries between multiple silos, who can synthesize information and find
connections at the intersection of traditional spheres of inquiry. Synthesis is
now equally important to, if not more potent than, creation. We look for
connections between ideas, whether new, existing, or forgotten.

So you feel that there are no more brand new ways of thinking
about architecture?

I guess I’m saying that the “brand new” doesn’t interest me. I really appreciate
the thesis of Johnston Marklee’s Chicago Architecture Biennial of “Make New
History.” As I understand their premise, architectural discourse and
architectural design are unduly and dangerously infatuated with “the new.” To
our detriment, our profession is obsessed with creating designs the likes of
which no one has ever before seen. But at REX, we couldn’t care less if an idea
is new or old, fresh or stale…

OPEN GALLERY
An old idea can still be a great idea.

Right, it only matters that it is powerful under the circumstances we are


exploring. Just about every architect’s mission statement speaks to the
importance of innovation, so architects start every project in a haze of panic,
daunted by the challenge of designing a profoundly new structure. It’s sort of
like saying, “This project has to be iconic.” Well, if you’re setting out to do
something iconic, you’re not going to achieve it. If you set out to do something
innovative, chances are you’re not being self-aware enough to be so. These
types of artificial objectives are not what the design process is about at REX.

What is it about then?

It’s about being smart. We have intentionally kept the office at a controlled
dimension, so that our core team can remain intimately involved in all our
work. This helps us to keep a strong culture of criticality, engaged in the
specifics of each project. We just went through this process at Brown
University where we’re designing a new performing arts center: our core team
met extensively with faculty, staff, students, and administrators over the
course of an entire week to find out what they want from the building.

After all, it’s these people that will actually be using the space so
their ideas are probably the most important.

Personally, I would never want to relinquish this kind of intimate engagement


with the users of our designs. It’s just too rewarding. I have experienced this
again and again, on projects like Seattle Central Library and The Perelman
Performing Arts Center at the World Trade Center. I had a vested interest in
the former because I was raised in Seattle, and in the latter because I have
lived in New York for most of my adult life, and was here during 9/11. It’s why
you would be an architect over many other things: the ability to change the
lives of people that you have now a vested interest in. The greater the removal
from them, the less rewarding, the less is at stake for you — and what a pity.

You might also like