Original LA 12 interview conducted in 1976.

Beyond the fact that its a way of making a living, why do you practice architecture?

My primary goals when I entered the fields of architecture and planning were to someday be involved with projects that could make a social contribution. I had always hoped that physical design would possibly effect social-political institutions, and through proper planning and an excellent environment, our society would better be able to establish a viable life-style based upon a consistent value system. I have found these utopian ideals to be outside our national fabric and ideology.

Instead, I have to be content to produce the best design projects within my capabilities and the limitations imposed by the programs of various clients. I have attempted to keep a consistency in the thought processes related to these various projects and use the attitude of diversity within consistency as my major philosophical contribution.

What do you have to offer the profession?

I offer the profession whatever design skill I have, together with a concern for human values. I hope that my recent role as an educator has and will make a contribution to younger men endeavoring to enter the profession. These contributions, if any, are better judged by others than myself.

Are there any changes you would like to see in the profession?

I would like to see the profession have more political muscle. I would like the profession to have a greater voice in decision-making related to governmental programs of housing and environmental concerns. I would like architects to take a lead in exaluating existing natural resources and energy systems in order to establish national priorities. I would like architects to set rational limits on the use of materials and the manner in which they are used in architecture. I would like the profession to have a social commitment. I would like the profession to have morality.

What period of architecture history do you relate to, or enjoy, most?

The Middle Ages, Romanesque, and Gothic Periods.

What architect has had the most influence in attitudes toward your design philosophy?

I feel architecture grows upon architecture. Therefore, all predecessors influence the work of all successors. Even though their work is not necessarily similar, philosophically there are similarities among Wright, Gropius, Le Corbusier and Mies Van der Rohe. I was influenced by all of them, as well as Maybeck, Green and Green, Gill, Neutra, Schindler, Harris, Ain, Soriano and Kahn. My most immediate influence before entering my own practice in 1953 was Carl Maton for whom I worked three years. I do not consciously attempt to incorporate these influences in any direct manner, but I realize that they surface through the subconscious in my work as they do in most architects work

How do you see the role of the architect in twenty-five years?

I am unable to prognosticate the architects role. I assume it may not change since the architect has made few strides to establish any new roles for himself. I think the architect reflects society now and will continue to do so.

Do you have a "typical" design program that you use when approaching a project?

The program is always different. However, I do give similar design considerations to the parts of the program that might be similar, such as user, site, orientation, materials, etc. I also have an attitude about diversity within consistency that has been an underlying concern of mine. I have, therefore, used similar systems when appropriate in order to test their flexibility and universality.

Is "form follows function" at all a consideration in your design analysis of a project?

Form and function are one. They are only separated by the younger designer when he is unable to handle many aspects of design at once. Form is made up of many ingredients other than pure function unless one expands the definition of function infinitely. Form can and in my opinion should be a response to user function, structural and mechanical function, geophysical forces, material, integrity, technological innovation, environmental perception, space progression, reflection and reflectivity, sun and shadow, and political, social and economic forces.

Do you feel that designing to conserve energy is a critical part of designing?

It is naturally an important consideration at the present time. I do not feel that we have a thorough grasp of all the factors concerning energy use, however, and I do know a great deal of further research is necessary. In the meantime, we should become aware and consider form response that might result from energy considerations. We should also demand a set of national priorities in the areas of energy and natural resources.

What advice would you give someone entering the field of architecture?

I would advise a young architectural aspirant to enter the field with a tremendous sincerity and idealism. I would ask him to have a social conscience in his decision-making. I would advise him to not be so anxious to get a project into construction that he would sell his ideals short.

What determinants do you consider to have had the greatest impact on architectural forms which make up L.A.?

Economic, first, political, second, which includes zoning and building restrictions, design third.

Architecturally speaking, what do you consider the future to hold for a megalopolis like L.A.?

I would think that with the cost of construction today that a single family homes, especially custom designed houses, will be a thing of the past. However, I have felt this way for the past six years and still custom housing has continued.

Do you feel that L.A. architecture can compare to architecture in San Francisco, Chicago, or New York?

I assume that it will continue to develop in the same manner that it has in the past. I do not see any forces, other than the possible transit or energy conservation that would change the present form.

What change would you like to see in L.A.?

I would like to see the automobile and its attendant forces removed from the metropolitan area and replaced with a non-polluting vehicle of about one-sixth the size of the present automobile which could afford a mode of transportation allowing the same flexibility we now enjoy. I would like this vehicle to eventually be phased into a computer controlled transportation network that would be publicly owned. Transportation pathways could be developed to carry these vehicles no farther than 50 feet away from any residence, placed in slight depressions screened from view by planting, be in continuous motion except for boarding and stop intervals, and not interfere with neighborhood pedestrian flow patterns. I would then like to see the land now used for streets, alleys, parking, and auto care returned to public use and greenbelts. Our freeways would still constitute our major transportation corridors, and major centers would develop at key transportation junctures. All of our utilities could be placed underground, and while we are at it, we could place tubes to convey goods in order to eliminate trucking. Since it is also possible to envision these purchases shipped through tubes either directly to our homes or to pickup points a few steps away. Since it is estimated that we will have eight million vehicles on the road in Southern California by 1980, and if we took the approximately $150 a month we spend to operate our autos, we could avail ourselves of $14 billion per year to be spent on the described proposal. This could build a superb system providing every benefit of the automobile without any of its disadvantages.

What would you consider a solution for the problem of low income housing?

The proposed fifteen percent of all housing starts which integrate low and moderate income housing seems to be a reasonable method to explore, but here are a few other thoughts on housing.

Most of our housing is out of step with the rest of our American system. Only the mobile home industry begins to approach the mentality of the automobile industry, but just barely. For most of us, the home continues to be the one symbol of security in our society. It is still our castle with the moat around it, except in recent years the moat has been the five foot side yard. We may move every five years, but we are unwilling to place the home in the same category of every other disposable object that makes up our American economy. We have a throw-away mentality about our appliances, our automobiles, our clothing, our furniture, but not our house. It remains a special kind of status symbol, a metaphor that represents permanence. It is one of the few materialistic objects that has continued to increase in value where everything else we own depreciates. Maybe if we could depreciate it and write off our expenses as we do with commercial properties our attitudes would change.

So what will our future housing be? We know that custom building costs are skyrocketing. In the past six years, we have seen a tripling of costs, and a 2000 square foot house (construction only) can easily cost $100,000. At the same time a 2000 square foot house does not usually coincide with the value system of a person who can afford to spend or borrow $100,000. Tract housing and condominiums tend to reduce these costs by using a repetitive system. But there isnt too much on the market under $50,000. Only the mobile industry is providing a product in the $20,000 category.

But it is difficult today to project the future. Our national society and our national economics are confused. Our attitude toward our national resources has not been clearly established. We do not have a national housing policy, or for that matter a state or local policy, which gives us any ability to project a public attitudes low and moderate cost housing. Our dedication to the housing industry.

If we do not have any policy changes, we will probably continue on in the same manner. Fewer and fewer people will be able to own a custom-designed house, and more attached housing will be placed upon the market for economic reasons. The government will continue to subsidize low and moderate income housing, and we will probably go through a period of experimentation to find out if we can integrate this housing with middle and upper income housing. Mobile homes will continue to proliferate and our cities will continue to be this diverse mix. I do not expect our population to ever accept the reality of flexibility, true mobility and change.

Only if we accepted the idea that it is necessary to develop a national or really an international policy of survival might some meaningful changes be made in our housing mentality. If the government or governments limited the use of resources by specifying the materials that we have in abundance or those that can be recycled, there would be a reduction in the number of materials available for building. If it was determined that certain materials were more appropriate to one or another areas of the country due to climatic and geophysical conditions, another limit would be established and our choices would be reduced. If we decided to nationally make solar heating mandatory another physical form would be introduced. Therefore, if we limit choice for the good of everyone and the nation, we do introduce changes in our physical form. If housing becomes an important element of our economy, or better stated a priority of element, to diminish the unemployment rate, and if the only way that this could be controlled and accomplished was through the use of factory and industrial processes, we would then naturally have a new housing image. And, if we need more land to feed ourselves for survival, new requirements would be placed upon the way we use our land and how we build, and once again we would develop new physical forms.

Choices of this type, I feel, will have to be made in the not too distant future. Throughout history survival decisions have been major form-givers. I think it is time we establish a whole new value system and a reasonable set or priorities. If society has no clear conception of itself, our cities will continue to express chaos. I do not think we can continue with our present self-delusion.

How do you feel about outside architects coming into L.A. and doing buildings?

Its ok with me.

volume5

References:

1. Slert, Charles; 12 Los Angeles Architects; Graphics Communications Department, Cal Poly Pomona; 1978.

Raymond Kappe Interview