Interview with Architect James Pulliam

Interview conducted March 22, 1997 in Pasadena.

LA 12 Revisited

What have been the rewards of practicing architecture?

The rewards have been to have a happy client and have a completed project that I'm happy with, to achieve some things that I had hoped when I started out. I'd say those are the two primary rewards.

Have any other professions or types of work interested you?

Well, I've always been interested in the technical and engineering aspects of architecture. Our practice is now principally technical. We've made a complete conversion to CAD, a process in which I had to be dragged along. I started out in the days when you pinned the vellum to the table with a thumbtack. It's been a long transition for me, but in this move we totally changed the layout to accomodate a CAD process, and that's all we have now. We don't have a drafting board.

Do you miss the old system?

Oh yes, I worked in Chicago after I got out of Harvard, and we did some buildings for Mies, some of the working drawings for the Lake Shore Apartments, and the precision of those drafted drawings was amazing. So I miss that art form, if you will.

Would Mies have liked the computer?

I have a feeling he would! He would have found a way to refine it.

Did you ever think about going into politics?

No, but my partner, (Mortimer) Matthews, decided to go into politics here in Pasadena. He became the first design committee chairman, and then a planning commmissioner, and he was elected to the city council and then finally was mayor. When he finished that term, I never saw him again! He didn't stay in politics, but he took an early retirement.

Do you think that having someone from the design professions in the city government made a difference?

Oh sure, I think that's a good mix as long as they don't get too autocratic and dictatorial.

What are the main determinants in the design process for you?

Well, approaching every project with an open mind, avoiding preconceived notions, and letting the circumstances and requirements dictate the solutions as purely as possible. Giving the client something that they can use and enjoy and can afford; something they can take pride and pleasure in.

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

Stay away from preconceptions and ideologies and try to approach each part of a commission openly and as free of bias as possible.

Do you think that the architectural education today allows graduating students to do that?

I'm not in touch with the schools, but from what I've seen I think there's not an intent to drive the students in one direction or another. I think their best thinking is encouraged. The students might have a stack of architectural magazines over in the corner, though, having more influence than the faculty. As long as people bring an enthusiasm and abilities to the work, that's what's important.

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

People shouldn't get involved in cliches and trends. Factors of a program, budget, site conditions, and so forth will produce a quality project and solution.

Do you think that architecture tends to be trendy today?

Yes. But there are times when you see an amazing project, something with a unique and refreshing solution to a problem. So I have hopes. I'm not cynical. And I constantly challenge myself for each project to be a special one.

What would students learn from reviewing the body of architectural projects you have completed? What are some of the highlights among those projects?

I hope they would learn consistency, and the ability to modify the job to meet the conditions of the site, and those imposed by the client for their particular reasons.

The Abacus/Konditori retail store and cafe on South Lake Avenue in Pasadena was kind of a landmark project for us. This was in 1960. What we did was pull the storefront back enough to create a sidewalk space in the front of the building. The real estate broker thought we were crazy to give up that useable space, but the client stayed with it and so we created Pasadena's first sidewalk cafe, which you see in profusion now. That was a step forward.

Then we had another good project in the early 70's, a building for IBM for Expo 70 in Osaka, Japan. That was a heady experience, both the trips to Japan, and working at that high level. We traveled around in Osaka as much as we could, but there wasn't much time for touring - they're very hard workers, and while we were there they kept us going 16 hours a day.

We got the job because Charles Eames, who had the commission, had a concept which he refused to change - it was twice what they wanted to spend. As a result, we snuck in the side door. The building had a theater which was a polished aluminum box, and then adjacent to that it had displays and exhibits in the shelter underneath a big canopy. Also, the lineup for the next show was there so they could move as many people as possible through the exhibit.

Are there important projects in your body of work which you've designed that haven't been built, or plans that haven't carried out?

We did a big aluminum space frame project for Century City. The client was Alcoa. The system was to have these nodes fifteen feet on center and then the struts were bolted with stainless steel botls. The size of the strut was dependent on the loading characteristics of the space frame. We had a great time with this. It got to the point where we'd fabricated the struts and were all ready to start erecting, when they abandoned the project. It was a big disappointment. This was for a temporary exposition for the Bicentennial at Century City. They wanted all of the countries on the Pacific Rim to participate, but in the final analysis not enough of them signed on. But we had a great time up until when it was cancelled. As you can see, we got pretty far along in the process.

In a sense, the IBM project in Japan led to the space frame. We did another space frame for Circus World, with canvas and struts and piers and connectors in much the way we did the Alcoa space frame. But we were disappointed that we didn't get any of those built. There have been a number of projects like that, as for every architect. That's one of the things you have to live with. You start with high expectations and all kinds of drive and intiative, and suddenly it's terminated on you. You have to search around for something else that will keep your mind going.

You were involved in the master planning of Century City. How do you feel about the quality of architecture there?

I thought initially they had some pretty good signature buildings there, from a number of prominent architects. They didn't maintain that quality all the way through. The city government in Century City got into some disagreements over the intensity and type of land use, so it didn't achieve its initial premise, which was to be a total separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. That was one of its objectives.

How do you think the role of the architect will change over the next twenty-five years?

Well, a lot of this CAD work is done by people who don't have a very good grasp of architecture. It's becoming more of a technical excercise. The quality of the architecture is advanced it seems to me. In this office we have four techinicians - we don't call them draftspersons anymore. And were continually trying to give them architectural design skills, to bring that to bear in their development. But I don't know to what extent that's prevalent in the profession. The tendency is to want to get as much work product as possible as quickly as possible, and for good, sound reasons of job economy and budgeting.

Do you think that the presence of more technicians in the office frees up other personnel to do more of the creative work they enjoy, having to worry less about nuts and bolts?

I think it probably does, but I can't speak for other offices. I've become kind of engrossed in our operation here, it's amazing how little time you spend with your colleagues. I served as the chapter president of the Los Angeles AIA chapter, and that was about the peak of my linkage with the institute and other practitioners. Now as I say we're doing a lot of technical laboratories, a clean room for JPL, things like that. There was one firm in Chicago, Pace Associates, they couldn't work after Mies was gone, so they ended up doing pipeline. I was reminded of that when we got a job Kaiser - we do various jobs at a couple of the campuses - we were given a job to trace about fifteen big 4'-6" telecom conduits through an older building. It was really a challenge, but I don't think we'll win a design award for it.

A surgeon may, but an architect wouldn't.

What are the key influences in your work today?

The key influence has always been Walter Gropius. I had the chance to tudy with him at Harvard. It's now going on fifty years since that experience, but he's always been a role model - I have great respect for him, his integrity and his pedagogical skills.

Did that Bauhaus experience being brought to Harvard really rejuvenate the school? There was a once in a century gouping of talent. At the time, did you feel that?

Not as much as I do today. It was extraordinary - there were members of TAC, The Architects Collaborative, were part of the faculty; (I.M.) Pei was there, and (Marcel) Breuer. Edward Larabee Barnes was a student. It was a rare opportunity.

Just after I finished at Harvard I was recalled into the Marine Corps, to go to Korea. And so I had a ruined transition from constructing and building, to destroying. It was a strange time in my life. I did two stints in the Marine Corps, the first at the tail end of World Was II, and in between I was trying to learn how to build things. Of course there was also marriage and starting a family and so forth. It was a strange mix, and it really put me to the test.

After your involvement with the AIA, do you still keep track of the issues in the organization? What do you think are the AIA's biggest challenges?

Well, I've tried to delegate my involvement to Bernard Zimmerman. He's always involved and keeps me in touch with the profession, what other people are doing and thinking. I'm very appreciative of that. He's always excited about what's going on - now he's trying to get the Disney Concert Hall built; there's always a challenge. I hope some day he'll get the chance to be the president of the AIA's Los Angeles Chapter. He richly deserves it and he certainly gives the time and energy to the profession, which I must admit I don't anymore.

Do you think that architecture still has a role to play in finding a solution to low cost housing?

My thesis project involved housing on the south side of Chicago. I was immensely interested in that, and took trips to Chicago to meet with city officials, Michael Reese Hospital on the South Side, and the planning commission. Walter Gropius wrote the prologue. I was ready to save the world with low cost housing in urban areas. Since then, we've done any number of wood frame, type 5 residences, apartment clusters, and so forth. When I was in school there was the fold-up house that Carl Cook designed, and any number of systems put forward for reducing cost. But they were always fought by the unions (because of the mass production) so there's never been a breakthrough.

I think low cost housing is a mis-nomer because of the densities that you can put on the type 5 and because of the cost of the land, not to mention the inability to break through and streamline the construction process. It takes a lot of participation by lenders, building officials, money markets, and the skills of the architect.

There always seems to be this conflict, that when you go to an architect and you get even low cost housing designed fairly well, but because it's good design, that adds more money in a free capital market. So even if you are able to bring the square footage costs down, by the time it comes back on the market the design will add value to it. So then the price will go back up. So well-designed low-cost housing is kind of this funny dilemna.

Yes, it's a paradox.

You have been observing the city of Pasadena as it's developed over several decades. You've chosen to move your office here to Old Pasadena. Are you happy with what's happened here, and do you see it continuing in a healthy pattern?

I think there's an interesting mix of old and new. Thirty years ago we did a scheme for Colorado Boulevard which has only recently come to fruition. We had a great time with that study.

We're sitting here in an old building that's been reused for offices. Has historic preservation effected your work as its come more into the public consciousness in the past twenty years?

One of the interesting projects we did was to convert an old armory building on Raymond into a children's art workshop. We got an award from the local chapter for that two years ago. And more and more of our work here deals with reusing and recycling older buildings. I do enjoy that challenge. I enjoy all the challenges!

Is energy conservation still an important factor in your work? Do you think that people are still trained to respond to that?

Well, the government programs providing for public assiatance for energy conservation have gone away, I guess with the Reagan administration. But I don't see it being any less important. There's a time bomb: the depletion of energy resources. I think its got to be kept on the front burner.

What do you think are the most important determinants that have guided architectural development in Los Angeles?

I worked with Richard Neutra when I got out of the service, and that was a great experience. I think there's innovation on all sides here. It's a great opportunity, to practice architecture in this environment. But it's constantly being hemmed in by the systems of control, like the building department. We just finished a job for the parks and recreation department of the City of Los Angeles, restoring an existing pool building down on the south side and it's unbelievable the bureaucracy's intrusion in the process. Zoning, building codes, fire codes - the opportunity to just simply design is just overwhelmed by these administrative jurisdictions. It is tough to do projects in this environment, and it's costly. In this firm, we've had to shrink to half our size, squeeze in here and put up some partitions, and cut our overhead.

Do you prefer doing institutional and civic projects for smaller entities? Have you found there to be a great difference between, for instance, completing a project for Pasadena as opposed to Los Angeles?

There's some kind of quantum leap between the small city and the major metropolitan area. The cost of doing business, just complying with all the different regulations, is increased significantly in larger cities. That's not to say you don't take the project when it's offered to you - you just have to figure out how you'll do it and stay alive. So people now moving into the profession will have a tough time producing good architecture amd still feeding their families and meeting their obligations.

Your from Kansas originally?

I was two when we moved to Pasadena.

When you would go back to visit relatives, were you always comparing Pasadena to Kansas? Were you glad that you lived here and not there, or the other way around?

No, au contraire; except that there's no work to do there. The silos are all built. I used to visit when my parents and I would drive back to Kansas in the summer time. Everyone gathered in the town square on Saturday nights, and it gave me a great sense of community. Now that's disappeared because of the shopping center down at Hutchinson - it is thirty miles away, but they drive there rather than go to town, so the town is deteriorating. But I've always recognized the roots and I've enjoyed going back and visiting and keeping that contact.

When you've done urban design projects throughout your career, did you keep that small community in mind?

All those miles of prarie and low, rolling landscape; it's hard to tie that in with, say, Bunker Hill.

How do you feel about Bunker Hill, after being involved with planning there? Is it exciting to see the museum go up, and all of the key buildings beginning to come into place?

Well, it was a total change of the landscape. I'm sure there could have been a solution that preserved some of the old buildings and streets, like San Francisco has - you can't imagine going up there and leveling Telegraph Hill!

Somehow, someone not only imagined it here, but they made it happen.....

The city, for heaven's sake, has little enough heritage as it is. While there's something to be said for the big plazas and open spaces, there's also a loss of intimacy and of historic linkage. It's easy to second guess, but from where we are now and what we know, I think there might have been a better solution. Even if I'd known that at the time, I don't know if I'd been in a position to make some proposals, so I don't mean to second guess what went on.

Is there a particular space in the area of downtown Los Angeles that you'd take someone to if you were going to show them the perfect LA space or moment?

Olvera Street, the old pueblo, where the streets are closed to traffic.

Over the years of your practice, it seems that stylistic issues have not been big determinants for you. You know what your methodology was, and you've stayed very true to that. Do you feel that Post Modernism had any effect on your practice? Did you find a difference in what clients were demanding, or what kinds of projects did or didn't come to the firm?

Probably the latter. It was never an issue with me - I was pretty stubborn about my convictions. It's definitely reduced the amount of work here, which is unfortunate. No, I just never had any inclination to do what I'd call a stylized architecture. And I don't say that's what's right, it's just the way it works for me. Maybe I should be a little more adventurous? Then I might not be doing so many pipelines? I may have had kind of a myopic experience in architecture. I've experimented more in a pure design sense.

The New York Five in the early seventies, which largely revisited some of the work of Le Corbusier and that clear-cut international style, was that an influential factor to you?

Yes - there's been a consistency in their practices that I identify with.

Many of your buildings are in the public realm. When you're out at Cal Poly, you can walk into the student union, or here in Pasadena you can go to the library buildings that you've done. Do you ever do that? On a Saturday morning, do you just go and sit in one of your buildings?

Well, I used to have Swedish pancakes at the Konditori! I'm really distressed at the loss of that resource. I take pleasure in visiting the buildings that I'm happy with. For the Abacus/Konditori building, we were nominated for the twenty-five year award from the Pasadena and Foothill Chapter of the AIA. But it was taken off the list because the owner didn't preserve it - didn't take care of it - that was disappointing, it would have been a nice honor. We had some beautiful teak cabinets in the Abacus space. The original owner was the person who operated the shop. I always used to go and visit that space, until it was taken apart. So yes, I do enjoy that. I guess there isn't any architect that doesn't!

LA 12 Interview

Thank you Jim

volume5