This is the first in a series of posts based on an exhibition that I co-curated at SCI-Arc in 2005. The show featured drawings and models by Frederick Fisher, Hodgetts and Fung, Coy Howard, Frank Israel, Koning Eizenberg, Ray Kappe, Anthony Lumsden, Moore Ruble Yudell, Morphosis, Eric Owen Moss, Cesar Pelli, Glen Small, and Studioworks.
With a nod to Mimi Zeiger’s Loudpaper, we made a ‘zine with designer Brian Roettinger for the exhibition that included a series of interviews with the exhibitors and some boot-legged essays about LA by Charles Jencks, Peter Cook, Michael Sorkin, and Rem Koolhaas.
Over the course of this year, I will be posting the interviews conducted in July and August of 2005, a selection of those writings, and the original catalog essay with a new epilogue. Up first is a conversation with Ray Kappe, SCI-Arc Founder, Architect, and Urban Designer.
In April, keep your eyes open for an interview with Cesar Pelli, the designer of West Hollywood’s Big Blue Whale, and a few other lesser known but equally taut, glass-skinned buildings in Southern California.
Ray Kappe FAIA
On Teaching
What was teaching architecture like in LA before you founded SCI-Arc?
Ray Kappe (RK): In the mid-Sixties, there were two architectural programs.
At USC, there was primarily a discussion of rational design decision-making with Ralph Knowles and Bob Anderson, and a few others leading the way. UCLA at that same time was starting a rather vital curriculum in which they brought over the Archigram group and other future thinkers.
It was a pretty dynamic school in terms of projecting new ideas in a completely different way. That was the pre-70s. When I started the program at Cal Poly in the late sixties, the teaching was based on a combination of rational thinking and process-based design similar to USC but also futures oriented, which was new for the West Coast, particularly because prior to that West Coast teaching was concerned primarily with Post and Beam architecture.
What I didn't like about USC's pedagogy under Sam Hurst was the sequence of the studio emphasis. So when I started Pomona and UCLA was in the process of changing pedagogical direction, I asked Ron Herron of Archigram and members of the Chrysalis group who had been at UCLA to interrelate with our program.
We also had landscape and planning departments at Pomona, and we were promoting the idea of team teaching rather than promoting the idea of the strong individual. It was really more about how you operate as a team because architecture is not made usually by one person. It is made by a collaboration of people. UCLA also had a different focus when Harvey Perloff became the Dean, and Tim Vreeland became the Chair. They emphasized human behavior, urban planning, and social issues.
SCI-Arc started in '72, and there we were, trying to continue what we had started at Cal Poly, but we now had the opportunity to explore even more. What could we do educationally with an open door policy and no restrictions?
It was an exciting time.
Our founding faculty was composed of those who had been at Cal Poly; Thom Mayne, Jim Stafford, Glen Small, Bill Simonian, Ahde Lahti, and Shelly Kappe. After we were established, I was looking for young architects who were beginning their practices. The combination of practicing with an emphasis on teaching seemed to be the best combination for a faculty member—as opposed to inviting some of the more established architects who quite often gave up teaching for practice when they became busy.
By 1974, Eric Moss and Terry Glassman joined the studio staff, followed by many others, including Fred Fisher, Coy Howard, Robert Mangurian, and Craig Hodgetts. Several of these were excellent educators who were not being appreciated at UCLA. We tended then to try to balance the rational, linear teaching with the subjective and intuitive aspects of architecture. Thom joined the Faculty originally as a Ralph Knowles disciple, and all of his projects were really about an environmental response.
Eric had studied with Kenzo Tange, one of the important Metabolists. Eric was doing excellent technically-oriented projects with students. We balanced all of this with projects having to do with urban issues.
SCI-Arc also emphasized public lectures each Wednesday and promoted them with large posters. As soon as we did that, USC and UCLA also increased their lecture series, which had been more sporadic. So it became much more dynamic in the city with the discussions, lectures, and architectural happenings.
SCI-Arc
How would you compare SCI-Arc then and now?
RK: I think that the nature of the place is what SCI-Arc then and now have in common. The idea that it looks casual, that it doesn't look restricted is important.
It is more about the physical environment rather than the academic environment—because I don't think it is the same today. Each era has different personalities. Each Director has had a different point of view about where they wanted to take the school, but I am sure that it is still consistent in some ways.
Michael (Rotondi) emphasized craft much more than I did. The timing was quite good because, at the time, it was difficult to get architectural work, so many of the students became great fabricators- that was quite good. We didn't do that during my time as Director. We were making things, large structures, tents, etc. but not with the intention of craft.
The school has also become more institutionalized over time. The Board also became more institutionalized. But I think one would reasonably expect that as the school matured. Presently, I hear the discussion about SCI-Arc's involvement with Downtown, but I don't think we have even started to have the impact we might. We could be doing more, and I think we will.
Architecture vs. Urban Design
Your office designed single-family homes and large planning projects. What was that like?
RK: My office always did both urban design and architecture. Our firm, which was a small firm, had a rather major position in the city, competing with the DMJMs and others.
At that time, we were about the only smaller scale firm dealing with concerns like the People Mover system in Downtown Los Angeles. I had a partnership that allowed me to teach and act as the design partner while my partners took on other aspects of the planning work.
We were a small shop, but we had a great deal of interesting work- about 6o% of our work was urban design from 1968 to 1981. I helped start Barrio Planners when I was at Pomona. Later our firm brought them in on a joint-venture for a job in East L.A. I was always interested in planning, even as a student at Cal [UC Berkeley.]
I think the sensibility of the architect can work for planning. Policy, economics, and social issues are important in the planning process, but our role was primarily physical planning and urban design.
I've always liked the combination of architecture and planning. Architecture is faster. You get more immediate satisfaction. But the part about planning that I like is that you really do it as a team. We would brainstorm together, and in the process, I loved that synergy. When doing a house or a building, I don't want synergy. I want to be by myself.
So the planning process is the exact opposite of the architectural process for me. I think one has to feel comfortable at both scales.
For further viewing: Ray Kappe, Lecture SCI-Arc, (September 10, 1997)