ETC

W.O.R.D. expresses a commitment to criticality, which is something we love at Jargon ETC. What aspects of a project should generate
a critical response? What condition(s) are you most critical of? Generally speaking, much recent criticism has been levied on “formally
extravagant” architecture, especially during the economic downturn. Do you feel that this affects your creation of critical work?

CW
All aspects of a problem can generate a critical response, but usually only a few warrant one in any given exploration. We always try
to examine a project in its context. When I say context, I don’t mean its geographical location and surroundings, but rather, the
cultural, social and political climate in which it’s taking place. Only after thorough reflection and research on these topics can we
begin to predict what may be appropriate now and thirty years into the future.

You brought up the term ‘formal extravagance’ in your question, and I feel that it always deserves criticism, not simply when it occurs
in an economic downturn. The word extravagance really sums up the problem as an unrestrained construction of the unnecessary.
Aesthetically we’re now capable of nearly anything, but it seems that the majority of form-based architecture is mere decoration. It
tells us nothing of the time we live in, and we are no better for having seen it. Formal extravagance places architecture in the realm
of sculpture, but architecture is more than that. I saw an interview in which Richard Serra said that architecture is not an art, because
true art has no ‘use.’ I agree. Architecture must function! Above that, great architecture has the power to enlighten us, but not
simply by aesthetic means, or by making us exclaim, “Wow, look at what we can do with the computer!” Rather, there’s a real,
intimate understanding waiting to be discovered, a dialogue and relationship between our spatial constructions and human
interaction. My work now, and especially my work in the future, will focus on the use of architecture as a tool to research and provoke
that human experience and forward our understanding of the world in which we live.

I know that what I do is considered ‘formally extravagant’ by some. But, it takes a trained eye to see beyond the form to the richness
of the work, the research and the intent. That also goes for many projects done by other architects around the world, sometimes the
richness is there, but more often, it’s not.

ETC
You are a young practitioner who has been able to find international projects in China and Taiwan. Your prior boss, Thom Mayne once
said, “The only way to be successful as an American architect is to succeed first abroad, and then get projects at home.” According to
your experiences, could you comment about the truthfulness of this observation?

CW
Sadly, it seems that clients in the U.S. confuse youth with inability. Europe and Asia are more accepting and appreciate the energy
and fresh ideas that we offer. In some cases the divide created by geography and language allows us to work with a sense of
anonymity of experience, which too many young offices is an enormous benefit as we aren’t judged by our history, but by the quality
of the work at hand.

ETC
What do you want to accomplish with W.O.R.D. that is intentionally different from the work of Morphosis? Related to this, what are
some other projects or people who are influencing you at this time of your career?

CW
I’d like to answer this question by first telling you what I’d like to accomplish that is intentionally similar to their work. Earlier you
brought up the phrase ‘formally extravagant.’ People – critics, architects and the public have often applied this label to Morphosis’
work, but it’s neither a fair nor a critical assessment. The work is complex, yes, but is accomplished only after thousands of hours of
research, investigation and experimentation. The work is not ‘formal’ as that term implies the act of purposeful sculptural creation,
whereas in fact, the working process at Morphosis relies upon the unknown, on the unpredictable result of an intensely systematic
method of working. If I could mimic a quality of their work, it would be to design all of the projects holistically, meaning that
everything is integrated, from the structural and mechanical systems to the ideologies embodied and spaces created, like beautiful
machines.

Since leaving Morphosis, our design process has definitely mimicked theirs, which is why our work may appear similar to some. To
me that’s obviously a natural consequence of having been with an office for a lengthy period of time. As I mature, my design will
mature, and at some point I’ll probably outgrow my comfy Morphosis sweater.

Influences…well, my favorite project on the boards is Nouvel’s proposal for the Louvre, Abu Dhabi. Something about it speaks to me.
Maybe it’s the way things seem to hover over water and air, or it could be the way the dome resembles a shock wave from a bomb
blast, I’m not sure. What I am sure of is that I’m amazed by the power of such a simple act in creating an entirely new spatial
experience.

I’m also completely intrigued by Rem Koolhaas, but not necessarily with his architecture. I’m fascinated by his evolution from
journalist to architect, and how that has affected his research and writing. He’s prolific, to say the least.

ETC
One thing that is often discussed on this blog is architectural representation. You have produced some lovely drawings, such as a very
nice worm’s eye view in your Beverly Hills House; could you talk about what you see as the relationship of representations to your
practice? Do projects ever cause an innovation in your presentation methods?

Since graduate school I’ve been fascinated with Expressionism, particularly with the German and Austrian painters. During school I
took a day trip from Philly to New York with some friends to see the Egon Schiele exhibit at MoMA. It was as if the clouds had parted.
There, in front of me, was real emotion and meaning presented by a few strokes of graphite and paint on board. I mentioned earlier
that Serra quote in which he says art has no use. Well, that may be true in the sense that it’s often incapable of physical affect. But
psychologically, it can be absolutely penetrating! From that day forward I didn’t think about art or representation in the same way. I
must admit though that what I saw has not yet translated into my architectural representation. I think that’s due to the nagging
necessity of function that architecture, and hence, architectural representation must have. If we don’t address that issue among
others, the representation is useless, which means we might as well all become artists. There are means, however, to convey mood,
emotion and ideas in a working architectural representation, which is something I’d like to explore in my future work. Again, Nouvel
comes to mind as someone who is pushing current limits here by turning his renderings into fantastic cinematic interpretations, but I
believe more can be done.

I recently worked on a project with a friend of mine, Rudabeh Pakravan, in which we gave ourselves one day to produce 13 images of
varying scale to go along with a text that she had written. We used Gerhard Richter’s overpaintings for inspiration and ended up with
some interesting work. For our purpose, I believe that what we accomplished in one day equals what normally would have taken us
weeks in terms of conveying an idea. It’s like relating a sketch to a realistic computer rendering; both may convey similar intent, but
a simple sketch can often tell us more.

ETC
Does your approach to addressing an architectural problem remain stable, or do you find it changing significantly with each project?

CW
The approach is constantly shifting. I’m becoming more and more fascinated with the ideas behind a design rather than the design
itself. This is something hard for me to do as I’ve been an aesthete my entire life. I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to completely
abandon that part of my history, but if it does happen it could be an amazing thing. There was an interesting entry in Lebbeus
Woods’ blog where he wrote about his appreciation of the ‘ugly’ over the ‘beautiful.’ Basically, he equated beauty to popular
acceptance, meaning that a design must have been recycled, tweaked and watered-down per public opinion to gain that acceptance.
Rather than acting as leaders, experimenting and challenging the status quo, those who create the beautiful today may simply be
catering to public opinion. He used the recent architecture of Frank Gehry vs. Le Corbusier’s chapel in Ronchamp as examples. I’m
sure you can guess which prevailed in his mind.

Does my approach change from project to project because of the particular issues I’m addressing? No. The change comes from a
purposeful experimentation with methodology that shifts over time and has very much to do with what’s happening around me as
well as with whom I’m working.

ETC
Sustainability. This has been the big buzz word of the last few years among the profession with LEED and the USGBC occupying
spaces in the credits for most large projects. How do you view your office’s role in sustainability?

CW
I believe that the topics that fall under the umbrella term of sustainability are important and must be addressed. But honestly,
sustainable design is something I’ve always done, whether it was in Boulder where we were all taking mandatory ecology classes and
dealing with passive heating and cooling means in studio, or while I was at Morphosis where all of the projects we touched addressed
these ideas long before LEED became a buzzword. I do it. Everyone should do it. But it should never have become a world abused
by organizations and corporations. They simply co-opted a term, turned it into a niche market and now make millions by exploiting it.
In some ways it’s good that it happened, but it didn’t happen in the right way. In short, I’m a sustainable designer because I want to
be. I’m a LEED AP because I have to be.

ETC
You have been involved in well received projects, like the Taiwan CDC, that were also not built. What are some things that you learned
from these experiences? What would you have changed?

CW
The Taiwan project was an entry for a two stage international competition that eventually received an honorable mention. I
completed that project while a partner at Studio Shift. Of seven finalists, the top three were Taiwanese led entries while the other
four were foreign led teams. I’ve learned that some things, no matter how good the design, are out of our control. We were really
trying to win, and in retrospect, we nearly killed ourselves completing a competition in which we realistically never had a chance. If I
could do it over, I would, but I wouldn’t necessarily try to win. Rather, I’d use the time and effort to explore new ideas and
provocations.

ETC
When you communicate with clients who do not use English as a first language, what tools are important to gain their support and
approval?

CW
For me this question is simple. My mother is Korean, but I was born in America and never learned the language. Some of my aunts,
uncles and cousins don’t speak English, so I’ve dealt with this barrier my entire life. There is only one word that you need to
remember when dealing with others: respect. They may not speak your language, and they may do things differently, but if you
listen, have patience and put forth real effort toward working with them and are still able to accomplish what you set out to do,
everything will be better because of it.

ETC
What is your opinion on contemporary "building construction / building design" culture outside of the US?

CW
Spain and Korea are kicking our asses...hard, and nearly everyone else at least came to watch. Dubai and China are completely
open-minded, but they’re usually building for all of the wrong reasons, showmanship and greed.

Our faltering is a function of a conservative, extremely capitalistic and risk adverse society. For the most part, we build easy
buildings, and do it cheaply. When we build well, it’s usually because of a foreseen economic gain, one that ‘starchitect’ status can
bring to a development. Other countries are willing to take a chance and will put forth resources and the time to see things through,
because of pride and longevity. Our current state of design is a consequence of having dealt with this quagmire for as long as anyone
can remember, and even with the new administration, things will most likely not get better for modern design. Really, where do you
think Obama would rather live, in a knock-off Tudor or the Mobius House?
ETC
Several projects at W.O.R.D. appear to stem from analysis of the program at social, perceptual, psychological, or economic levels.
Could you talk about how you go about these analyses and what advantages it brings to your designs? As architects develop tools for
more comprehensive analysis of programmatic needs, is there a risk of overcomplicating or embellishing a programmatic strategy to
ineffective aims?

CW
These analyses and responses are based on a variety of things. We are very interested in broadening the programmatic agenda of
any client, as they are usually focused on their own project, not on the potential effect it could have on its surroundings. We look at
every project through a macro lens, at the [usually] urban connections at how we can affect the future of the place. It’s a projective
and syntactical response which can occur on many different levels, as you pointed out: social, perceptual, psychological and
economic, among others. I’ve found that the advantage to working this way is that a project will inevitably become more valuable as
these weren’t considerations to begin with. So, if you’re being asked to design a lab building, but are able to consequently turn it into
a gathering place, tourist attraction and cultural center and public amenity, you’re way ahead of the game.

And yes, there’s always a risk of complicating things, but we always have to push those boundaries. Buildings don’t have to be
simple to work; there’s nothing wrong with complexity as long as it’s coupled with clarity. And honestly, I’d rather fail at attempting
something new than succeed at designing something that has been done before. What did the Fellini character say in 8 ½? “It’s
better to destroy than create what’s unnecessary.”

ETC
Can you talk about some of the current research going on at W.O.R.D.? What ideas are you interested in developing?

CW
The project that I’m working on with Rudabeh Pakravan would fall into the category of research. It deals with a new realization of
infrastructure, and how it has historically been used to address the basic needs of cities, etc. But now, with rapidly changing states of
urbanism, density and overpopulation, infrastructure must evolve to address new necessities such as open space, educational and
cultural spaces. These may no longer be thought of as simply landscapes or as buildings, but as continuous or linked networks that
grow and shift as the need evolves. There are similarities to other projects of this nature, and it is obviously informed by the
metabolists, etc., but there’s now more than ever a pertinent calling for this type of system.

Other research is still being cooked, but I can tell you that it will deal with urbanity and hyper-urbanity, public policy and political
strategy. For me, it’s conceivable that in a hundred years or less, architects may do nothing more than construct policy, but that’s for
another discussion.

ETC
How necessary are your teaching engagements to the growth of your office?

CW
It is absolutely necessary. Prior to teaching, I couldn’t have imagined a time where I’d be able to talk about architectural ideas for
four hours without stopping, but now my students can’t get me to shut up. Being presented with questions every day, whether
they’re simple or esoteric, and having to answer them whether I want to or not, is currently the best way for me to progress.
Teaching is tough and takes a lot of time and effort, but it’s worth it.

ETC
What can we expect from your office in the next couple years?

CW
Honestly….I have no idea. But if I’m lucky it will be shocking and ugly!