Alexander Symes Interview

Thanks for chatting with us, Alex. How did you get into architecture in the first place?

That’s a really tough question. I think I had a natural disposition to thinking through drawing, and problem solving of the natural sciences, and growing up I used to love making things. So when it came to thinking about what my degree would be, architecture sat pretty well as a sort of a holistic thinking approach to solving problems. I took a bit of a journey away from architecture, because I felt that it wasn’t necessarily scientific enough for me. So after doing six years of studies and then working for an architectural practice for four years afterwards, I went into engineering for about four and a half years and learnt about the science behind quantifying environmental concerns. So that’s how I honed some of my skills in our scientific approach to architecture. 

What does that scientific approach to architecture entail?

It’s about taking all the particular factors and then using a science first approach to make sure you’re getting the envelope as efficient as possible. So balancing daylight and glare concerns, looking at how to efficiently capture and reuse water. And the same with waste if it’s applicable for that particular site. So the outcome of our buildings is not that we’re trying to find a particular formal composition, but rather let the site and the science and the client’s brief resolve itself into an architectural outcome, and then we do some tweaking to make sure that the composition we explore works harmoniously. 

It’s a very interesting approach. And if the science bumps up against the brief, which one wins out?

I suppose at that point it becomes a conversation. I’ll generally be pretty blunt with people and say, ‘this isn’t meeting best practice sustainability’ or ‘what you’re doing here, even though you think it might be sustainable, isn’t necessarily aligned with one planet living’ but really aim to begin that dialogue so that we can be realistic about what we’re doing, because our impact on the systems of our earth is a real one. I don’t want to have a superficial conversation about that, I want everyone to be aware of the actual impact that they’re having, and to use our particular skill sets to reduce that as much as possible. In every project, there’ll be a conflict with the science, and it’s just about telling the client they have a few different options, and arriving at the best solution together. An example would be the upside down Akubra house - it was very well received for its sustainability credentials and even won some awards. But it’s not my ideal model of how we create a sustainable future. It’s a sustainable home, and it’s using low environmental impact building materials and techniques, and also has some great eco awareness attributes in terms of its visible PV and water systems and things like this. However, if everyone on the globe had a project like that, it wouldn’t necessarily be a sustainable outcome. 

Inherent to many people’s architecture practices is the idea of legacy, and the legacy of what we’re building and what we leave behind. Would you say that’s quite an important factor to your practice?

Definitely. And although I do have two beautiful children, I think of every project as a pseudo child to a certain degree. I’m not afraid of describing them that way. They become things that you are involved with for a long period of time and you do whatever you possibly can to make it the best project that you can. So in that, it’s your own legacy of making sure every project is as good as possible. 

But in terms of the legacy of my opportunity to provide stewardship to a lower environmental impact future, we’re trying to provide examples of projects of how you can have better efficiency homes, more comfortable homes, healthier homes. So we’re at the beginning of that process, from my perspective, in that we’ve only been really practicing for the last 10 years, and we’re getting better. The homes that we were doing in the beginning of last decade, from an environmental perspective, are nowhere as good as what we’re doing right now. And I’m hoping that in another five years, I’ll be able to say that we’ve had that incremental improvement in terms of the overall outcome of the projects we’re working on. But the fact is that as an industry, I think we’re not necessarily at the point where we understand the science of how we can create future-proofed homes for the climate. That’s still coming.