PARA!

PARA / PROJECT is an emergent architecture practice based in New York run by Jonathan Lott and Brian Price. They have distinguished themselves for creating projects that stray from standard and “trendy architectural experimentation,” and have collaborated at Harvard and Columbia. Functioning as a prefix, the name PARA, has allowed the firm to develop architecture through variable strategies rather than imposing fixed ideas. Ever since their notable exposition “Loopholes” held at Harvard(2005), PARA has exhibited a line of work that is not only very intriguing, but seems to differ from the dense mass of young emergent experimental studios. In this way PARA-Project varies from different scales and programs, helping us believe that architecture can be at its best when it operates parallel to the richness of diverse social products. In 2007 PARA was winner of the Young Architects Forum by the Architectural League of New York, in 2009 PARA was a finalist in the Young Architects Program by MoMA/PS1 and first place at the OPEN FORT 400 with Stereo Architects, HWKN, Phu Hoang Office, L.E.FT, and WORKac. Exclama talked with them about architecture, MAFIA, and Society -- this is what they had to say.

1. To begin, tell us a little bit about PARA, what are the studio dynamics and objectives?

PARA:

We started not as a design office, but as architectural interrogators. In the years subsequent to the conferences at Harvard and Columbia we did a couple of competitions that we won. At this point we began to develop our discourse as design strategies. The attitude of PARA-Project, the origination of the name, came from the idea that we can act as a prefix rather than being a sole heroic voice that would be at the center of something. We thought we could attach ourselves to other disciplines or other phenomena that are existent in the world. PARA is a prefix that can be ‘of’ and ‘about’, surrounding other people’s topics.

2. Have you found the use of this prefix helpful to develop different architectural strategies, or is it just a representative name? Is it entirely involved with the conception of each project?

PARA:

Yes, in some ways it is still very conceptual, a project that comes to mind is the Times Square Recruiting Center. In this project, we as a group of architects, had to consider military values. Basically the military came to us and asked us to rethink what a recruiting center in such an area as Times Square should be like. We had to merge our own architectural agenda with our understanding of their military agenda and their specific positions in such a public area, thus we began operating along a PARAmilitary strategy. The hybrid approach that we found was really provocative as a way of working.

3. PARA is a very good example of an emergent practice founded by young architects interested in experimenting and redefining different fixed architectural postures. This seems to be a common place within young architects not only in the USA but worldwide. Do you think this reveals the spirit of a generation influenced by image, mass media, globalization and multiculturalism, or is it and architectural trend taken more seriously by some studios than others?

It is definitely something that is taken more seriously by some than others, but the attitude that youth is more experimental is ubiquitous. Throughout time, throughout different cultures and across every discipline, youth is experimental. Definitely in the US there is a kind of trend where everyone defines himself or herself as experimental, or as someone trying to do something new. We think that there are many different approaches to this particularly in the US many of the offices who say that they are questioning the nature of architecture, question it through formal realms, especially technologically. This is an extremely important foundation for architects, so you have concepts that have to do with, parametric modeling, complexity, repetition and difference. These are all technological realms where people would argue that they are doing experimentation, but these are not realms we are interested in questioning. We are more interested in questioning architecture at a more fundamental level. There is a certain irrelevance that often comes about when architects focus. When architects specialize they are more like perverted scientists.

4. Do you consider graphic design a fundamental medium in architectural speculation or experimentation?

To certain degree it is maybe the most fundamental architectural tool. It has been said many times that architects don’t make buildings they make drawings of buildings. The tools that we use as architects are inherently graphic, yet we use these tools very differently to a graphic designer. We wouldn’t call it a graphic art, we would call it a graphic tool. It is essential not only to the way we represent our ideas, but the way we think trough our ideas.

5. Does the Lifting Mies project fit this pattern?

We don’t know if you could call that a graphic art approach. In many ways it was about building construction during a particular moment in Modernism. It was a question of thinking what would have happened if Mies Van Der Rohe had built that building today given the context of custom modification and today’s desire for highly personalized identities. It raises the question of when and why those techniques of modification can be used effectively. This is why it was presented as an open-ended catalogue of modification.

6. Can “Lifting Mies” expose architecture as a form of plastic surgery?

We think it raises the question of how you update image so rapidly. It had a lot to do with questioning image and the celebrity image of a building. It was also poking fun at the seriousness of architecture, especially in the age of modernism when there was an attitude that architecture should be timeless, infinite and sacred. The opposite attitude, would be fashion, where the pace for change is constantly increasing. . We thought that architecture could learn from fashion so we proposed the facelift for this modernist icon to renew its relevance. We thought we would use it as a way to make fun of the seriousness of architecture and its desire to be timeless.

7. Considering the topic of our 9th edition, what is your perception or general imagery of the concept of Mafia?

For us it brings to mind a network of people that are operating on their own terms. It’s about how we find ways of operating in and around the system.

In which way do you think your architectural background influences this perception?

We believe that architecture is one of the most polite disciplines there is. In that sense, we are not as interesting as the mafia might be.

8. Throughout history architecture has been used as a medium to show political and economic power, would you consider this constant competition “MAFIARCHITECTURE”?

It seems that mafia is a means to an end rather than a type of production. It is more about an attitude or approach than a built presence. Architecture is typically framed as being with culture or against culture. In the nineties it was said that we as a discipline had to be against culture, we had to question cultures values yet for the mafia it seems that it is neither with nor against culture, it is merely running alongside. An architectural mafia would be something that runs parallel to an establishment, but has equal importance with the establishment. The profession is so set in this idea that it is either for or against but to be alongside is something that hasn’t been explored yet.

9. Would you consider a commission where “MAFIA” is the central idea?

We have a general attitude that we would consider anything always, because the more politically questionable the subject matter is, the more interesting it is for us to explore. That is just a fundamental aspect of our practice. We could compare it to the Times Square project because it has those very real challenges, as are the political and cultural realities that surround the army and its recruitment for war. A project about ‘MAFIA’ sounds incredibly rich in terms of content.

PARA – we are curious… How is the mafia architecture in Colombia?

Eclectic, unstable and very rich in marble.

Donald Trump is our mafia, hahaha.

Getting back to reality, we could call it a kind of false opulence. New wealth, the Rockefellers, the Vanderbilts, and the Hursts, are examples of this. They produced a very eclectic combination of buildings. Everyone becomes like a Roman emperor it is completely absurd but immensely fascinating.

10. Coming back to the “Loopholes”, could contemporary architecture be a big one, where confusion is master?

We think it as, many times we are exploring for an opportunity, something you might call a loophole, within predetermined or accepted norms. Confusion can be either good or bad, it is hard to place a value on it. It is a tool for production. It’s not a question of confusion being master, it is ability to master the art of creating confusion, a very well directed specific type of confusion. So many of the strategies that we have dealt with are really about trying to introduce questions, trying to interrogate something that is established. We don’t think we represent contemporary architecture, contemporary is kind of a dirty word right now. It tends to represent what the latest flourish or rendering or whatever. That is not the game we are playing. We are playing something that is a lot subtler and it doesn’t photograph well on a coffee table book.