home
holistic design
residential / renovation
commercial / interior
landscape design
design process
cultural support policy
interview
email
Interview/ Roger Grunke, AIA
from florida/caribbean ARCHITECT
fall 2003
Roger Grunke's practice emulates the life of the “Renaissance-man.” Indeed, he feels more comfortable with the life and work of Thomas Jefferson, than any high profile, contemporary architect. His philosophical view of the architecture profession is: "You are an architect, there, you are an artist." Grunke sees no boundary between his involvement with designing a structure and building the structure. He holds a state contractor’s license and he uses it. And while he certainly has strong personal design tenets, he believes in team design, seeking input from engineers, contractors and developers.
Grunke specializes in blurring the demarcation between inside and outside. He sees site, building, interior design and landscape design as one, as is the project itself with the city. “In Florida, every inch of the site should be usable space, space imprinted by a master design concept…and this design concept should be in harmony with nature and the community around it.” Grunke is a tireless community activist, hands-on preservationist and urban theorist. He is currently writing a guide book to Tampa’s craftsman architecture.
Q: You have been quoted in print (Architectural Record, 05.03), implying that architecture in America is suffering from “cultural bankruptcy.” What do you mean by this and how does it relate to the practice of architecture?
A. Cultural bankruptcy connotes a culture which is collapsing; a culture that is not flourishing and is unable to produce a quality lifestyle for the average citizen despite a world position of economic privilege. It is the opposite of a "renaissance". I used the term to express solidarity with the thoughts James Russel's eloquently presented in his article “Where are we now? Architecture in American Culture,” (Architectural Record, 05.03). Any article that deals with the "problems of culture" and "problems of architecture" as inseparable is refreshing and I felt obliged to applaud.
My premise is that architecture is becoming increasingly marginalized. This situation is shared by all of the arts as art fades from our daily life, so does quality from our life. Great achievements continue to be made in the sciences and in the acquisition of knowledge. The scientific community announces amazing discoveries at an ever-increasing rate and the speed of computer development is astounding. But these areas of “progress” that America excels in are distinctly different from the symphony, the Broadway play, the epic novel, the incredible building, or the breath-taking sky-line - those things that galvanized society in past generations. While I am happy to give science the credit it deserves, I have to wonder if the Muses have not gone blind, deaf, and dumb. Bookstores today are filled with writings on the subject of computer “systems-architecture.” In those same bookstores, publications concerning building/architecture are usually picture books of the coffee-table quality, few of them thought provoking.
In an interview on National Public Radio, theatre director Peter Sellars, raised the possibility of a link between the increase of violence in American society and the inaccessibility of most Americans to art. Sellers went as far as to postulate that if the arts were integrated into all levels of society, people would utilize more appropriate avenues of expression and "perhaps," hew went on to say, "the nation’s prison population or the frequency of classroom shootings would be lessened." His message is certainly thought-provoking. Similarly, I have to believe that a quality built environment and a healthy natural environment would contribute more to the lessening society's tension, than a game between rival football teams.
Q. Your letter referred to a “systematic and calculated destruction of community.” Please explain this perspective, as well as what you mean by "community."
A. Architecture is more than a science of technology. It is both science and art. While the technology of architecture has made impressive advancement, the art of architecture is no longer nurturing the American spirit.
The degradation of architecture in the United States is part of the general destruction of community. For example, public spaces — parks, plazas, courthouse squares — are historically the stage where community is played out. Today, this social showcase is being encroached upon, compromised and even eliminated by very powerful special interests. Whether in response to insurance considerations, homeland security, social exclusion, or the yoke of short-term investment return, public spaces are no longer a part of new architecture and new urban projects. The ocean promenade of South Beach’s Lumas Park or the sinuous, balustrade of Tampa’s Bayshore Boulevard have been eclipsed by private, controlled environments. Even the revolutionary, Neo-traditional town of Seaside has very little public space and in the developer's own words "it lacks social diversity." It is only in three-dimensional, commonly held, public spaces that we have any hope of experiencing social commonality as a nation. The mixing of social, racial and ethnic groups in quality public spaces is part of the glue that holds a society together, creating the “one out of many.”
If we are to be a “united people,” then our public architecture and the common ground around it must be equally accessible and something all citizens can be proud of. At the moment, the political pendulum is swinging toward privatization and some would even favor selling-off the National Parks in the belief that they might be run more efficiently by private concerns. This is not the spirit of community that I envision.
Q. Explain what you mean when you write that Florida “leads the nation with a severe case of malaise.” What do you see the cause of this as: political, lack of education or avoidance?
A. As a whole, I don’t believe architects are at the root of this malaise. The problem is the infertile field in which we, as architects, are gardening. For example, Frank Gehry was not a superstar prior to his opportunity in Bilboa and I learned of Moore, Ruble, Yudell’s work during a visit to Berlin. My point is that many of America's finest and brightest are frequently finding recognition abroad where the social and economic conditions are supportive of quality architecture. It seems that rest of the world is more willing to give opportunity to (to fund) American talent, than America itself.
After reading about Japan’s decade long recession, I was amazed to see for myself the water-filled, glass-roofed, subterranean, city-square in Nagoya. I was in awe, not of the architect, but of the people of Nagoya for holding to their commitment to quality urban design at great cost during difficult times.
In Florida architects are guilty of 1) our passive acceptance of the degradation of both our built and natural environment, and 2) our lack of long-term public engagement. Too few of us are political activists. If the practice of architecture is to survive as a creative, vibrant force in our society and if America is to survive as a creative, vibrant force, then quality architecture must thrive. In order to thrive, it must be protected and nurtured by architects, first and foremost. In the end, neither a firm’s economic well-being, nor the quality of a design will serve the profession well if those qualities are removed from society's general concern for where architecture is propelling us over an extended period of time.
Architects must understand that for the good of the profession there are long-term activities with which we must continuously involve ourselves and these activities may not directly relate to the design of buildings. This is not to suggest that “putting bread on the table” while defending the profession’s proper position in the realm of cultural leadership is an easy accomplishment. But there really is no other option.
At some point we, as individual architects, and as the AIA, must stand-up and defend something more than the right to make a dollar. We must stand up for issues large and small, close to home and global. This will be gut- wrenching because to do so will require debate, first within ourselves, then as a profession, and finally, as a society. If open, constructive discourse on the built environment were a part of Florida’s communities, as it is in Europe and much of Asia, and if the discourse were conducted in a professional manner, then different viewpoints would not be “out-of-line.” Rather, they would be welcome. In addition, perspectives would be broadened, the power of political figures would be better balanced and the design community would have a more fertile field to till.
Q: What do you see as the architect’s role, and the role of the AIA, in getting the profession back on track: particularly as it relates to the concept of “community?”
A. How do we get to a healthy place? I am convinced that the road to there will not be easy. There is no quick fix. But I do believe a fix exists. Or better …we can go somewhere we never have been before…and it can be a healthy, fruitful, as well as a profitable place. A better situation can only come about through active, continuous engagement in the political and human development process. From the level of the condominium association or the neighborhood association to qualifying and endorsing political candidates, the AIA and its individual members must be active. We, as a professional organization, must endorse presidential candidates…loudly! The local AIA chapters must be willing to evaluate the quality of work that local zoning and planning organizations are reviewing, and if necessary, intervene in the process. Only when architects become cultural responsibility will architecture rise to the level of prestige enjoyed. We must do this not for our economic well being, but for the cultural well-being of our children and our nation.
from florida/caribbean ARCHITECT
fall 2003
Roger Grunke's practice emulates the life of the “Renaissance-man.” Indeed, he feels more comfortable with the life and work of Thomas Jefferson, than any high profile, contemporary architect. His philosophical view of the architecture profession is: "You are an architect, there, you are an artist." Grunke sees no boundary between his involvement with designing a structure and building the structure. He holds a state contractor’s license and he uses it. And while he certainly has strong personal design tenets, he believes in team design, seeking input from engineers, contractors and developers.Grunke specializes in blurring the demarcation between inside and outside. He sees site, building, interior design and landscape design as one, as is the project itself with the city. “In Florida, every inch of the site should be usable space, space imprinted by a master design concept…and this design concept should be in harmony with nature and the community around it.” Grunke is a tireless community activist, hands-on preservationist and urban theorist. He is currently writing a guide book to Tampa’s craftsman architecture.
Q: You have been quoted in print (Architectural Record, 05.03), implying that architecture in America is suffering from “cultural bankruptcy.” What do you mean by this and how does it relate to the practice of architecture?
A. Cultural bankruptcy connotes a culture which is collapsing; a culture that is not flourishing and is unable to produce a quality lifestyle for the average citizen despite a world position of economic privilege. It is the opposite of a "renaissance". I used the term to express solidarity with the thoughts James Russel's eloquently presented in his article “Where are we now? Architecture in American Culture,” (Architectural Record, 05.03). Any article that deals with the "problems of culture" and "problems of architecture" as inseparable is refreshing and I felt obliged to applaud.
My premise is that architecture is becoming increasingly marginalized. This situation is shared by all of the arts as art fades from our daily life, so does quality from our life. Great achievements continue to be made in the sciences and in the acquisition of knowledge. The scientific community announces amazing discoveries at an ever-increasing rate and the speed of computer development is astounding. But these areas of “progress” that America excels in are distinctly different from the symphony, the Broadway play, the epic novel, the incredible building, or the breath-taking sky-line - those things that galvanized society in past generations. While I am happy to give science the credit it deserves, I have to wonder if the Muses have not gone blind, deaf, and dumb. Bookstores today are filled with writings on the subject of computer “systems-architecture.” In those same bookstores, publications concerning building/architecture are usually picture books of the coffee-table quality, few of them thought provoking.
In an interview on National Public Radio, theatre director Peter Sellars, raised the possibility of a link between the increase of violence in American society and the inaccessibility of most Americans to art. Sellers went as far as to postulate that if the arts were integrated into all levels of society, people would utilize more appropriate avenues of expression and "perhaps," hew went on to say, "the nation’s prison population or the frequency of classroom shootings would be lessened." His message is certainly thought-provoking. Similarly, I have to believe that a quality built environment and a healthy natural environment would contribute more to the lessening society's tension, than a game between rival football teams.
Q. Your letter referred to a “systematic and calculated destruction of community.” Please explain this perspective, as well as what you mean by "community."
A. Architecture is more than a science of technology. It is both science and art. While the technology of architecture has made impressive advancement, the art of architecture is no longer nurturing the American spirit.
The degradation of architecture in the United States is part of the general destruction of community. For example, public spaces — parks, plazas, courthouse squares — are historically the stage where community is played out. Today, this social showcase is being encroached upon, compromised and even eliminated by very powerful special interests. Whether in response to insurance considerations, homeland security, social exclusion, or the yoke of short-term investment return, public spaces are no longer a part of new architecture and new urban projects. The ocean promenade of South Beach’s Lumas Park or the sinuous, balustrade of Tampa’s Bayshore Boulevard have been eclipsed by private, controlled environments. Even the revolutionary, Neo-traditional town of Seaside has very little public space and in the developer's own words "it lacks social diversity." It is only in three-dimensional, commonly held, public spaces that we have any hope of experiencing social commonality as a nation. The mixing of social, racial and ethnic groups in quality public spaces is part of the glue that holds a society together, creating the “one out of many.”
If we are to be a “united people,” then our public architecture and the common ground around it must be equally accessible and something all citizens can be proud of. At the moment, the political pendulum is swinging toward privatization and some would even favor selling-off the National Parks in the belief that they might be run more efficiently by private concerns. This is not the spirit of community that I envision.
Q. Explain what you mean when you write that Florida “leads the nation with a severe case of malaise.” What do you see the cause of this as: political, lack of education or avoidance?
A. As a whole, I don’t believe architects are at the root of this malaise. The problem is the infertile field in which we, as architects, are gardening. For example, Frank Gehry was not a superstar prior to his opportunity in Bilboa and I learned of Moore, Ruble, Yudell’s work during a visit to Berlin. My point is that many of America's finest and brightest are frequently finding recognition abroad where the social and economic conditions are supportive of quality architecture. It seems that rest of the world is more willing to give opportunity to (to fund) American talent, than America itself.
After reading about Japan’s decade long recession, I was amazed to see for myself the water-filled, glass-roofed, subterranean, city-square in Nagoya. I was in awe, not of the architect, but of the people of Nagoya for holding to their commitment to quality urban design at great cost during difficult times.
In Florida architects are guilty of 1) our passive acceptance of the degradation of both our built and natural environment, and 2) our lack of long-term public engagement. Too few of us are political activists. If the practice of architecture is to survive as a creative, vibrant force in our society and if America is to survive as a creative, vibrant force, then quality architecture must thrive. In order to thrive, it must be protected and nurtured by architects, first and foremost. In the end, neither a firm’s economic well-being, nor the quality of a design will serve the profession well if those qualities are removed from society's general concern for where architecture is propelling us over an extended period of time.
Architects must understand that for the good of the profession there are long-term activities with which we must continuously involve ourselves and these activities may not directly relate to the design of buildings. This is not to suggest that “putting bread on the table” while defending the profession’s proper position in the realm of cultural leadership is an easy accomplishment. But there really is no other option.
At some point we, as individual architects, and as the AIA, must stand-up and defend something more than the right to make a dollar. We must stand up for issues large and small, close to home and global. This will be gut- wrenching because to do so will require debate, first within ourselves, then as a profession, and finally, as a society. If open, constructive discourse on the built environment were a part of Florida’s communities, as it is in Europe and much of Asia, and if the discourse were conducted in a professional manner, then different viewpoints would not be “out-of-line.” Rather, they would be welcome. In addition, perspectives would be broadened, the power of political figures would be better balanced and the design community would have a more fertile field to till.
Q: What do you see as the architect’s role, and the role of the AIA, in getting the profession back on track: particularly as it relates to the concept of “community?”
A. How do we get to a healthy place? I am convinced that the road to there will not be easy. There is no quick fix. But I do believe a fix exists. Or better …we can go somewhere we never have been before…and it can be a healthy, fruitful, as well as a profitable place. A better situation can only come about through active, continuous engagement in the political and human development process. From the level of the condominium association or the neighborhood association to qualifying and endorsing political candidates, the AIA and its individual members must be active. We, as a professional organization, must endorse presidential candidates…loudly! The local AIA chapters must be willing to evaluate the quality of work that local zoning and planning organizations are reviewing, and if necessary, intervene in the process. Only when architects become cultural responsibility will architecture rise to the level of prestige enjoyed. We must do this not for our economic well being, but for the cultural well-being of our children and our nation.
1906 Morrison Ave. Tampa, FL 33606 | 813 251 0232 | fax 813 251 2338 | roger at GRUNKEdesign.com
RGrunke ©2006