Author Q&A: Charles Holland, How to Enjoy Architecture

Charles Holland is an architect who runs his own practice, Charles Holland Architects. He is also a professor of architecture at the university for the creative arts (UCA), Canterbury, and a visiting professor at the University of Cambridge. Charles writes regularly for industry magazines and academic journals. His first book, How to Enjoy Architecture, is out now. We chatted to Charles about the book, the role of architects in creating better places, and what he thinks about design codes.

 

What inspired you to write this book?

I was approached by Yale University Press to write it. The goal was to explain architecture to a wide audience. The book is meant for everyone, not just architects or architectural students, but anyone interested in architecture. The commission and my interest were to translate what I do and how I do it for a broader audience. 

Why is the book important in today’s world?

We spend so much of our time in architecture or around it and are profoundly affected by it. As an art form, it’s not one that we choose to experience in the same way we choose to look at a painting in a gallery. It surrounds us and we’re in it and we’re often looking at it or affected by it – from how we organise our home and social life to when we go on holiday to thinking about how we might stylise or individualise our own environment: all this is a question of architecture. At the same time as being bound up with how we live, we don’t think about it because of that habitual experience. It’s also something we might not question in complex or deep ways. I think it’s a fascinating thing because of that – we spend so much of our time in it but we’re distracted from it. 

My hypothetical question is: why is the building like it is? This book aims to address why buildings are the way they are by breaking them down into elements: style, structure, materials, space, composition and use.

By developing a better vocabulary for talking about buildings, we might get better buildings and places. Much of architecture happens to us without us having the tools to question it. When discussed, it’s often in a divisive or negative way.

This book doesn’t claim to be comprehensive; it uses examples from my experience to teach general lessons but it is ultimately about how we experience buildings. 

How well placed do you feel architects are in contributing to the drive for places that produce better long-term outcomes for people?

Architects should play a central role. Architecture involves balancing practical, aesthetic, legislative, material, and ethical considerations. Despite this, architects have lost authority and centrality in the process to other building professionals like project managers. While these roles are valuable, they don’t combine the same skills and experience as architects. Recognising the importance of architecture and involving architects more centrally in decision-making is crucial.

Architecture is important and it shouldn’t be left to solely pragmatic or administrative, legislative or economics processes. Otherwise, the outcome is buildings that we no longer see as valuable contributors to our culture in the wider sense. It’s important that architecture is spoken about more to help develop a richer vocabulary which might allow a greater influence and control over our environment. 

Involving architects also allows us to demand that things work better – that they are designed for a lifespan which recognises the tremendous amounts of energy and effort that go into architecture when we build, we build good buildings.

There is some debate about design literacy in the general public. How do you feel about that?

I wanted the book to avoid sounding teacherly or dictatorial. It’s about sharing my enjoyment of buildings and what I find fascinating about them. Everyone has unique aesthetic experiences based on their knowledge, upbringing and experience. There is sometimes a perception that architects go around rubbing concrete and normal people don’t do that, but in terms of the knowledge they have or the experience they bring, it’s no different to a car mechanic having a greater appreciation of how a car works. 

I do fall back from the idea that in being educated one has lost sight of something, because that assumes that there is a normative taste in architecture. I am against the idea that ‘ordinary’ people like one particular kinds of buildings and architects like another. I like some buildings that are unashamedly architectural but also ‘ordinary’ buildings and buildings from different eras and architectural styles. 

Architects need to talk about architecture in ways that are not exclusive or jargon-based. It’s not about telling people what to like, but about encouraging a richer appreciation of buildings.

What are your opinions on design codes and their ability to deliver the sorts of places that people want to see?

I’m ambivalent. I think the aim – to improve quality and contribute to a sense of place – is commendable, but they can be problematic. They rely on what people know or have seen before, which precludes anything new or unexpected happening.

While design codes can raise quality, they can also be reductive if applied simplistically. Local character is a complex concept, and the best places often have a mix of styles. The Victorian high street doesn’t look like the Georgian one that preceded it, for instance. The idea that things must fit in is problematic because, sometimes, the best thing about a place is the variety. 

When the government first introduced the idea of design codes, I remember Robert Jenrick saying how it would get back to local character. He used the example of Georgian architecture, but Georgian architecture didn’t give a stuff about local character. It was the same everywhere.  

Quality and joy in architecture come from thoughtful design, not just adherence to codes.

Our Quality of Life Framework talks about the importance of a sense of wonder in our homes and neighbourhoods, and within that distinctive design, so how can we encourage that?

Reform the procurement process. Buildings should be designed with care and attention to inspire and delight. Competitive tenders and risk aversion in public sector funding often deprioritize architectural quality. Prioritising architectural character in public spending, for example in schools, is important for people’s wellbeing. 

If there was any value in the Building Better Building Beautiful commission it  is that it foregrounds architectural character in the experience of where we live. If that becomes a priority, it might start to shift the dial of who’s commissioning what and how. 

But I would like to see greater investment in public sector spending, for example in schools. You have to believe that schools are important, and I think that designing them well is important to children’s wellbeing. It’s about priorities and a philosophy of how we approach our built environment, which is political, economic and cultural. The work you’re doing is important in raising these questions. 

I’d also like to see a democratisation of planning and engagement between people who are building and living in the places that planners are deciding on. This requires big structural shifts. It is a profoundly political question how our built environment happens and how involved we are in that process, but I believe that increasing public engagement in the building process can lead to better outcomes.

Is there one lasting message you would like people to take away from your book?

Look and enjoy more. Condemn less and be more interested in what surrounds us. Move beyond culture wars around taste.

The book is a plea for pluralism and a plea for diversity in the widest sense. I’m one of the few architects that’s perfectly fine with Poundbury, but I don’t want only Poundbury.

How to Enjoy Architecture is out now, published by Yale University Press London.