It has been exactly 10 years since Winnetka-raised architect Peter Landon founded his own firm with the idea of designing housing for segments of the population generally overlooked by those in the architectural firmamentpeople and families whose economic stages dictate their lifestyles and surroundings, and who generally don’t have the luxury of choice.
While there have always been a number of architects championing the cause of affordable housing, in the mid-1980s “social consciousness” had not yet become the design world buzzword currently in favor. But Landon began his career with his social consciousness firmly in place, working for a decade in the offices of Weese Hickey Weese, designing scattered-site, low-income housing, among other things.
Since establishing Landon Architects Ltd. in 1987, Landon and his office (now grown to eight people) have established a strong reputation and garnered numerous awards with their well-crafted, stripped-down, innovative approach to projects ranging from single-room-occupancy high-rises and subsidized housing to pricier vacation cottages and in-town homes. Before submitting its plan for the proposed redevelopment of Cabrini-Green in 1995, Landon Architects Ltd. consulted with residents of the public housing area. Victoria Lautman talked with Peter Landon about his methodsand his philosophy.
VICTORIA LAUTMAN: Let’s start by describing how social consciousness can be expressed through architecture.
PETER LANDON: It can be in several ways. First, you have to be open to dealing directly with organizations and people who are more grass-roots and community-based, rather than going through the usual economic-based channels that eventually impact a community. For instance, in one typical scenario, a for-profit developer would locate a building site, analyze it to see if a market existed for development by talking with aldermen or maybe reviewing census and demographic dataand then the developer makes a proposal to build 20 housing units to sell for `X’ number of dollars.
The other, grass-roots approach that we generally take is to work with organizations like Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago or the Bickerdike Redevelopment Corp. in the West Town/Humboldt Park area. They are in the community, with the community’s interests at heart, and they’re there to find out what the housing needs are. Through their contact with the people, they might identify a need for 20 houses too. But these houses are earmarked for people from the neighborhood who want to stay there and have been part of the development process from the beginning. You can see it’s a very different approach.
Our role as architects is to work in an urban context, providing a technical service. We become part of the community team, as opposed to a separate entity brought in after most of the development decisions have already been made. We all work together to provide the same goal.
VL: Is this an unusual path for most architects?
PL: I’m certainly not the only one who realizes that working directly with the people in economically challenged communities is tremendously satisfying. But when architects are trained in school, they’re basically trained to be stars: We study the great architects through history; we’re educated with lofty goals that are egocentric and self-serving, heavy in theory. Then we get out in the real world and we find the majority of people aren’t oriented towards, or even care about, all that theoretical, egocentric stuff. They’re more concerned with the day-to-day realities of living and having shelter. If you can free yourself from an education that tells you you have to be a star, there are so many opportunities. But it’s not easy to do, and I think there’s a misconception that working with people in economically challenged communities doesn’t allow for good or interesting design. It’s just not true. We’re always pushing ourselves to do better and more innovative work.
VL: How difficult is it to balance the economics of these low-budget, community-based projects with creating good design?
PL: Well, it is complex, I don’t argue that. But we always consider both issues at the same time. We don’t go off into the realm of pure design for design’s sake, and we never lose sight of the reality base. Because our budgets are very low, we can’t do a whole lot from a design standpoint, but that’s where things get really creative and challenging. And actually, being challenged and meeting those challenges maintains our spirit and keeps us fulfilled.
VL: Since your work crosses economic lines with vacation homes, single-room occupancy high-rises, affordable housing and more expensive housing, have you found big differences in working with such a range of clients?
PL: There’s definitely a difference in terms of expectations, and that affects everyone’s attitudes.
In the beginning, middle- or higher-income clients tend to be familiar with what an architect does, and that sets up an immediate rapport. But lower-income community residents can be suspicious at first. They don’t know who we are or what we’re after. It often takes a lot of meetings back and forth to go through a process of exploring different ideas before they realize we’re on the level and not trying to put anything over on them, that they have control and input and they can tell us what room sizes, materials or colors they want. Then everyone relaxes, and the process ends up the same as with any client.
But initially, it’s almost always negative, as people react, test the waters and get comfortable. Also, as far as design is concerned, our summer-home clients are frequently looking for casual character and experimentation, while affordable housing clients tend to be pretty conservative. They’re primarily interested in functionality, and when character enters, they just want the house to look like whatever idea of “home” they harbor. They do not want their houses or communities to be singled out as low-income. That’s a very important point to them.
VL: Has the work you have done with affordable housing affected your higher-budget projects?
PL: Actually, yes. We now approach them both the same way. Even when the budgets are higher, there’s always a cutoff point. No matter what income level you work with, the budgets will always be limited, and everyone always wants more than the budget allows. But now we’re experienced working with extremely tight funds, and the process of stripping down and simplifying can be seen in all our projects. Our materials are basic; decoration is integrated rather than applied. Overall, it’s very craftsmanlike. In fact, we just started marketing a line of furniture that was a direct outgrowth of the paring-down process. We began with commissions from summer-home clients who wanted pieces to complement the architecture, but now we’ve supplied day-care facilities, high-rise lobbies and SRO units too. Again, it’s the simple use of materials, a craftsman aesthetic with subtle decoration, just like our buildings.
VL: Your plan for the redevelopment of Cabrini-Green advocated a novel approach. What are some basic changes you think are necessary to make such areas viable, vital neighborhoods?
PL: For starters, I think that some of the lower-income communities would be much better off if there were fewer of the zoning and design restrictions that were instigated back in 1957. If those restrictions could at least be updated to reflect the realities of a diverse urban environment, right away there would be better solutions for the people living there. HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) dictates that the typical family requires a three-bedroom, two-story house, but that’s not necessarily the case. What can work is a mix of buildings, with single-families, two-flats and townhouses all mixed together, as would happen naturally in any community. If you superimpose a rigid design, with everything looking the same in a neighborhood, a community just doesn’t develop naturally.
VL: Can you actually earn a living and have a social conscience?
PL: Yes, because no one begrudges the fact we get paid for what we do. We don’t get exorbitant architectural fees, but we get decent fees, and we always have work.
Look, most architects don’t make much anyway. And now, a lot of the younger architects really like the idealism of what we do, although they don’t realize it’s mostly just hard work.
There are other firms specializing in affordable housing, and it can be competitive, even though it’s not a huge field. As attention is focused on affordable housing, more firms are trying to break in, which can be difficult. And even though it’s not particularly glamorous, you’re working with terrific, deeply committed people, you’re well-respected and can still make your architectural mark.
