When I was in year seven at a country high school, I loved graphics and drawing.

My father told me early on that if I wanted to be a good architect then I had to become a good engineer first. I studied at Box Hill Tafe, which was a bridging year into engineering. I then studied structural engineering and ended up working for Ove Arup & Partners (now Arup) from around 1983-1987. As they are an international firm, I received a lot of high level industry exposure. I worked on a lot of major projects in Melbourne and internationally as I ‘learned to sharpen pencils’. I thought that was normal practice, but the high flying 80s certainly wasn’t in hindsight. I went back to study architecture as a mature-aged student in my early twenties.

I’m fortunate that I studied at a later age because I approached it with more endeavour, combining study with social activities. I won a scholarship to study at the Denmark International Studies (DIS) Program in Copenhagen, where I was mostly surrounded by American students. They opened my eyes to another world. DIS based its program on the Danish Royal Academy approach, which is project based, rather than a ‘year based program’. This allowed me to learn from more experienced fellow students through group-based activities while being exposed to European and American based cultures in a foreign setting. I was like a sponge, in that I took all the information and skills in where possible but still had fun while studying.

When I graduated I went to a small practice as I had experience in larger firms such as Arup.

This enabled me to gain wider experience more quickly, however I soon realised there was limited projects in smaller firms. I knew I needed to grow but was wary not to get lost in the shuffle at a big firm. I started as a regular architect and I’m now a partner at Gray Puksand 18 years later. I lead the sustainability side of the practice, which has grown from my initial endeavour and attention to detail – probably from my time as an engineer. Being a partner means you become a part of the business and have more control for development of your project. My understanding of the business role continues to evolve over time. One pitfall of architecture is that if you practice one thing to well, it can stop you from branching out, and limits exposure to different skills or challenges. As a partner, you float across a number of projects. In our practice we’re a very equal and there is a collaboration of staff on projects. I think we obtain better results from many minds that work collaboratively, rather than individuals dictating a direction. It’s more challenging to get different people to work and think together; however it leads to more unique project outcomes.

Melbourne is such a wonderful city from an architectural standpoint.

Melbourne has a great diversity of local architecture on a world scale. In part, I think this is a result of the fact Melbourne has more of a collaborative culture in the architecture industry and more respect for culture and artistic integrity compared to other Australian cities. I think Melbourne architects are able to establish greater trust and develop a higher culture with clients, which facilitates some amazing designs and creative endeavours. It all comes down to the fact that in order to do any good work you need a good client, who needs to be up to the challenge as well. Our workspace design is a great example. Our solutions are as good as the rest of the world, so we don’t need to look too far – it’s more a case of believing in ourselves.

I worked in Sydney from 1998-2003 where I experienced the constraints placed upon the design industry due to planning regulations and the effect this has on clients who will do anything simply to get a permit.  The process leads to the ‘camel’ scenario. More recently, there are planning bonuses for using an “international architect”. There may be some benefits to this design culture, however the city is more likely to end up looking like any other international city with ‘brand named’ buildings.

In Melbourne, I think there is a benefit from a greater belief in ourselves in the local industry.

Copenhagen has a similar belief and it maintains a Danish culture that is both international, yet local. It comes from a belief in clients developing your own area. Trust and understanding from clients is so important to developing good architecture and wonderful cities like Melbourne to live in. Other more remote regions such as South America and Asia, distinctive outcomes are also achieved where the culture filters back through architecture. These regions have more unique cultures and outcomes that are not so aligned with a common culture. I think Melbourne has remained more regional – local yet international, and I believe this will continue to evolve into the future.

As the leader of the sustainability part of our practice, I have spoken extensively to my team about integrating ESD seamlessly into every facet of our business.

At Gray Puksand, we have developed sustainable design as part of our DNA at the practice. It forms a holistic part of our projects, from beginning to end. It is about balancing triple bottom line aspects, social, economic outcomes need to be balanced with environmental benefits. It took a few years to get to that point, but now that thinking process is in place, designing in a sustainable way is intrinsic with what we do. We don’t see it as separate and I cringe when a client asks if we can have bolt on sustainable items. If they are bolt on, they are superfluous, and hence not part of the sustainable outcome. Sustainability is not just about energy saving, it’s about health and wellbeing but also affordability, which must go hand in hand over a long period of time. Realistically, it’s simply common sense design practice. It should just happen naturally.

My favourite project to date is the Nunawading Toyota project.

When designing for automotive buildings, there is not necessarily a focus from the client on “good architecture”. Like most retail outcomes, all they require is a glass box with a billboard fascia for signage. This particular project was different because we were focused on the customer experience and in away, ‘debunk the perception of car sales’, while maintaining the brand of course. This project allowed me to create something special and outside the box.

Recently, we have completed the Federation University Australia, (formerly Ballarat University) Ballarat Precinct, SMB Campus, Manufacturing Engineering Skills Centre (MECS) and Federation College (Fed Col) Building. The final building evolved from a merger of two separate design briefs: client groups; state and federal funding sources, to establish a single unified project. The building forms a regional focal point for each of the program requirements, where symbolism and identity within Fed Uni and Ballarat is paramount to the respective facility requirements.

I particularly like the MECS portion of the building which has been sculptured as an analogous form of a ‘machined metal block’ with the ‘fractal’ external cladding conceived from the nano-texture of metal at a microscopic level. The textured pattern and form reflects Ballarat’s manufacturing industry, by combining traditional elements of the ‘factory tin shed’ with the textured pattern using a higher technology rain-shield façade construction. I think it’s simple, yet quite a unique experience.

My dream project would have to be a religious building.

My thesis that I wrote during my university days has led to my desire and passion to create something meaningful to people. In religion there are unique requirements that align belief systems with effect. The architecture response has to be very pure to achieve this affect. From a practical point of view, I do like a challenge and a church would certainly pose some creative problems to overcome. Australia is not that religious compared to other countries I have visited; however there still is a need for religious buildings. I like the idea of touching the public and those who go to use it as a place of worship.

I’d definitely love the challenge of creating more public architecture.

I take my hat off to architects who can get their clients, particularly with a public architecture (and all the politics that comes with it), to trust them and create something amazing. Melbourne in particular has a few exceptional architects in this sector. Gray Puksand comes from more of a commercial and educational background and while we have completed a few community architecture solutions, I would like to expand this portion of our practice.

When you design a house for an individual client – a workspace for a company or a commercial space for a developer, you have a lot of discussions with the end client who will use the building. You can work the project up collectively with their input. When you complete public or community architecture, you will work with various user groups, steering groups and answer to some form of project control group. Ultimately, though, the end user is relatively unknown. In public architecture you have an effect on a far wider group of people which has greater challenges but offers more rewards as a result.

For more information: www.graypuksand.com.au