Hello Mina - could you firstly tell me about the fit-out you have done here with SOM’s own offices at Broadgate Tower?  What's unusual about it? What's groundbreaking?

 

Hello David. Firstly, it's a beautiful space that is very much catered to our needs. I think that that's the most important aspect in general of what's unique about this office fit out, and what's unique about the work that SOM does. We always want to understand what the end users really need and want, rather than us, as designers, coming on board and saying, 'We think this will be perfect for you'. So, there have been a lot of surveys and investigations done amongst our peers in the office before we moved here to really understand, what it is that we want to change. What is it that we were missing in the previous office space on the fourth floor here, and especially with the changes that have come on board after the pandemic? The way that even we work has slightly been adjusted to be much more flexible, much more interactive and organic, not only within the London office, but also, we collaborate very closely with our other offices. So: how can we enable all of that to be the most efficient and effective manner for the work that we deliver on a day-to-day basis?

 

You were on the fourth floor here in the Broadgate tower, and now we're on the sixth. What are the key differences in the new layout?

 

First and foremost, from a physical perspective, this is a slightly larger floor plate that we're on and our overall layout is very different to what it was on the fourth floor. On the fourth floor, we had a studio space that was segregated from the meeting room areas where we interface with the clients and welcome external parties to show our work and to demonstrate, to show our work and to engage in conversations. And they never saw how we really were. Of course, we always would take them around the office, but there was a physical segregation of the workplace and the meeting place, if I can crudely describe it that way. Or, the internal and the external facing part of our business. But here, it's all sort of blurred, and it's all amalgamated into one big space. You have walked through here, and I'll walk you on the other side, on the way out so you will get a chance to see how we operate and how we work. There is an opportunity for our clients and external parties to see the colleagues that are working on the ground, on their projects; they may or may not be included as part of the meetings that are taking place. So, I think that's the main element that is different to how we were on the fourth floor. That layout design, over 12 years ago now, was relevant for that time and for that need. As I mentioned before, we evolve, of course, as is the case with any business. We're a very creative design practice, and working in an interdisciplinary manner, we work with engineers, urban planners, interior designers and architects all together, which is also very unusual for typical architecture firms. And that's why we need to make sure that our collective needs, or the spaces that we create for our day-to-day work is responsive to those changing needs, and our projects of change and so forth. So, I think this is perfect for us now, and you know, maybe in 10 years’ time, if and when we move out of this space, we may have a completely different office layout and scenario of practice.

 

Now, you are head of sustainability here. Was there a sustainable imperative in the fitout? 

 

Very much. I think that's one other thing from understanding the user needs and catering for the space and the layouts and even the furniture: the selection of furniture and all of that has been catered to respond to user needs. I think that's most important. But then, secondly, it's a beautiful space that has been very deliberately designed with the choice of materials that we have. It may sound very simple, and anyone could do that, but as I briefly mentioned before, because we were both the clients and the designers, the engineers and the sustainability experts on this particular job, we have been able to really seamlessly integrate all of our very high ambitions that we set ourselves as a global firm of achieving net zero carbon, reducing embodied carbon impact, especially in relation to fit out. That has been very fundamental in every step of the way, throughout the design evolution of the project, but also throughout the construction or fit out stage of the project. That required very close collaboration with all the key stakeholders, not only from our end, but also because we don't have mechanical engineers in our London office. We have in our other offices across the firm, but we want to work together with a mechanical engineer that is local to here. So, our collaborating parties also were a fundamental part of that evolution process. So, engaging them during the design stage, including the lighting designers, the mechanical engineers, but also the contractor and subcontractors during the fit-out space, was essential to ensure that we can seamlessly deliver on our ambitions. This may sound very simple and straightforward, but this is not the practice of our industry. We don't really do this iterative and integrated engagement in all our work in general. I think the roles and responsibilities are usually very clearly defined on day one on any given project, and the scopes are very defined. That's why the engagement is often limited and not to the level of fluidity that we have seen in the work that we have done for this office fit out. I think that's what made the difference - not that we were able to deliver the space that we envisioned as a design based on the design vision that we had on day one, but we also made sure that it was delivered within budget, and it was delivered within the time frame that was allocated to, because our lease was running out on the fourth floor, so we had to move here. We didn't have too much room and flexibility in terms of extending the time beyond what was anticipated. Most importantly, we were able to deliver with a significant reduction on embodied carbon because we have been involved in doing the carbon assessments on day one, on the design ideas and the options that we had. But we also worked together with suppliers, with the contractor, to ensure that all of them became a reality. Often, we see a lot of ambition set in projects on day one at design stage, which is great, but then there is no accountability given to anyone later, once the project goes into construction. And that's where things usually fall short and that doesn't enable us to meet the ambitious targets that we often hope to meet.

 

So, in a sense, it's an exemplar of your entire ethos as regards architectural projects, this building and this fit out. 

 

Exactly!

 

What's the feedback been like from your own staff?

 

It has been really positive and, as I mentioned before, we've done surveys to really understand what people want, what changes people wanted to see that are working here on a database, and now we have done that, after we've completed. They were always involved throughout the design evolution process as well. That's the beauty of being the client, the designer and the end user of the space that we're delivering. The feedback has been tremendous: very positive; we have many meeting rooms that you may have seen on your way here, and we have smaller rooms where individuals can go and have private conversations or have one on one meetings online or physically with the people that are here. We have larger spaces, such as this one, where we can host larger meetings. And we have more of an organic way of working together, as typical architecture practices have been doing historically; we have what we call breakout spaces, where people can come together and really sketch ideas. We still use a lot of sketching tools, as well as relying on technology to deliver our work. There is a wide variety of spaces and different formats of engagement and interaction and collaboration, which this current fit out is allowing us to do 

 

So: slight gear change. You were at Baku, at COP 29. What were your key takeaways personally from that whole experience?  

 

I have been really lucky to have been able to attend the last few COPs, and I think with this one, particularly the key message and the takeaway that I took from it was twofold. One is collaboration, which is something that is constantly iterated; but collaboration not only within, if I can call it that, the usual suspects. Within the design project we always talk about collaboration between architects and engineers at the least. But the COP's emphasis was about collaboration beyond the usual stakeholders, engaging the end users as much as possible. This goes back to my point, perhaps, about what we've done in this project, and what we typically strive to do in any given project at SOM, which is to really understand what the end users' needs are. Because eventually it's about building efficiency and resiliency to that building or space that we're creating, and collaboration beyond sectors. So: it's not just collaboration within the built environment. and construction sector, which is one of the sectors that is really progressing really slowly in comparison to others. There was a lot of emphasis of really bringing unusual stakeholders around the table, or subject matter experts around the table, to be able to advance some of the ambitions we are setting within the built environment.

 

Such as what sectors? 

 

Such as, for example, ecologists. There is a lot of emphasis on biodiversity and ecology and integrated net nature-based solutions in built environment projects, especially over the last few years, to be able to address the biodiversity emergency along with the climate change crisis. And, of course, to be able to deliver on that work, we work very closely with landscape architects. Even within SOM, we have our landscape architecture team that advises on that. But we realize that – and this is what COP is, or was emphasizing as a key message, that it's not enough that we work, and collaborate with the landscape architects or engineers or architects or designers in general, but bring in the knowledge and the know-how of ecologists to be able to bring the science and to bring maybe the scientific element of our work, and to really understand what that means. So, it's not about just doing any green wall to address pollution, for example, on a particular project site, but it is just really understanding what plant species to be incorporated in that green wall so that it can be a resilient and a longer-term solution to that particular project. Hopefully, I'm describing this clearly, but it is that kind of level of granularity and detail and attention that is what is needed, moving forward. Or, for example, at SOM we have been looking into incorporating direct air carbon capture into buildings and direct air carbon capture currently. The technology involves large scale, fan-like equipment that you may have seen that is used in the agricultural sector to absorb carbon that is hard to avoid or impossible to avoid, that comes from agricultural practices. So, the investigation, at least for SOM, and maybe that's a great example of the cross-sector collaboration, is: how do we bring that know how, that already well-functioning technology and practice and process that is put into the agricultural sector to mitigate their carbon impact? How can we scale that down to a building or the built environment scale to be able to capture the carbon within the built environment? At SOM this started with our visionary project on what we call Urban Sequoia, where we are trying to capture, or we envision that built environment, not just buildings, but the built environment, all the hardscape surfaces and in our cities can capture carbon. In buildings, especially, the direct air capture plays a critical role in that success story of turning buildings into a carbon capturing element or structure.  We've been working very closely with a direct air carbon capture expert, not only from the technology side, but also from a science side, Like, how is that equipment capturing carbon? There is a direct air capture coalition based in the US, and our key expert contact there has worked in other sectors. And they understand the scale of this technology and this process in general and are helping us now understand how that can be incorporated into the design of buildings. 

 

Final question, and I ask this often of people who are involved in sustainability and Net Zero issues. How easy is it to remain optimistic about this kind of sector, given the climate message generally, and the fires in California, etc, and how easy is it to remain optimistic about the message hitting home to the general public? 

 

That's a great question – and a challenging one, I would say. It is not easy to remain optimistic, but I think it goes back to perhaps raising awareness that there are solutions out there; that we don't need to reinvent the wheel, in many cases. I think many people, in general, and I'm generalizing this, rightfully or wrongfully, but around the global buildings and construction sector, many people believe that we need the solution based on, often, technology that is going to come and save the day for us that, you know, there's only so much we can do. And it's true to a certain extent. In some instances, there's only so much we can do. But it doesn't mean that we should be discouraged to do what we can do; to take it as far as we can. I think if people were more aware of the solutions that exist out there, whether it's in the agriculture sector, like the direct air capture technologies that I mentioned before, or even within our sector, then I think people can remain a bit more optimistic. My feeling though, is today that people aren't too optimistic. And the reason for people not being too optimistic are that one, there's a lack of awareness in general of the solutions that exist out there in different scales. And then also lack of general knowledge. We often talk about climate literacy. I think the general knowledge around climate related matters in the context of the built environment sector is what also holds people back from innovating and from taking risk, and from saying, you know, we have seen this in the agriculture sector. Let's try to bring it into a building. So, you know that that level of visionary thinking, or ambitious or bold thinking does not exist because there is a lack of awareness.

 

And where are we in the league table of climate literacy in the UK?

 

I would say we are probably doing much better than others. I say that cautiously, but I say it because of the confidence that at least if we specifically look at architects. The Royal Institute of British Architects is the only organization to date that at least I'm aware of in the public domain that has demanded or is demanding climate literacy from all its members. And this is not just those practicing the UK.

 

And you serve on a panel there, don't you?  

 

I do, and I also have helped them create their climate literacy mandatory competence requirements. I just finished writing an exam that all the RIBA members around the world will take to demonstrate their climate literacy. So I think because of that element, and I'm not going to be popular by saying this, but because of that mandated requirement by the RIBA, at the least architects, maybe not today, but soon, will have the same base level of high level of knowledge, not expert level, and I don't think we need everyone to be experts, but that high level knowledge around climate related matters. So that they would know what questions to ask, and they would know what solutions to look for, not only within our sector, but beyond. I think knowledge is a fundamental part of the success story, and I think we need to in the industry globally. We need to invest a bit more in building that awareness and knowledge in general. 

 

Well, thank you very much for that, Mina. That was fascinating, and I am more optimistic than I was 20 minutes ago! (laughs) Is there anything else you'd like to add?

 

I think there is maybe one other one, from the COP messages, because this is a new term, a new mindset, a new approach that was launched at COP this year. Besides collaborations that I mentioned before this one is about sufficiency. So: the Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, which is an entity or an arm under the United Nations Environment Program, have been working on this concept of sufficiency first. You know, here in the UK, we've been hearing about retrofit first, but now there is this sort of mindset shift to sufficiency first, which is predominantly focusing on encouraging anyone and everyone who's making a key decision within the built environment sector to ask questions. Do we really need this building, or do we really need this material, you know, before we even talk about how we can optimize and make all of this more efficient and low carbon and sustainable. Truly, do we even need it?  Are we sufficient enough with what we already have? This is from a building to infrastructure to, you know, even the screws on the panels. It goes to every scale, every aspect and every scale of the built environment in general. They launched a report, and I was chairing the launch event of that report, which is called Sufficiency in the Built Environment, and they will be pushing the UN and in general, the allies of World Green Building Council, Global Alliance for buildings and construction and others will be pushing that particular message home in every aspect of the built environment. So, they're going back to, I think, like maybe a step zero to ask this question before we talk about retrofit first, before we talk about true sustainability, low carbon.  

 

That reminds me of Cedric Price’s early principle where he asked a couple whether they really needed a building, or a separation. Brilliant! thank you so much for your time, Mina, and congratulations on the new space!

 

Thank you, David!