[ Page 2 of 4 ]

Interviewed by Robert Ivy, FAIA
Edited by Andrea Dean

AR: How did you come together?

WM: I had won a competition for a daycare center in Frankfurt, was looking for eco-toxicological information for it, and had heard about Michael. He’s famous. We started talking at a social function one evening and kept talking into the night. We haven’t stopped talking since.

AR: The basis of your understanding is architectural, and his is scientific. Yet you’re delving into areas that involve the intersection of these two worlds. Has it taken you into science?

WM: For me science is like music. I love listening to it, but I am not a scientist. I appreciate science from a designer’s perspective. I am very attention-deficit disordered; I jump around a lot. So I’m always amazed at how scientists are able to drill down and stay with a subject.

AR: The work you have done has taken you fairly deeply into science for an architect. In fact, I would say that most architects are deficient in their knowledge of science. To do environmental thinking and planning, do you have to have science appreciation?

WM: We’d have to ask the question: how can something be high-quality design if it makes you sick or destroys the planet? And often the answers require science. It’s easy to tell the truth; it’s harder to know what the truth is. And that’s what science is for. The practice of architecture at this point in history necessarily has to be informed by the science of making.

Vitruvius’ books on architecture describe materials and talk about finishes, plasters, woods, and all their “natures.” He got down to the science of the time. You can see these polymaths like Vitruvius or Goethe or Jefferson being very interested in science. Franklin did the fundamental science of electricity, and yet he was also dealing with politics and journalism. So you couldn’t have a fundamental review of the human experience without science.

AR: Is architectural education grappling with these questions or making us inquisitive enough to make these explorations?

WM: As a dean, I didn’t have faculty trained in these areas and there was a confusion in many educators’ minds about interdisciplinary thinking and multi-disciplinary thinking.

AR: Expand on that please.

WM: I rely on a chemist for chemistry, and I need a multi-disciplinary team to do my work, but I don’t have to know chemistry. I think the important thing for architectural education is to teach that we need multi-disciplinary teams to do the green work. Not every firm can have a chemist, but they can rely on us for chemistry. We’re doing the chemistry of products and materials. We’re looking to create a cadre of thousands of designers who use the same index for ecological intelligence.

I think an important thing that’s been missing is a coherent framework for design based on a sustaining strategy. It’s sort of like we need a new Bauhaus, a new platform of thought and activity, and it will require a broad range of interests. The Bauhaus had fundamentals of engineering brought to the arts and the values of art brought to engineering. We need to bring those two dimensions back together and combine them with advanced science, the understanding of relativity and DNA.

AR: Who do you talk with about the theory of relativity? It is not something that architects typically address in a conversation.

WM: It started with Michael talking about the quality of mass. What we were interested in is the fact that we have energy income on the planet, so we will solve the energy problem, but what we don’t have is mass income. So if we toxify the mass and destroy its capacities, we won’t be able to recover from it. Then it became clear that you have to look at the theory of relativity, because energy and mass are equal. The question is dimension, which is “c” squared. I don’t have the math or science to be able to engage in a comprehensive discussion with a physicist or chemist, but I can read an equation. I can understand that the fundamental mathematical relationship is equality with a difference in dimension, that energy equals mass, mass is not growing but energy and biomass are growing.  So growth can be good. From a design perspective, that’s an immensely valuable piece of information.

That brings us to DNA, because what’s missing in the equation is biology. That’s the next discovery of our era—DNA and nanotechnology, which includes knowing what’s going on at the molecular level, what goes on in a virus, what goes on in genetic engineering, and synergetics.