Casey Hughes has made a name for himself by building into the famous hills of Los Angeles. His eponymous firm—started by his desire to push against both the academic world of architecture as well as the development-oriented one—specializes in intellectually ambitious residential projects, especially those located on some of the city's tricky hillside lots.
For this week's Small Studio Snapshot, Hughes talks about carving out a niche for himself while allowing room for design exploration.
How many people are in your practice?
Five people including Jeff Lenox, a project manager, who has been working at CHA for going on five years.
Why were you originally motivated to start your own practice?
There can be an ivory tower aspect to architecture that feels fussy and out of touch with site and construction realties. Conversely, so much development-oriented construction (and building in general!) is needlessly banal. I started CHA to push against these poles and create work that is simultaneously intellectually ambitious and scrappy.
What hurdles have you come across?
A current challenge is making the transition from thinking about the office as a collection of projects to realizing that the office is the project. Rather than predicating our work on clients, this shift allows us to design the office’s direction. Growing a practice into different project types without having that project type already in your portfolio can be tricky. I’m finding that this catch-22 can be circumvented by engaging the project types that we’re interested in and then, the clients will follow.
How do you explain your architectural ambitions to a client?
Like many architects, we’ve found clients have an easier time buying into an idea if they understand the project’s formal logic. We often create a series of sequential diagrams that explain the derivation of the building. This narrative isn’t intended to represent the steps that we went through to design the building, but rather the logic underpinning the project. This reduces the perceived subjectivity of the design and creates the context for the client to appreciate the building’s form.
Is scaling up a goal or would you like to maintain the size of your practice?
Thus far, CHA has been primarily focused on homes especially tricky hillside lots, and housing, but we’re increasingly working on projects that engage a broader community. Rather than the size, I’m interested in the capacity of our office to create architecture that has a profound impact, while remaining lean so we can continue to be selective, focusing exclusively on projects that require genuine design exploration.
How did you land in that specialty? Do you think it was advantageous for starting a practice?
Los Angeles is often thought of as a horizontal city, but ironically much of the modern residential architecture that it’s known for occurs in the hillsides. Prime examples of this are many of Lautner's work, such as the Chemosphere and Pierre Koenig’s Stahl House, with it’s iconic cantilevered living room. The complexities of these hillside sites require structural and siting ingenuity that often leads to formal innovation. As Los Angeles continues to densify, the easy-to-build sites become increasingly scarce, creating the incentive to develop lots that were previously considered “unbuildable”. Many of Los Angeles’ more established architects pass on this type of project because they see the sites as overly constrained and a logistical “headache”. The ceding of this ground has created a niche that CHA and a handful of emerging architecture offices have grown into.
What are the benefits of having your own practice? And staying small?
There’s never a dull moment when you’re running a practice, as it require diverse skills and continual growth. Staying small has allowed us to maintain high design standards while remaining nimble. As our practice grows, responsibilities and demands naturally increase, so carving out time for design exploration and maintaining a broad vision for the office is essential.
6 Comments
Intellectually ambitious...how does that make itself known to the average person who actually lives there and why would that matter to them? The answer lies in the following statement...
"There can be an ivory tower aspect to architecture that feels fussy and out of touch with site and construction realties. Conversely, so much development-oriented construction (and building in general!) is needlessly banal." This is what's described as the two poles of architecture. Says who?
I'm guessing your question was rhetorical but I might as well respond. The "intellectual ambition" of the work could be understood as disciplinary. That said we're attempting to create rigorous work that is broadly evocative. As for your second poitnt
... point, the mentioned "poles" are two of an infinite number of dialectics that can be set up to frame an office's work. I've found it to be a useful way of situating our practice within the broader discipline.
What do you mean by 'disciplary', does it mean you work isn't disciplined unless it's intellectually ambitious? And what is rigorous work that is broadly evocative, that it plays well in high and low culture? I completely agree that the more notes one can hit the richer the experience, but how is your work broadly evocative? What does it or what is it supposed to evoke?
As for the poles, why do you need a dialectic? There are so many factors that go into an intelligent and thoughtful piece of architecture, why come up with a seemingly arbitrary dialectic, which was presented as common to all versus personal.
BTW, despite my difficulty with your words, I wish you and your young firm the best. Thanks for engaging in a civil discussion. I always like to remember that our differences as architects are just subjective. There's room for all sorts of view points.
Sorry for the late reply....by 'disciplinary' I mean "of or relating to a particular field of study" or profession. Disciplinary understanding isn't necessary to appreciate architecture, but it may help to establish shared values and add depth.
It's not my taste but I see some good qualities in it assuming you are working in that style, especially in the High Ridge house. Civil engagement is more important than agreeing with each other's world view.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.