In Conversation with Ellen Lou

This transcript is an informal conversation between Dan Lu (MAUD ‘21), Naksha Satish (MAUD ‘22) and Ellen Lou on May 5th, 2021.  

Ellen Lou is a certified architect and urban planner who leads the Urban Design + Planning Group for SOM's San Francisco office. Lou is particularly skilled in developing innovative ideas to address challenging urban planning contexts and in guiding development interests to create public benefit. 

Dan Lu (DL):

How would you define the agency of architecture in urban design? Some might argue that urban designers should focus on the public realm, ‘ground’ rather than the ‘figure’. How has your understanding of figure-ground relationships evolved over years of practice?

Ellen Lou (EL):

I think the main difference between architecture and urban design is the scale. For architecture, focus of a design effort is on a building or a few buildings. The smallest unit may be a doorknob or a room in a building; the components that create the architecture. For urban design, the focus is on the integrated design that includes an ensemble of buildings, the spaces in between, and the setting that organizes the buildings. Urban design also addresses transportation, open space networks, ecological systems, health, and resilience of cities. Urban designers do not work on a building or an object but work on the systems that organize an urban development. The scale varies from a few blocks in a city, a district, a city or an entire region.  

For urban design, the system that orchestrates the site and also the “figure”— buildings/objects that create “ground”—are inseparable. In urban design, we address the composition of buildings and how the buildings work with its urban or natural settings to define the urban form which is more than public realm. It is a manifestation of many other considerations, such as appropriate density, climate and cultural, economic issues, environmental impact, and social equity. The design is more than just the ground but the entire three-dimensional urban environment.

Another difference between architecture and urban design is in the implementation. For architecture, the design is very specific in guiding the actual implementation of the work. Whereas in urban design, it is designing the framework to guide future implementation. It is a blueprint for how different components come together, such as development, urban form, transportation, open spaces, and equitable access to or distribution of opportunities. It also represents agreements between different interest groups. Each component will be designed in the future based on this framework. We as urban designers don't design exactly what that looks like such as the colors and the texture, instead we provide guidelines. We design a framework that orchestrates all these components of an urban environment.

Naksha Satish

(NS):

How do the architecture and urban design departments complement and cooperate with each other not only in design but also in management and operations such as revenue flows, client acquisitions etc. to achieve the larger vision of the firm?

EL:

SOM is a multi-disciplinary practice. Architecture, Urban Design, Engineering, Interior Architecture, and Environmental Graphics, we all pursue our own commissions. We, however, also work together as an integrated team, leveraging each other’s expertise, on our projects.

We, as urban designers, are typically in the front—engaging in development opportunities, such as urban regeneration, conversion from industrial into commercial, residential, and other uses, campus planning or a new district or new town for a city’s expansion. We will work with city planning departments, developers, or institutions to develop the master plan. Depending on the implementation framework, SOM architects may or may not get an opportunity to design the buildings in the master plan. For public sector projects, often the implementation requires public bidding for different developments to compete for the opportunity. SOM architects need to align with a developer team. For private developers, our architects often get to engage in the next phase of a project.

SOM internal organization is based on a “three-legged stool” concept consisting of Design, Technical, and Management. Our projects tend to be complicated and require expertise, focus, and collaboration of these groups. The manager focuses on the management and operations of the firm, the designer focuses on the design, and the technical designer focuses on getting the design implemented. We pursue new projects together as an integrated team. The goal is to create the most innovative visionary design.

NS:

As a global practice, how is the firm organized and structured to tackle unfamiliar foreign contexts? Internally, how does the office leverage the strength of its multinational presence? Externally, how do you seek the right collaborators?

EL:

As a global practice, we have the opportunity to share our expertise with cities in different parts of the world. We hope to help shape a better future for areas that are undergoing the fastest urbanization rates and experience the most changes. We have 10 offices around the world with our three largest offices located in San Francisco, Chicago, and New York. Although each office has its own focused regions, we leverage our expertise in our global network to address each project’s needs. 

Tackling unfamiliar foreign contexts is one the most exciting parts about working internationally. It draws on experience, cultural sensitivity, and creativity. I remember taking an urban planning course for my Master of City Planning program at MIT. A discussion topic was on how to gather data when you are in country which does not track certain data that is needed for a study. That discussion stuck in my head until now.

When we work in an unfamiliar setting, we will do background research before visiting. We get to know the context through interviewing local urban planning and architecture professionals who tend to think about similar issues that we need to know. We also like to meet with academics who tend to possess a wealth of knowledge of the local context and have a critical perspective on certain issues. We also gather information through benchmarking. Ecological and geographical context materials are vastly available these days and could provide interesting insights to a place.

Another method that I have learned over time is how to draw out information that the clients may not have obtained or considered through design. We often develop design options to tease out information which is critical for consideration. Information gathering itself is a creative process.

DL:

When working on master plans for new towns, how do you engender a sense of unique identity if there is no pre-established culture to be rooted in? How do you establish a sense of identity in such a master planning?

EL:

Creating a sense of identity is critical for every place. It is part of SOM’s 10 Principles for City Design. For a new town master plan, we will draw inspiration from the cultural and climatic context. The aspiration of the locals and economic development targets will all contribute to the development of its unique identify.  

For a piece of land, there is always nature - whether it's a flat piece of land, with landform, vegetation, streams of water or lack of, and human settlement. In a highly un-likely case that a place is without pre-established culture, we would draw inspiration from its natural setting and climatic conditions.

I remember visiting a property in Noida near Delhi in India. It is a land reclamation area planned for a new town. The area is totally engineered, flat for miles, no topography except straight highway on embankments and manmade storm drains parallel the highway. I thought to myself, this would have been the most challenging project ever. If we could work on a site like that, we would be exploring the concept of “de-engineering” to bring nature back! 

NS:

In your practice, what have been some of the challenges and opportunities when guiding development interests to create public benefit?

EL:

Creating a win-win situation for both a development and its community is a principle that we believe in. We constantly look for opportunities to achieve that in every project we engage in. For a development project, the developer will be keenly interested in the project’s financial success. The community may have different asks for the project. It is also our job to advocate for public interest whether it is for the community, for preservation, or for environmental considerations. We need to leverage our unique perspective from all sides, align these different interests to create a plan good for all involved and the environment. It takes creativity.

We master planned the Xintiandi/Taipingqiao area in Shanghai, China. The area was a delipidated, dense housing area with narrow li-nong (alleys) with a significant national landmark housed in 4 units of rowhouse. The city’s plan was to redevelop the area into a modern contemporary high-rise area. The residents cannot wait to move to modern new housing with in-unit kitchen and bathrooms. Our proposal to preserve not only the 4 units of national landmark but conserve the entire 2 blocks to develop an adaptive reuse district would preserve the unique Shanghaies character and introduce new uses. We also proposed a generous lake park in the center of the development, making a major open space contribution to the district. Both ideas were un-expected to the city. We managed to convince the city that the “lost density” could be transferred onto adjacent blocks.  

The project eventually became a model development in China and a major destination in the city, created an enhanced setting for the national landmark and the developer was credited as the ‘son-in-law’ of Shanghai because he preserved the city’s heritage. With creativity, we can build win-win situations.

NS:

What or who has been your personal inspiration?

EL:

I learned a lot from my mentor, John Kriken, world renowned architect/urban designer. He was the founding Partner of SOM’s Urban Design and Planning Studio. His book, City Building: Nine Planning Principles for the 21st Century collected his ideas on urban design. He was very passionate about improving cities. One of the basic principles that I learned from him was creating a sense of place. Composing a set of tall and lower buildings around a special open space or along a curved addressing street to create a sense of place were his favorite moves.  

Another piece of advice that I learned from John is the importance to make ideas simple and clear. He would spend days trying to polish his presentation into simple stories so it was memorable and easy to understand. City design and city building, he often said, is a complex process that it's very difficult to comprehend. Using clear, simple, and organized presentations with easy answers to guide our audience along is essential to successful communication in Urban Design. 

As cities continue to transform, I face different challenges in my work. Building on John’s principles, I continue to refine my art of city design, allowing it to evolve with time and new understanding.