Cui Kai got his Master Degree of Engineering in Faculty of Architecture, Tainjin University in 1984. He has worked as an architect in Huasen Architectural & Engineering Design Consultants Ltd. (Shenzhen and Hong Kong), and as Vice President, Chief Architect in Architecture Design Institute, Ministry of Construction. He is Vice President, Chief Architect, China Design Master in China Architecture Design & Research Group, Beijing.

domus: Can you give a brief description of your architectural practice?
Cui Kai: Now my practice is a design team under the China Architectural Design and Research Institure, consisting of more than 20 architects. The choice of our projects and the management of the contracts are subject to decision by the project management center of the institute. We don’t have our own independent budget office; the method of budget management is generally the same as other departments in the institute. Up until now, our projects have mainly been public ones; we’ve also designed some small-size museums. We take part in some competitions selectively and are glad to accept some commissions. We hope to work pleasantly and seriously within an environment in which we can communicate and cooperate with clients fully, and respect each other’s views of cultural values.
I’ve been in the architectural field for 22 years, but am increasingly busy now. My work includes not just project design, but also professional communications. The corresponding strategy is to bring the strength of teamwork into full play in the design process. I have designed a great many buildings and trained some new architects. I’m very proud about that. The most important factors are always the relationship between architecture and the environment, as well as the balance of local culture and individual style, our personal interests as architects and one’s own pursuit of art. If conditions allow us to focus on both of them, of course we should do that. If not, we should pay more attention to the more important one. Now, as people’s eyes are attracted to that eminent, symbolic style of architecture, I care more about the ones in the background. One reason is just my own self-consciousness, and second, for the quality of the city and the living environment of ordinary people, the greater context is just as important.

domus: You are regarded as a local designer with an international perspective. In your opinion, what are the distinct differences between western countries and China in terms of architectural practice?
Cui Kai: We should say that Chinese architects have made great progress compared to that of ten years ago. But we should be aware that in terms of the general playing level and comprehensiveness, there are huge gaps between Chinese and western architecture. I think there are a few reasons: first, the quality of architects in the design teams is different. During the cultural Revolution, we lost at least two generations of architects because of the political and historical situation. So there just aren’t enough experienced architects in the generation between the older architects and the younger people who have just graduated from university. But in foreign design teams, there’s a perfect distribution of staff. What’s more. the administrative system tends to be more mature in foreign design studios. They have an effective quality control system, and each of the architects is of a high professional quality and an even higher sense of ethics. And these qualities are what Chinese architects and their design firms should improve. Second, the architectural industry is a technological system that’s becoming more and more integrated. The relevant technological research and development in the foreign architectural field is more advanced than we are, and their consulting industry is huge. Foreign architects can always conveniently get in touch with the best experts in related fields during their design processes. Many experts even take part in the design work from the competition stage, increasing the technological strength of the team. But in China, technological consulting and cooperation with these fields is relatively weak. As for the projects which are more technologically complex, Chinese architects tend to only imitate reference materials rather than do their own deep research.
Besides, now that the bidding system in China is sosimple and incomplete, they pay much more attention to the exonomic side of the bid rather than the technological one. So cooperation between design companies and research departments is rarely implemented-not to mention innovation. Thir, compared with foreign architects, the responsibilities and obligations of Chines architects are fairly restricted. They have absolutely no control of quality or cost in the actual implementation of the architecture. Under Chinese architectural law, there are items for which the design companies can’t even designate the engineering firm or the materials. Actually, the law gives this right that’s so important to a cohesive design to managers who have little knowledge about architecture and those so-called experts who seem professional but have no rightful place in making decisions. The right of architects to supervise their own projects is not listed within the range of the law. Architects will only cooperate on the construction site (they have no right to control) out of their sense of responsibility and interest. It is impossible not to have regrets for those projects. In this respect, the situation abroad is much better than in China. Even in Hong Kong, it is said that one theird of the architectual design contracts relate to “project management.” The responsibility, the right and benefits of architects are clearly listed in the contracts. I think such rights are a basic premise for guaranteeing architectural quality.

domus: The large scale, state-owned design institute is a product which has very Chinese characteristics. Des it still have advantages in as China moves towards a market economy? Where does its potential lie?
Cui Kai: The institutes have their own particular strengths. They have stronger integrated technological ability. They are capable of accepting big and complex projects. The institutes also have their own accomplishments and brand recognition; they are influential and well-known in the market. Some institutes have some research units that undertake some technological research into and development work for China’s construction industry. But the big institutes also have distinct shortcomings. They are overstaffed and inefficient; their sense of service is not enough; they cannot react to changing conditions fast enough; their management system is too conservative. The flow of intelligence is very passive. And what’s more, the government intervenes too much in the internal affairs of the institutes. Since the big and small institutes can’t have equal status within the competition of the market, many of the bigger institutes are now reforming in various ways. In general, the first method is to adjust their internal structure, increase efficiency and become more responsive to the market. The second approach is to make their staff work more actively, and absorb ad sevure the most capable people. The third one is to promote the individual names of architects underneath the big brand of the institutes. One advantage there is that it can help motivate these architects, and people would come to value the architects more than the institute. Another reason for this reform is to divide more work along the lines of certain specialties, which would give the institute a real technological advantage, and help encourage more R&D for the complex projects so that they might find their own market share and direction.

Popularity: 19% [?]