Architecture of dependencies – Interview with Przemo Łukasik

The SARP Honorary Award is one of the most important distinctions in Polish architecture. It is awarded to those who influence the shape of contemporary space with their work. This year, the winner was Medusa Group, with practices in two cities in Poland: Warsaw and Bytom. In London it is active as Medusa London Limited. Medusa Group was founded by Przemo Łukasik and Łukasz Zagała.

For years, their studio has been creating designs that change the landscape of cities and the places we live in. Hundreds of projects – from office buildings and housing estates to schools and public facilities – are proof of their consistency, quality and ability to combine vision with context. We talk to one of them, Przemo Łukasiak, about the importance of this award, about changes in architecture, about the challenges that designers face today, as well as about relationships in the community and what should be the foundation of an architect's work, regardless of the generation.

Congratulations on receiving the SARP Honorary Award. This prestigious award, despite the fact that contemporary competitions arouse various opinions, is still of great importance in the architectural community. What emotions did you feel when you received this award?

“This award is very important to me. When I looked at the list of previous winners, I saw many names of architects who inspired and motivated me and showed me how to deal with space, programme and context. This award is not only a summary of my achievements, but also a commitment. By including us in the architectural ‘pantheon’, it makes us pay even more attention to what our design decisions can bring to the space and its users. At the same time, it confirms that our activities – not only our projects, but also the way we run our studio and approach our profession – have been recognised. Of course, this award sets us apart, but it does not make us better than other architects. I would not be honest if I said that this award was exclusively for me and Łukasz. It is an award for the whole team we have been working with for years. That is why we invited all of our colleagues to the award ceremony, both those who are with us on a daily basis and those who were part of our office in the past. It was a wonderful experience to be able to get together and reminisce about the projects we created together.”

Your speech during the award ceremony was very personal and emotional. You mentioned that architecture is not only about projects, but also about people, relationships and the way of working. It is also about challenges. What does this award mean for your office?

“Awards are given to individuals, but in reality, architecture is a team effort. That is why I see this award as an appreciation of the entire office. It is about the people with whom we discuss, analyse and make decisions every day, with whom we share honours, but also bear responsibility. I am glad that we could be together on that day, also with people who were once part of our team and influenced its later shape. They have left so much of themselves in projects under the Medusa Group logo. For me, the most important thing was to be able to look at the people with whom we have shared this journey for years. I often say that architecture is not only about designing buildings, but also about shaping relationships and taking care of them: with clients, the team, investors, as well as the city and its inhabitants. It is a profession in which we are constantly engaged in dialogue, which is a testing ground for various interests and ideas. On the one hand, we struggle with the vision of investors, on the other with legal, urban planning and budgetary constraints. We are constantly negotiating and looking for solutions, not only in a financial sense, but also in the sphere of ideas, values and expectations. In this context, awards have a symbolic meaning, they are a moment of reflection, summary and motivation for further work. There is another aspect to the award, it also obliges. It is a signal that what we do is recognised and has an impact on the environment. And this brings responsibility with it, both for subsequent projects and for the directions we want to set in architecture.”

In Poland – and perhaps more broadly, in human nature – success can be difficult to accept when it concerns someone else. We like awards, but we are not always able to enjoy the success of others with equal ease. Although this is changing, there is still a certain shadow of rivalry and jealousy. Do you notice it too?

“I don't think about it much. I have received many calls and messages of congratulations and support, but I know that just as many people did not call. Competitions are the best way to win a contract and express your vision, but the way they are run stirs up emotions, both among architects and investors. It is similar with awards, some people congratulate sincerely, others prefer to remain silent on the subject. Both are human behaviours, and I am not petty and prefer to think about new challenges. This shows that we still have a problem accepting the success of others. It is not about artificial praise, but about understanding that appreciating someone else's work does not diminish the value of our own. Especially in an environment that should care for and work towards the common quality of architecture.”

You mentioned responsibility. Today, architecture is increasingly judged not only by professionals but also by the public. How do you perceive this process?

“Architecture has always been and always will be judged because everyone experiences it. You often hear: ‘You don't know anything about it, so don't judge architects’. Let me tell you: this is the wrong reaction. Architecture affects all of us because we live, work, rest and learn in designed spaces. And yet, even among architects, judgement can be superficial, reduced to what the eye sees, what is ‘beautiful’ or ‘ugly’. We all lack deeper reflection, distance, insight and simple empathy. The trade press should explain these mechanisms, but often follows the simplified narratives of social media. Today, what counts is what grabs attention, not what could build awareness. All the more, I lack a space to calmly explain architecture. Because what works in one city will not necessarily work in another. And the context is often not taken into account at all, or it is treated very selectively, even though it is the basis of our daily work and is constantly changing.”

Whenever I talk to architects, the topic of negotiation, compromise and the long design process comes up. I get the impression we lack education in this area. Ordinary recipients only see the end result, if at all, because many projects are never realised.

“Nobody really knows how much effort we put into each project. Even when we are just talking to an investor who wants a ‘normal’ detached house, we spend weeks refining the programme and explaining that it may not be about square metres, that a swimming pool and sauna do not always make sense, and that the garage can be omitted. This is the first invisible effort that nobody talks about and not many people know about. And then there are further compromises, such as local plans, decisions of officials, specific regulations, technical conditions, budgetary, political or economic constraints… Many of our proposals don't even stand a chance. And I understand that: the average recipient, who browses the morning post between coffee and scrambled eggs, skims over the subject and moves on. But when I see that people whom I respect for their insight - think of researchers, historians, those who analyse architecture for years,… - also resort to simplification when evaluating contemporary projects, that is something I simply cannot understand.”

I know it's a question with a broad scope, but I'm not only interested in the direction that Polish architecture has taken, but also in everyday design practice. After all, you have been working for over 30 years now, one could say that you are professionally operating at the crossroads of several generations. What differences do you notice the most?

“On the one hand, technology has advanced: we have better tools, new materials and more complex design processes. On the other hand, the foundations of architecture remain almost unchanged. It may sound surprising, but I would say that, in principle, not much has changed. The architect's responsibilities and work are essentially the same. In saying this, I look not only at my 30 years of experience, but also go further back in time, to when I was taught architecture at the Faculty of Architecture of the Silesian University of Technology or later in Paris. I can state that this profession has always remained quite similar. Regardless of the era, architects have always worked on commission and always had to negotiate, argue, fight and dream at the same time. Historically speaking, even Michelangelo had to fight for his vision with the Pope, and Brunelleschi was not always understood when building the cathedral. It has always been a commissioned job. An architect rarely has the chance to work completely independently. Of course, there are initiatives and opportunities that we get involved in outside of commercial projects, such as participating in the design of a small library at a primary school in Bytom, working to protect the water tower in Bytom, or facilities such as the Krystyna shaft or the Szombierki power plant. This is our conscious volunteering, but also proof of our commitment and responsibility for what we respect. But on a daily basis, we design for those who can afford it. Think about investors, companies, people who decide to invest in the construction of a house or office,... As architects, we are here to help make these dreams come true, but also to balance them against reality. Because the work of an architect is not only about drawing, but also about constant struggle: with clients' visions, zoning regulations, building regulations and budgetary realities, and so on.”

You say that the foundations of the architectural profession remain unchanged, and yet technology has changed the way we design in recent decades. You work in a completely different tool environment today than you used to. Do you see that young architects approach the profession differently than your generation?

“It's true that the tools are changing. We started out with drawing boards, then came computers, and now artificial intelligence is entering the picture. And I remember how, even back then, when I was at university, submitting projects in digital form was controversial among our professors. Today, on the other hand, it is natural for young people that AI can generate concepts, analyse data, and speed up certain stages of design. But in the end, in the end we still have space, interior, context… and that does not change. People are also changing. People as customers, officials, but also colleagues. It's only natural. Young architects are also more aware of the work-life balance. We were willing to sacrifice everything - every night, every hour - sometimes we sacrificed too much, but that's hindsight. And today's generation knows that it is possible and necessary to work smarter. If you ask me, that is a good change. They, but also us, lack a lot of preparation for running a business, the basics of psychology and economics. We - Łukasz and me - learned this from our own mistakes, and we probably burdened our co-workers with these mistakes as well. I often think about it. Designing is one thing, but architecture also has another, less official aspect. It is not just an idea, a facade, a construction, a context. It is also negotiations, responsibility for people, for their families, for subcontractors. It is something that you only learn in practice. And one more thing: architecture once seemed more physical, more material. Young people today often look at it through a screen, designing endlessly in the digital world. But architecture begins when you touch the material, feel how light works, how space changes. You can't learn that from behind a screen.”

The environmental context and the development of a design philosophy in the spirit of sustainable development are not without significance today. Adaptation is increasingly being talked about as a viable alternative to new development. Your house was a pioneering example of this approach. How do you look back on this project? Did you think of it in terms of sustainable architecture back then?

“Twenty years ago, when I was converting a building in Bytom into my home and studio, where I led my personal life and where I raised my sons, I didn't think of it as a manifesto or an environmentally friendly action. I wasn't aware at the time that I was reducing CO2 emissions and my carbon footprint. I did it instinctively. It wasn't written about in the newspapers either, nor was it discussed by politicians, because Greta wasn't around yet. Today we know that this is crucial. Not every new design is progress, sometimes the best thing to do is to preserve and adapt what already exists, although this is not always easy or possible. And just a few years ago, none of the major architectural awards recognised adaptations, conversions and renovations, only shiny new buildings mattered. This also shows how thinking in our industry has changed. Not only the thinking of architects, but also that of editors, politicians and architecture critics. Today, one can ask the question perversely: were they poorly or well-born objects?”

Your studio realises projects both in Poland and abroad, from small schools to large urban plans. What are you currently working on? Are there any projects that particularly excite you or that may bring new challenges for your team? What projects should we look forward to?

“From the beginning, we wanted diversity. We wanted to design different functions, not to limit ourselves to one type of construction, to work on different scales and in different contexts. And I think we have succeeded. We are now working on very different projects. It goes from a housing estate in Bytom, which is very close to my heart because it has a completely different context to Katowice or Krakow, to a recording studio, which is unique because not many places like this are being built in Europe. The market is also changing. A few years ago, we designed a lot of office buildings, but today there are far fewer. On the other hand, the topic of multi-family housing is still very relevant. We also have challenges related to the historical context, such as the building for the Dawtona Group, which is being built next to an 18th-century monument and surrounded by a historical park. This requires a different approach, because it is not just about building a modern facility, but about fitting it into the space without disrupting its character. We are trying to develop our business outside of Poland. My partner has been living abroad for some time now and is trying to get other markets interested in our projects. We have experience working in London, Jamaica, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, and we are trying our hand at a project in Oman. It is not easy, every culture and every market has its own rules and architecture is not only about design, but also about the ability to navigate the local context. Sometimes these projects have unexpected beginnings. To give but one example: we got the chance to work on a school in Bangladesh because someone saw our design for a school in Wilanów. Unfortunately, the pandemic and subsequent political changes have brought the project to a standstill, but it shows how ‘the wind sometimes blows’ and how it can take us to other, interesting parts of the world.”

Finally, I would like you to share one piece of advice for young architects – one that you may not have heard yourself, but that could help those who are just starting out on this path. Your sons are studying architecture, so you have the perspective of both an experienced designer and someone who is observing the younger generation. What would you say to those who are just starting out?

“I think this advice may seem obvious, but it is actually fundamental: respect. It is not enough to know this word, you need to put it into practice every day, it must be learnt and sought after. If we want others to respect us – investors, colleagues, customers – we must first show them respect. And this is regardless of whether someone comes to us to design a stall, a garage or a large museum. Everyone deserves exactly the same attention, empathy and serious treatment.”

“Respect also applies to teamwork, both with the colleagues in the office and the people on the construction site. When you go down into the pit and see a man laying reinforcement, you should have as much respect for him as for the investor who is financing it. Because if this is lacking, it is difficult to expect that our own work will ever be respected. This is advice that I also try to pass on to my sons, but also to the entire architectural community. It is a word that I have to remember myself and constantly seek in my personal behaviour. Because, unfortunately, we often do not respect each other. And without that, there is no dialogue, cooperation or good architecture.”

I think this applies not only to young architects, but to all of us. In a world where there is often a lack of consideration for other people, respect seems to be one of the values that should guide us, regardless of our profession or role. Thank you for this interview – for your authenticity, reflection and willingness to share your experience.