Burapa Prommul is a founding Design Partner at TADAH Collaboration in Bangkok, Thailand. He previously worked in Singapore with acclaimed firm WOHA Architects, where he completed the award winning School of the Arts (SOTA) building. He received a Masters of Science in Adaptive Architecture and Computation from University College London (UCL).
His work at TADAH exemplifies environmentally sustainable design for dense tropical urban situations like Thailand, dealing with space limitations and the tropical climate. Burapa kindly agreed to an interview with Archigardener, read below to find out more about his fascinating work at TADAH.
Archigardener (AG): Hi Burapa, how is life and work in Thailand right now? How has this crazy year (or two!) been for you and your company?
Burapa Prommul (BP): Lockdown, social isolation, family separation, paranoia, stress, exercise deprivation, online collaboration, importance of home living, these are the words that popped up in mind for my retrospective memory of this year. It was so disruptive, migrating work from office to home had to be arranged in a short time. As you know, describing pictures, aesthetic, precision etc. by using words & laptop to comment (did not have an iPad at that time) was so tough in our profession here. Construction was delayed due to temporary stop-order to country-wide construction sites. Life was full of uncertainties really between wave to wave derived from Covid mutations. Mentality wellness was another challenging aspect, particularly for me when I stayed alone in a condominium unit and felt so disconnected from people and abruptly stopped our personal routines. The pandemic trained us on the art of surviving and solution finding for work and personal life.
AG: You studied architecture in both Thailand and the UK, could you tell us what was the most interesting thing you learned at each? Is there a way that they are very similar, and a way that they are very different?
BP: I obtained my Bachelors Degree in Thailand, which prepared students fundamental knowledge. Over the year in school, we were bombarded with weekly design projects, and reports for both individual and group work that demanded our fullest effort on academic knowledge and time management. The most extreme semester demanded us to worked on our individual projects and simultaneously shifting with 3 group projects working with 3 group of different colleagues with weekly submission for each. That is without mentioning our usual lecture classes. Very hectic, nonetheless we all passed it successfully. (Whereas in other courses, students may be occupied only examination season). The design course emphasized on composition, aesthetic, functionality. It was heavily central on individual artistic talent. But I would say that, in retrospect to the past course, it lacked a proper thinking/ design process training where many students got lost and could not structure their thinking to find the process and translate into design.
As for my time in the UK, I received a Master of Science in Adaptive Architecture and Computation in The Bartlett, UCL Faculty of the Built Environment. It was a completely different in learning approach. Borrowing from the scientific thinking process, the course trained us to think systematically. Like conducting an experiment in a laboratory, they teach a creative solution finding process, starting from observation, question, hypothesis, solution-finding process, result and speculation, regardless the subject matter and whether it is theoretical or studio subjects. While it may sounds rigid, this still demands individual observation skill, creative (design) questions and is a process that really lead to an astonishing result. Nurturing the communication skills needed to narrate our thoughts clearly is very crucial. Interestingly, the course values the entire experimental process over the success of our findings. It does not penalize an undesirable result. On the opposite, it encourages us to continue finding other creative possibilities to test and refute our hypothesis until it is proven right. This approach reminds me of Tomas A. Edison’s famous quote “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.”
AG: You also worked in Singapore for more than a decade, what is your biggest takeaway from your time there? How does working in Singapore compare to working in Bangkok?
BP: Objectivity, clarity, execution, constant improvement are my biggest takeaway working in Singapore. It has a “question, think, plan and do it” attitude that reflects largely in many levels in the society. The country is moving as a team synchronized between government and private sectors, with an outward looking perspective. Improved human capital, optimized domestic resources, attracting oversea talent and venturing into oversea businesses are very much impressive attributes that bring this tiny state to the forefront of world class economy. And of course its design industry is among those who have benefited as well. This attitude and execution quality are not widely adopted in the mentality of the Thai people. Comparing between Singapore and Thailand, the keys areas that I find contrasting are:
- People culture
- Construction budget
- Perception of aesthetic
- Clarity of regulations
- Green design incentives offered by regulators
- Green initiative in design by the owners and designers
- Cohesive planning between city scale, street scape and architecture
The above are some points that have shaped our cities and people so differently. Putting all the subjective aspects aside, and focusing on the measurable aspect of construction budget and regulations: Singapore offers a better environment for the design and property industry to go green (if they wish to or by now if they have to). Singapore has been excelled as a Green & Eco Living City, and that was a great place for me to learn and witness the evolution of its green implementation for over a decade, to witness its success in a cohesive picture from the city down to architectural scale. Undoubtedly, it comes with a price tag at the initial stage. But the benefit will outlast considering the impacts on city well-being and damage in financial terms caused by endless environmental catastrophes. This is the most concrete aspect that I expect Thailand to learn from our near neighbor, to implement go-green regulations and create awareness that is really beneficial to the Thai people at large. Nonetheless, there are signs of progress here, but it has not been moving fast enough in my opinion. And to me, I would like to put our designs forward liquid to be part of this go-green evolution as well.
AG: Your firm has completed an array of high density, high amenity residential designs. What makes your approach to domestic architecture unique, and what are your inspirations/influences?
BP: Responding to surrounding nature, and how to bring it closer to residents, our general approach is as simple as that. This environmental-centric design process appears across our projects in different degrees (subject to project typology and the owner’s comfort and ability to maintain).
Nonetheless, to create an interesting design, there are two steps which I find very crucial. The first one is to set our minds free from any preconceived ideas. The second is to deliberately generate a specific design question for each project. This will lead the design to evolve into a unique outcome that specifically fits into that project. Our design questions are simple, pragmatic, solve existing problems and benefit users. Nothing fanciful or overly sophisticated.
While other firms may carry a signature style, on the opposite, I eliminated this from my work. It is more exciting to experiment with lots of ideas that lead to an unexpected result.
To answer what is my influence, I would refer to my reply on your second question on my UK Study, my Singapore professional experience in the third question, and the book called “The Six Thinking Hats” authored by Edward de Bono.
AG: In hyper-dense Bangkok, how do you approach building scale and density within space constraints in your projects? Do you think that high-rise environments can be as pleasant as those on the ground?
BP: To my surprise, Bangkok living unit sizes of late and for future high-rise developments are getting much smaller, possibly even smaller than Singapore housing. With a tight footprint, bringing the character of landed houses into the design of a high-rise is among our key design questions. Natural ventilation, natural light, terraces, shades, and greenery are obvious simple elements that we implement as much as possible. This is subject to several factors such as regulation, saleable area, construction cost, future maintenance, and most importantly is an adoption readiness by the owner, all of which have an implication to our design and which vary significantly between projects.
AG: What is your approach to sustainable design, and how significant is it to your work? Do you draw on vernacular architectures or any other influences in your environmental approach to design?
BP: Sustainable design has always been our criteria and in many cases, is part of our design questions. Passive design strategies are always a good start architecturally. Sun shade, ventilation, sunlight are necessary to derive a comfortable living at base. We borrow some ideas from vernacular architecture but not in a high degree. Traditional construction materials and construction techniques by far are not so relevant and costly for present-day available workmanship and project types we have worked on. But the fundamental concept of vernacular design that benefits living comfort such as ventilation, light, semi-outdoor space, greenery, etc are borrowed to apply in different architectural elements/ languages.
For landed houses, by nature, they have more room for us to explore spatial design. Obvious elements of roof eaves, sunshades, skylights, airwells are integrated. At Ramintra Resience 1, functions are detached apart using courtyards that allow more natural light & ventilation to almost every corner even though they are placed at the centre of the house. The owner can enjoy different outside views while moving from room to room, with solid walls that are positioned taking into the consideration of the privacy necessary. A long stretch of 2nd floor balcony will be the main gathering place, overlooking adjacent greenery.
At Ramintra Residence 2, the key idea is to define a horizontal strata where the lower floor is for guests, garden, parking and servicing areas. The upper floor is solely dedicated for the owner’s family to live all on the same floor. Cascading planters are proposed right behind the family area to fulfill the owner’s intention to have vegetable garden next to the kitchen. A row of bedrooms are placed together on one side to maintain their privacy. A main circulation spine detaches the house into 2 parts in order to create an airy and breezy dwelling environment.
When it comes to commercial high-dense housing, the implementation of vernacular ideas have to be carefully assessed. Numbers are always paramount in the developers mind, and we have to find a balance between sustainable idea implementation, saleable areas, construction cost, and more. It is very challenging, the way we have to optimize several aspects into a built-form that answer diverse agendas.
At the Lofts Silom, we explored the fact that vertical living in Bangkok is like living in a box. Big or small depends on the budget. Our question is how to introduce a landed-house-like living condition with vertical living? Natural light, cross ventilation, and family terraces are three elements typically found in tropical houses that we aimed to achieve in the project. On each floor, a private balcony was introduced in a practical shape (not too narrow/ elongated) that can accommodate various activities. Located next to the living room, it is practically an extended space that is visually connected between interior and exterior. They are shaded from sun and sheltered from rain, and can be utilized during most times of the day. Openings and brick screens were introduced at each balcony, allowing natural light and cross-building ventilation through to the lift lobby and the opposite end of the building. In addition, four 120 meter tall vertical air shafts were placed between the units. In combination, this creates a building that has a porous network of natural light and ventilation across the floors.
In our project Walden Sukhumvit 39, the average unit size is smaller than at The Lofts Silom. Our central design question is still ventilation, with the added complication that the unit needs to be more flexible to meet the various needs at different times of the day for multiple dwellers who live in a tiny 35 sqm unit. Can two dwellers share small space while enjoying different activities and their preferred temperature & ventilation? From that perspective, we attached “Sky Pavilions” to almost every unit, next to balcony and living areas. They consist of multiple set of panels, aluminum rod screens, insect screens, and glazing panels to regulate different ventilation modes. By default, this space is part of the living area. With glass partitioning it can be closed from the living area, becoming a semi-outdoor space that enjoys natural breezes. With a layer of insect screening, this space enables residents to enjoy natural air at anytime of the day with mosquitos, our common daily pest, kept out. With the aluminum screen layer, it provides partial privacy when it is closed or full exposure to outside view when opened. It is a simple design solution for flexible-compact living in Bangkok.
All in all, our designs aim to create an environment where dwellers feel and stay connected to outside environments. This could be in the form of visual connection, ventilation, light or actual usage of semi-outdoor space.
AG: What is your dream project?
BP: Most of the architectural projects we have worked on are residential designs. Definitely, other typologies would be very interesting and welcome such as educational facilities, sport facilities, transportation hubs, retail, office buildings.
Nonetheless, more important criteria for the future projects is how much the project welcomes creative alternatives and sees the importance of environmental-friendly design, wellbeing of users and aesthetics, implemented in a cohesive manner. These few factors will excite us more than a specific typology.
AG: Let’s finish off with a personal question. What is your home like?
BP: I live in a condominium in an area considered downtown. That is possibly what makes me well aware of what I am ok with and what I don’t enjoy (most of them) about living in a high-density housing. During Covid lockdowns, I started to personalize my space with an array of cactuses, baobabs, jackfruits, oranges, etc. These small green members offer me a softer side of life, tending to them and observing their well-being. Constant blooming all year round has delighted me. Back to your question of my home, from this perspective, I would say my home is where I usually spend time and enjoy myself. This includes the small lane where I walked by daily for dinners, a nearby cafe where I sometimes work and read, the nearest public parks where I exercise and jog weekly, my home is the city. Personally, I feel more energetic and motivated in public spaces with the dynamism of people, yet I can still maintain my focus. An urban-scale energy that does not exist in a living unit or a house.
AG: Thanks so much Burapa for your insightful responses!
Find out more about his company, TADAH Collaboration at tadah.co.th or @tadah.collaboration.
Images by TADAH Collaboration
