>> glor: welcome to the program. i'm jeff glor filling in for charlie rose. we begin this evening with politics and talk to julie hirschfield-davis of the "new york times" and philip rucker of the "the washington post." >> this is the third week in a row where they've had like a themed week. it was infrastructure weeks then it was technology week, now it's energy week. there is so little talk of the subject at hand. the media is partially responsible for that but the president is getting in the way of his own message with these tweets and the other fights and the focus on an adversarial relationship with the media. it's tough to get the band width to cover what they say is the subjects of the day. >> glor: we conclude with architect norman foster. >> the best art to me is light

and lightness, which doesn't mean to say i don't enjoy the buildings that were more solid, but back in team the cathedral were in search of light and lightness. even though they were made of heavy stone, they stretched the boundaries. >> glor: politics and architecture when we continue. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> glor: good evening, i'm jeff glor filling in for charli.

we begin with politics. president trump met with south korean president moon jae-in early this morning, discussing the escalation over north korea's nuclear program with president trump declaring the era of strategic patience with north korea has failed. the g8 summit comeswell sessions with moscow over meddling. joining me is julie hirschfield-davis of the "new york times." also philip rucker, white house bureau chief with "the washington post." pleased to welcome both of them back to the program. julie, let me start with you. how much common ground is there with the administration and the new south korean administration? the south koreans are talking about talking and diplomacy and the trump administration is ratcheting up the rhetoric. >> that's right. i think there is a fair amount of common ground in terms on paper, you know, both president

moon and president trump are very concerned with north korea's behavior, with the continuing provocations, and we've heard them both speaking about addressing that in different ways, as you point out, but president trump is really intensifying his message to the north koreans and sort of by extension to the chinese who he'll also see next week on the sidelines of the g20 really getting a lot more aggressive about his approach to keeling with north korea, and it's not clear that president moon is exactly where he is on that. one of the things that president trump has been disappointed with is the degree to which china has been able to or willing to intervene to try to place its leverage on north korea to change its behavior. in the absence of that, and not clear he's going to get that -- i think he's getting a little more frustrated about it -- it's not clear where all this rhetoric goes. he's talking very tough about our patience has run out, but

what then happens as a consequence, whether it be on the military front or the economic front? it's not really clear. we saw new sanctions the administration put in place this week. whether or not that will be successful in changing any behavior is very unclear. >> glor: philip, is the administration going it alone? if they're not on the same page with south korea now and don't have china's support, if the u.s. wants to push and china's saying we don't want to, what do they do? >> that's the problem, there is not agreement within the region on how to deal with the north korean threat and you see president trump wanting to escalate. like julie said, his patience is really running thin. but in south korea, you have a new president, president moon, he's trying to figure out his own relationship with trump and the united states and has been studying the actions of the united states over the last few months ahead of this visit. he wants to get on the same page with the u.s. and they're not

there, but more important for trump is the china relationship, and he spent a lot of time trying to convince president xi and china and his government to step up sanctions and economic pressure on the north koreans, and they've so far been unwilling to do that and that has really frustrated the white house. >> glor: regarding south korea and many other countries the president talked about since assuming office and even before, he did talk about sharing the burden as well and trade deals, that seems to be part of the conversation in a lot of these discussions. >> absolutely. he did make the point about burden sharing. he talked about the american troops stationed in south korea, and it wasn't clear what he meant in that context, whether he expects somehow for the south koreans to be provided some kind of support they haven't yet provided. but he actually lectured president moon quite sharply on trade, and it has to be fair and it has to be good for the united states.

he really criticized the u.s.-korea trade deal that president obama's administration negotiated and that he signed a few years ago, and basically said that, you know, he wanted to see better terms for the united states and it had to be good for the american worker and that's a message he has been taking around the world and will be taking to the g20 and all these countries where he'll meet with leaders on the sidelines but also in the multi-lateral talks. we're going to hear very tough talk from this president on trade, and it's not necessarily a message europe and some of the other countries represented there wants to hear. >> glor: the g20, obviously an enormous amount of attention and what's about to happen. >> that's right, it's going to be the meeting of the 20 20 nats and germany hosted by chancellor merkel. she's hoping to talk about climate change and trade, two issues where president trump is far away from the consensus among the other 19 countries,

and so you may end up with a dank where the united states feels somewhat isolated in those talks which could be quite revealing and interesting about the state of geopolitics. but look for merkel, the new french president macron, and some of their allies to really try to increase the pressure on the united states to get back to the table maybe on the paris agreement, the climate accord trump withdraw the united states from a few months ago and also the trade issues. >> glor: seems like people pay attention to the body language of the leaders more than the policy. >> absolutely, the hand shakes, the posing for the family photo which is an awkward moment, a lot is read into that. it will be interesting to see if there is a big divide between trump and the other leaders on climate and ifn migration.

will they push the envelope and put him on the spot or make it seem there is common ground to seek to make progress on certain issues. that remains to be seen and the body language will be a big tell on that. of course, everyone's looking to see what the body language is like between him and vladimir putin when they meet on the sidelines, whether it will be all handshakes and grins or fur road brows as the president takes his first face-to-face meeting with putin. >> glor: what is the white house saying about the meeting with vladimir putin? >> they're not saying a lot about the meeting other than to acknowledge it is going to be happening at some point on the sidelines of the g20, but it's unclear, for example, how much access there will be for the media to the meeting. will it be just a quake photo op or will both leaders make public statements and answer questions about the relationship, that

would be very revealing. it's also unclear what the topics of the discussion will be. we can imagine they will discuss probably counterterrorism, perhaps the situation inner isia perhaps fighting the islamic state, which is one area where i think the trump administration is eager to find common ground with russia, but it's unclear, for example, if there is going to be any discussion about the 2016 u.s. election. is president trump going to confront president putin about what the u.s. intelligence agencies have concluded which is that russia at the direction of putin intervened with the u.s. election last year with the explicit aim of helping elect donald trump. >> glor: julie, what are the risks to taking a meeting like this if there are no clear goals in mind necessarily that we know of? >> well, it's a very risky meeting. it's a meeting that president trump really has to have. this is the president of russia. it's actually quite late in the game even in the first year of a

presidency for him to be meeting with vladimir putin, but if he goes in there without an agenda, which is what the white house sort of indicated when they briefed reporters about this trip and confirmed the meeting was happening, that is a huge risk for him and the united states because you can bet vladimir putin coming in with a big agenda of his own, including he wants to see the sanctions that have been imposed on russia for the seizure of crimea, the interference in ukraine and the meddling in the elections lifted and that he wants to seek common grounds and cooperation in some of the areas including syria that phil mentioned in mighting i.s.i.s., but what is he -- in fighting i.s.i.s., but what is he prepared to give in return? if it's not clear what the united states is seeking or what points we want to make, what points donald trump needs to make with regard to election meddling both here and abroad, then he could come away looking like he was had or he was naive and putin will get a friendly

looking meeting and he will get no sort of tangible benefits in return and, of course, that would underscore the narrative that he is too cozy with putin, that he is somehow beholden to him, which is damaging given the investigations going on about the election. >> glor: but that's part of the president's m.o., his confidence and ability to operate on the fly, that he could potentially enter this meeting and figure it out as things go along. >> that's right, and what julie said is absolutely correct, that this is really risky because, in part, you know, trump may be in there improvising. putin's not going to improvise. putin comes in these things with a strategy. he's a very focused leader. he's a former k.g.b. officer. he's going to say exactly what he's prepared to say and nothing more and nothing less. it may be that he has trump on the spot and up against the wall and trump starts saying things that the u.s. is not comfortable

with him saying. you know, i don't know what will happen exactly but there is a lot of risk here. another thing to look for is whether this is going to be a meeting where it's really just the two presidents and maybe a couple of aides or will it be a more formal bilateral meeting where there will be a delegation of counts of six and maybe two people flanking the president and help balancing what's said in the discussion. >> glor: do we know how national security advisor general mcmaster figures in all this? >> well, he's certainly advising the president on how to play this, whether or not the president is going to take that guidance and the talking points that i am positive general mcmaster and his staff are drafting for him is another matter. we know that general mcmaster is, you know, as concerned as general mattis and secretary tillerson have said they are about russia's behavior. there's a desire to, you know, project a lot of toughness and a

lot of determination to see russia change its case, but there is also, you know, i think general mcmaster is very keen to see -- to help president trump explore these possible areas of cooperation, and the question is how does he approach the discussion about that so that he is seen as actually, you know, achieving something in a sh rude way rather than giving concessions to somebody who has, you know, engaged in a lot of conduct around the world and in the united states, that they're very uncomfortable with. >> so, philip -- go ahead. i was just going to say, one thing to point out is trump will be meeting with president putin with a lot of domestic political pressure on him back in the u.s. certainly all the democrats are going to want and expect he be very tough on president putin, but a number of republican senators, key republican senators are going to expect the same. john mccain, lindsey graham, even marco rubio. i think there is an expectation and there is going to be

pressure on trump to be tough with president putin and to confront him about what russia did in the u.s. election in trying to undermine the democracy here. >> glor: if the u.s. is offering or seeking concessions in this russian meeting, what might they be, julie? >> seeking concessions from russia, what thaip talked about wanting to do is establish a channel to potentially cooperate to reach some sort of a settlement or some sort of resolution to the situation. in ukraine, there's been talk of the naming of a special envoy for ukraine and potentially getting the united states and ukraine and russia at the table to talk about potential solutions to deescalate the situation there. of course, whether or not they can make any advances on syria i think the idea of sort of a peace agreement in the same way john kerry was talking about last year and previously is sort of off the table, but whether they can take the temperature

down a bit and do a better job of cooperating in efforts against the islamic state is an open question. i think they'd want to explore that. the big question for the united states, of course, and for president trump is whether he would want to or seek to actually ease or lift the sanctions that are on russia as a result of what's happening in ukraine and the elections as well, and congress has weighed in pretty fofer forcefully to cy the sanctions and make it impossible for topt unilaterally lift them without congress. the house hasn't acted on that which creates a dynamic for the meeting which is interesting because if trump were shrewd about this, he could argue to putin, look, i need to show my congress i've got something from you if you want me to get the power to ease sanctions in

exchange for your better behavior. >> glor: philip you've talked about bipartisan pressure when it comes to russia and putin and there is bipartisan pressure on the president over his use of social media, specifically twitter. is the administration anxious to turn the page and focus on g20 or are they all too interested in continuing to have the media discussion? >> ates bit of a mixed answer. i know the white house officials believe the media discussion has been sort of a net win for them. it's galvanized their base, presented the president as a victim of the establishment, of entrenched media interests that are out to get and undermine him, and as far as it energizes his supporters this the country and gives them the common enemy, that's politically advantageous. but the tweets about mika bra zen ski and the crude nature of that bothered the people in the

white house. they're eager to talk about some of the items observe his agenda and feel like they had a good week early in the week lambasting the "fake news media." they had three resignations at cnn they saw internally in the white house as a real victory for them and they would like to be focusing on that and also be focusing on healthcare, and this is energy week, after all, and there is been very lilt attention on energy, but that's the theme week for this week, and they want to kind of move beyond mike abee abra abra zen d that discussion. >> glor: what is the message the white house wants to get across? >> absolutely. i mean, this is the third week in the a row where they've had a themed week. it was infrastructure, technology, now energy week. there is so little talk of the

subject at hand. the media is partially responsible for that but the president is the person getting in the way of his own message with these tweets and other fights and the focus on an adversarial relationship with the media. it's tough to get the band width to cover what they say is the subject of the day. we've heard the president talk about energy independence and the need to lift regulation and expand the development of energy in the united states. he's talked about bringing mining jobs back and how beautiful coal is and this is a consistent message that we're going to continue to hear from him. he's going to talk a lot about energy and have the chance to when he goes abroad because he's going to warsaw on his way to g20. they got their first shipment of american liquid natural gas earlier this month, so that's

something he'll tout, the fact that the united states is exporting natural gas and how great that is for the country. but i to the that, you know -- but i do think that a lot of that will get lost in talk of the rest of the co controversies he's sparked on media which is can they get him reigned in in time for this trip. >> glor: he talks about the l.&g. deals. >> yes and he talks more broadly, he wants to be seen as a dealmaker and someone who creates opportunities in the united states, the exporting energy and other business compeanuts out around the world, really. but, you know, they want to focus on policy and there is very little actual policy being produced by the white house so far. you hear complaints at the white house hat the media are not

covering his tax reform plan, but there really is no tax reform plan. it's a one-page list of bullet points, there is no legislation, no policy, no infrastructure plan yet. the president's pushing the healthcare bill in the senate and yet he hasn't actually give an sort of full-throated defense of the healthcare bill and explained to the american people what exactly it is and, point by point, why it is better than the affordable care act that we have now. so again the onus is really on the president to get out there and use his bully pulpit to promote policy. >> glor: and tax reform may be further complicated by some of mitch mcconnell's actions potentially amending the healthcare bill. and the president throughout the notion today of just repealing to begin with and then replacing later. >> and this is part of the problem, right, and we know and the white house will admit donald trump is not a policy details guy, he's not a details guy at all, and he's sort of

build himself as somewhat gnostic about the specifics of the bill. he just wants better healthcare, coverage for everyone. a lot of things that are much more easily said than done. the problem is, i think particularly for republicans who are trying to find a way to get to 50 votes on this in the senate, is that if republicans aren't certain that the president is 100% behind this bill, that he's going to be there for them when they take a tough vote. if he's vacillating every day what's going to be in the bill, what shouldn't be in the bill, should we back off this whole day of replacing it, repeal it now and look later for replacing it, they're twisting in the wind and their political hides are on the line. it's not a great negotiating tactic on his part. if he wants to see a deal done, he needs to come to the table, say what he's willing to do and not to do and say i'm going to be there for all of you if you come with me and do this tough

vote. i'm sure even that would do the trick, but he's not even attempting to seem to have their back on this. >> glor: the people would see this as a brushback pitch, to get people moving, whether effective or not? >> right. yeah, he just wants to have something and show progress and demonstrate that he's acting. he likes to talk about his presidency as historic and having accomplished more in the first five months than anybody else, so he's just looking for a win. >> glor: from th "the post" reporting, which senators are problematic in terms of mitch mcconnell getting this through? >> that's a good question. there are a couple of different categories of senators. there are the moderate senators who are opposed to the bill for particular reasons. dean heller is one, but also

lisa murkowski from alaska, susan collins from maine, and then another group of senators who are more conservative or have doubts about the bill because they don't think it goes far enough to fully repeal the affordable care act, obamacare, and that would be rand paul, ted cruz expressed doubts though there is a feeling he would probably vote for the bill when push comes to shove. >> glor: i was in ads earlier this week and ads about and directed to murkowski are all over the place there. >> i bet. >> glor: what would mitch mcconnell like to do at this point in terms of bringing it to a vote? >> i think it was a big step back from mcconnell that he wasn't able to have a vote the week. all of us who have covered these big legislative fights know as more time passes you sap momentum and it can get harder. in his wake of the decision to put off the vote were a lot more republicans saying they were against the bill or having

reservations, rob portman of ohio and others, they have play on mitch mcconnell's to get people to yes. they're trying to see if he could come to a compromise that would satisfy enough of the moderates to get them on board nd be able to make the argument to the conservatives that, as we heard him say, listen, it's this or we're going to have to sit down with chuck schumer and the democrats and do something none of us want the do. so this is as good as we can get now. they will have to get another vote in the house which would be problematic potentially. there is potential to pull the bill a little more to the right. i think he needs to get this moving and that's going to be the goal when they get back. >> glor: last but not least, the daily, the "times" podcast had a discussion of the travel

ban today and what is a bona fide relationship. it went into effect in part last night. we see the talk of protests at some airports. what's the schedule on the progression of that from the administration's standpoint? >> they're in a realm now where this can go forward. te supreme court's ruling basically allowed parts of this to go forward and they're going to review the case, the legal challenges to the travel ban in october, but this was an effort to sort of get this moving and, so, basically, if you have travel plans that pre-dated this guidance that they put out, that the administration put out yesterday, you should still be able to travel. but they're just about to hit their cap of the 50,000 refugees that the administration says it's willing to accept from outside the country, so that's going to go into effect pretty quickly. but there are these exceptions for people with what they call

bona fide relationships and it's an interesting sort of slicing and dicing that they've done where, you know, parents count but grandparents don't count, step siblings count but nieces and nephews don't, it's kind of a strange deal. i think we'll see a lot of very compelling stories of people whose relatives are not able to come even though they have the wherewithal to bring them here and give them a place to live and help them get settled. but, you know, that's basically going to be -- we're going to see weeks and weeks of those kinds of stories between now and the supreme court's review of this. >> so, philip, this is the supreme court's wording but they're not going to clear it up, they're going to let everybody else sort it out till they decide in the fall? >> that's exactly right. they're going to be on a long recess in the summer and we'll take it up in october. so we're not going to get any sort of definitive, permanent ruling here on this travel ban until october at the earliest.

again, it's kind of open to the administration's interpretation right now and the ruling from earlier this week by the supreme court does indeed clear the path for some of this to go into effect. >> glor: philip rucker of "the washington post" and julie hirschfield-davis of the "new york times," we appreciate both of your time. thank you. >> thank you. s. rose: in order norman foster is here. paul goldberger once called him the mozart of modernism. over the course of a six decade career he has become one of the world's most revered architects. the gherkin building, london city hall and the h.e.c. building in hong kong are his buildings. in 1969 he was chosen to design the new apple headquarters which opened in april and launched the norman foster foundation in madrid to help new generations of architect and designers

anticipate the future. i am pleased to have norman foster back at this table. welcome. >> thank you. >> rose: you've done some designing for steve jobs with respect to some of the stores before you began to think about it? >> no, that's come later. the campus, the main building, steve's vision for the future was the start. >> rose: how did the two of you come together, norman foster, steve jobs? >> he called me out of the blue directly and said, hi, norman, i need some help, can you come over, how quick can you get here? i was there a few weeks later. what was going to be an hour or two hours' meeting took over the whole day. so from beginning to end, finished in the kitchen over pizza with families, it was

total immersion. >> rose: immersion in what? eally steve's vision for his project. he described the materials, stone and glass, the california landscape of his youth, and together we talked about that. he talked about the citrus groves, the fruit bowl of his youth. i suggested maybe those could be incorporated into a landscape. he loved the idea. and then we went to pixar which, in many kind of ways, was different but was relevant to the conversation. so it was a very intensive day. and if i do a word picture of the conversation of that day, you can relate it very directly to the building as it is now. he even talked about a theater for a thousand people. >> rose: where he could make presentations and all the stuff he did on an annual basis. >> of course. >> rose: what tid you make of -- what did you make of him?

>> i thought he was remarkable in that he was -- could think about the big picture and be on his hands and knees, worrying about the detail of a socket and a plug. so that ability which i admire -- i admire it in an architect, in any great thinker, strategist, that ability for the headlines and the fine print. >> rose: people who know him well say he married almost uniquely art and technology. >> i'd say that was a pretty good description. he was, in a way, totally about the future, focused. shortly after he passed away, i had to present the scheme to the top 100 in apple. my opening image was a quote from steve. don't think of me as a client, think of me as a member of the team. and he was creative.

>> rose: and then we now have what's called the circle -- i'm sorry, the ring. did he talk about that idea of the ring? >> no. what is kind of below the surface was the way in with the project evolved. the circle came relatively late in the process, and the circle emerged out of a dialogue between his perfect vision for for -- for something called a bod which was essentially a team space with monastic cells on the side so an individual could have a degree of concentration but there would be the commonality of the team space, and that had certain dimensional constraints. then this was the big picture of the building and the landscape, and it started off like his

vision of stamford with its social space. it started as a heart, as a landscape space. it kind of became rectangle squares, then we moved into circles, then there was something called the propeller scheme and, at one point, there was this crisis. we could not reconcile the ideal interior with the ideal exterior and then kind of click. the circle came and -- no, it was one of those you reeka moments, but it came out of a long process. it wasn't an immediate one-liner. >> rose: he wanted to eliminate the barrier between building and nature. >> that was really, i think, part of that vision from the start. so -- and when he had the opportunity to get the adjoining side, then, all of a sudden, 175 acres offered itself as a prospect. i mean, 10,000 trees, five miles of track and something that will

be shared by not just the people in the main building but all the other -- the team of apple in the neighborhood. >> rose: i want to show photographs, and you will recognize them. tell me what i'm seeing there. >> ah, that is the 1,000-seat presentation theater, and it is a carbon fiber disk floating without visible structure. the glass drum is the structure. so structural glass and everything kind of hidden in those joints, so really doing more with less. >> rose: next slide. these are the eyebrows, the canopies. they're extending the interior space out into the landscape. you can see the highly reflective. snrmpleghts so that greenlandscape is being mirrored into the space.

above they're acting as light shelves for main areas of the facade, shading, reducing glare, but giving a kind of unique identity to this building. >> rose: where did the glass come from? >> the glass came from a variety -- i mean, it was processed, it came from germany, china. three buildings were created for this project and a new industry arose in california, in sacramento. >> rose: why only four stories? >> ease of communication. >> rose: he wanted them to walk around and see each other. >> yes. the building is about communication. it's described as a very large building, but i call it a compact building, because if you think of the original campus 26 buildings, you dissolve them into one, everyone is under one roof. this is great for communication. you can link vertically and

horizontally, it was very friendly. >> rose: the last appearances he made was before the pore tino security council and made the case pore the building. >> and he made it so eloquently. >> rose: what is your best memory of him? >> best memory of him is someone who was intensed, dedicated, focused, sense of humor, a very warm, a very human person. >> rose: what does he share with michael bloomberg whom you've just done a building for in london? >> individuals very different. buildings more different. you couldn't be more far away from california than in the heart of the financial square mile of london. >> rose: the city of london. two individuals totally hands-on. so many individuals in that position would be delegating down to project managers, and two individuals wonderfully opinionated in terms of the way that they're organization should

work, and prepared to make the effort and to be demanding. >> rose: do you want a client to tell you exactly what they want? or do you want them simply to outline it so that you can give it the structure that it gives you the freedom to come back? >> the more information that you can have, the more you can respond to the very special needs of that organization through that individual. so, really, you want somebody who has strong views but has an open mind, and you can play a kind of intellectual ping-pong. you can show ideas. they can be rejected, absorbed, transformed, but out of that process comes something that is very tailored so that organization, but, ideally, also has within it flexibility for change. >> rose: i've said this a

thousand times, mike nichols the film director asked him what do you expect from actors? he says i expect the same thing from actors that i expect from my architect, i want them to surprise me. >> absolutely, and i think that, in that sense, when that relationship is really working on aione-to-one, and you have teams and that becomes kind of one team, then the element of surprise is -- >> rose: and what was the vision of meekle bloomberg for his office tower in that part of london? >> he described it as fitting in, and that was poivel the way in i -- and that was, obviously, the way the building would appear from the outside. i think that the building is radical in the way that it breathes. it's naturally ventilated, also like apple in that respect. and they're both deep buildings, so this is really pioneering.

but mike's building, remember, is on very busy, noisy, polluted streets, so to pull the air through the building, filter it, reduce the noise level is challenging. to reduce the materials, that building really does fit in. mike -- had the potential of going much higher. it's low in the cityscape, but at the same time it's giving a lot back to the community, it's creating an arcade, a public route, the man route from the metro station, on the line of the historic wassailing street, so it's referring to history. >> rose: this building had beneath it roman ruins. >> wan incredible treasure trove. thousands of pieces of leather, gold, tablets, an extraordinary collection, and it kind of encloses a roman temple and the

metro administration below it as well as shops and restaurants. >> rose: how did you fit this building in with the surrounding buildings? >> really knitting it in, learning from history, continuing the line of streets, working with history, but, at the same time, a similar parallel to the apple building. the building was also driven by how bloomberg works which is a unique organization in so many ways. so big flaw plates, communication, the ability to look across a space and see somebody. >> rose: i think you said an office should not be about work alone, it should be about work and lifestyle. >> i have been pioneering that a long time. >> rose: because you believe offices shouldn't be a place

where you go in and close the door and don't speak to anyone. >> they're about lifestyle. remember, as the catchman is more and more difficult, people are going with the lifestyle and a healthy building is. they were subjective beliefs, perhaps decades ago, but scientific research has shown that the environment within a building, it can make you healthy, it can make you more alert and more productive. >> rose: what other architects in the world of star architects and people who have large names like you do, who reflects, do you think, closest to your views about architecture and about design? >> i think, for me, the people from the past, like the first green architect, the first

person to draw attention to the fragility of the planet, which happened about the same time as the space race, when you were getting the first photographs of planet earth which buckey coined. so i think, in a way, individuals like aim rilovens with his rocky mountain institute who in the '80s was demonstrating sustainability. his house high in colorado above the snow line, with banana trees and no energy input, beautifully comfortable. >> rose: with the changing demands of how we get energy, does that present changing demands for architects is this. >> i think it presents extraordinary opportunities. i mean, the way in which we're seeing the price of solar. here the optimists are in the ascendancy. predicted by 2030, it will be cheaper than coal.

and you're seeing the economies which have a high dependence on fossil fuels realizing that, and china is investing heavily not just in solar. two-thirds of the solar panels in the world come out of china. half the wind turbines. >> rose: people worry they will be so far ahead of us in the technology of alternative energy sources. >> yes, look at the investment in battery plants. you have two in america, one in europe. you have ten in china either under construction or operating. >> rose: but how does this change the architecture? >> well, we know -- i mean, there's a solar prize in my name in switzerland and one recent prize winner generates 238% of the energy that it needs, so it's feeding back energy into the national grid. incidentally, apple is absorbing

more carbon dioxide through the trees, 200 tons a year, and it's carbon neutral as a building, it's totally energy sufficient. >> rose: with so many projects around the world, how do you do it? >> i'm able to focus myself on a number of projects. i'm able to overview a wide arrange of projects and i have just a fantastic team. >> rose: you once said, though, that architects have no power. >> only power of advocacy. the power to be able to use rational argument and to confront the options and to point the way that small interventions can make a huge difference. >> rose: you've said there are a lot of fantasies about architects. what fantasies are there? >> i think we had this event in madrid, and it was a

multi-disciplinary lineup by the foundation, created by the foundation, and someone came up to me afterwards and said, you know, if this forum succeeded with something like 1,500 students there from various professions, in making everybody realize that architecture is not just about making fancy shapes, that it's really a core activity, that design is a core activity. it's not about frivolity. >> rose: but is it fine art? it's art, it's also about practicality, it's about responding to the issues of the day. >> rose: that's a great balance. steve was talking about technology and -- >> it's a balancing act but it should lift the spirits and make you feel better. it's not just about keeping out the rain. >> rose: the function that is not alone. it should touch your spirit in the sense that you walk in the

building that has been thought through and you feel a sense of -- an emotion about being there and you're inspired -- >> you should want to come back, you should want to stay. of course, i think there's a wider world of shelter. remember that one in three of the urban settlements by 2050 will be so-call informal settlement which is a very kind of posh way of saying it won't have clean water, it won't have sanitation, it won't have power. so, in a way, the design community needs to join with others, i think, to address those needs. >> rose: you have been signaled out for, i think the words they used, are lightness and grace. does that mean something to you? >> i would be enormously flattered. i mean, i think the best architecture for me is agent light and lightness. it doesn't mean to say i don't enjoy those buildings which are more solid, but if you go back in time to the cathedrals, they were in pursuit of light and

lightness, even though they were made of heavy stone, they stretched the boundaries. >> rose: and also the exploration of weight is an interesting idea. >> yes, the concept of doing more with less and, arguably, that's what we have to do with cities, we have to achieve more with less energy and less pollution. >> rose: and what's the relationship between architecture and urban planning? >> for me, there's a total fusion. i can't separate the individual building from the kind of urban glue, the public spaces, the bridges, the mass transit. our experience of a city transcends the individual building, and it's the combination of the buildings, the infrastructure, that's where the energy is consumed, that's where the greenhouse gases are being emitted, so we have to make that cleaner. the production of energy has to be cleaner. >> rose: how do you stay informed?

>> by trying to prepare myself for events like the one last week in madrid. but i think it's a curiosity and, in that sense, i'm as much as a student as i was when i was at manchester however in decades ago. >> rose: speaking of manchester, everybody's heart went out when they got up and realized what happened there. do you return to manchester? do you stay close to the city? >> i go back. the last time i went back, i gave a talk in manchester town hall where i worked as a youth, and i talked about the so-called northern powerhouse, and i sought to elaborate ways in which, through communication, you could spread prosperity, how we could have greater connectivity with the south, and the way in which the penines was a barrier and you could do a route around it.

i talked about the work we did in the royal valley, so, yes, i do go back. >> rose: you came from a middle class family background? >> i think it was more of a working class background, but i had fantastic parents. >> rose: did you set out to become an architect? was that an early inspiration? >> i'd always been interested in buildings. when i worked at manchester town hall, i would walk around and lunchtime and look at buildings. and i was -- but it was only later that i realized the possibility of going to university to study architecture. >> rose: it was a love of buildings that did et. >> yes, it was interesting, also, in the archive. didn't realize it was there, but somebody who had been going through it said, did you see the book that you did when you were 13 years old? and there's a description of curtain walls. and i had forgotten it completely. so it's been -- it's been an

obsession, building, since childhood is that and what is it between you and the color grey? >> i'm not at all sure that it's -- there is a theme of greys and silvers and whites that weave their way through the buildings, but there are also those buildings which have colors of nature. willie's favor is about the sunshine of yellow, the green of grass, and, so, i think that, in the same way you can categorize the buildings as skean as bones. if you take the bloomberg building, it's very muscular, which is very much expresses its structure in stone, picks up the rhythms of the streets. apple, on the other hand, is very much an expression of the skin of the building. so i think that there are these themes which weave through the

architecture. >> rose: the foundation in ma tried, what's the driving idea about this foundation some. >> as you summarized in the beginning, it's about younger generations. >> rose: looking to the future? >> yes, looking to the future. as a student, i was fortunate to win scholarships. i had a henry fellowship that took me to yale university. i was able to, during the summary vacations, to win scholarships to travel. when i won the pritzker prize, the prize money went into a kitty and that was really the start of somehow also trying to give something back. but with a focus, i mean, creating, traveling, fellowships, enabling students who don't have the means, the bartlett school, for example, to have their tuition paid for the

course. but really with more of a focus, a focus on the things in a way i've accumulated in the six and a half decades which produces an archive, a think thank, a base for people to come together and events such as the one that you talked about in madrid. so pointing the way for younger generations who will have the responsibility for those issues, those big issues. >> rose: as you know -- i mean, new york has often been a venue for a lot of conversations about the future of architecture and, yet, i'm reading about your foundation. part of what you want there is to capture the heart beat of architecture and how it can seve the future. >> yes. architecture and infrastructure and agriculture and

transportation. i mean, we're on the edge of revolutions. i mean, you know, the car as we know it today will probably be totally obsolete by 2030. and will you be taking -- >> rose: a driverless car? yeah, or will you be taking a hover craft? will you be taking a drone? >> rose: they're about ready to test, in california, a flying automobile. >> so what was science fiction in my youth is now the edge of reality. >> rose: and architecture is more now identified in terms of an holistic idea with the larger forces at work? >> i've always been pursuing a holistic view. i mean, in the 1960s and 70s, green planning, green buildings, buildings that breathe. now we're realizing them. that was a green architecture before the word had been coined. >> rose: when you travel around the world, it seems to me that, as i follow what is being

discussed in forum and conferences and things like that, urbanism is getting a very -- more and more people are drawn more to urban life and areas, whether china as a developing country, or places like paris and london, the sense of quality of life in urban areas. >> the future of society is the city. i mean, by 2050, it's estimated that 75% of humanity will be living in cities, and if we're talking about global warming, remember that 70% of the world's cities are on the coast, and 50% of humanity is within 100 kilometers of the coast. >> rose: and puts them at risk. >> absolutely. it's not just the polar bear sitting on an iceberg. >> rose: when you talk to young architects, what is it they want? are they different today than they were when you were 30?

>> i think that they're possibly more concerned about the future. >> rose: about the world around them. >> yes. >> rose: more awareness because of pollution? >> i think there is a heightened sense of awareness, and i think that was the power of the forum last week to draw students from really all over. >> rose: to come look at the future -- >> yes, an it was a friend who looked down the long lines of students waiting to get in, the friend said, you know why they're here, it's about the future, and they're worried about their future. so i think you're right. >> rose: even here among non-architecture students, among millennials, there is a great sense that we see in terms of wanting to have a more direct connection to the politics of their time. >> i think the important thing, though, to get across is bringing together different disciplines, working together from the outset in a holistic way. >> rose: to problem solving.

that's critical, and that's one of the main missions of the foundation. >> rose: you're young at heart. thank you for coming. >> thank you. >> rose: for more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. >> you're watching pbs.

hello and welcome, i'm twee boo. today we bring you another special edition of kqed newsroom on the road. later as part of the san francisco homeless reporting project, we'll talk about the challenges of finding a joble and working while homeless, first we begin at uc hastings college of the law to talk about the week's big political and legal news. portions of president trump's so-called travel ban just took effect, the u.s. supreme court won't hear the case until october, but the fallout has already begun. and it's been a week of political maneuvering over the republican plan to repeal and replace obamacare. also some significant developments this week in california politics, on climate change, and other issues. and joining me are you political senior writer, karla