Miles, the messenger and message are two separate things, as you say. In this case, the messenger is wrong because he lacks a breadth of knowledge, and the message is wrong because he chooses to see what he wants to see and has no desire to expand his breadth of knowledge. Like I said, he's an anti-vaxxer.
The I Look Up ad explains that architects don't do exactly what this article accuses them of doing. We listen, seek inspiration, create places for people to live in concert with their cultural and functional desires. That's what the ad shows. We don't fling a "style" at an unwilling public, be that style Classical or anything else.
And it's not true that all journalism is tabloid journalism unless you agree with it. This article is factually incorrect and intentionally inflammatory. It's the equivalent of claiming Jennifer Lopez is pregnant with an alien lizard-baby because an "inside source" saw her buy a terrarium at the pet store.
Your point seemed to be that since the tall building stood alone the winds were not diminished by neighboring structures. I was just pointing out that you were incorrect.
Volunteer let me help you here - my point was it's a lonesome structure exposed to high winds like no other building in its immediate vicinity. You decided to contribute to the conversation by stating that there are other conditions possible for higher winds therefore inferring that the performance of the building,calculated by engineers, is not all that impressive and presumably you tried to discount the fact that this flat highly reflective glass plane is not all that special or Olaf wasn't aware of conditions that cause higher winds........hey volunteer winds are stronger in Dade county during hurricane,and this building stands by itself in Boston........Shubby baby writing style is rubbing off on you! I just made an irrelevant statement based on many presumptions as you did......where do I send the bill?
I can't be wrong about something if I have not made a statement that indicates qualifiers for value making decisions based on referenced citations..........hi I am Volunteer and you are wrong because I said so, not because I am educated and capable of reading .
And you are an idiot,because I said so because I learned to write from Justin Shubin... The Bernoulli effect is based on proximities and volumes of adjacent structures and not just because there are structures....so your statement is clearly false. And like I said, winds are even higher in Hurricanes, did you know that? Tornadoes have high winds velocities as well.
The Bernoulli effect has to do with the volumes BETWEEN the structures, namely as a given volume of fluid is forced between two surfaces angled toward each other the velocity of the fluid increases and the pressure decreases.
You Google that? Structures can be volumes as well...nothing in my statement doesn't allow for your statement, so in this case you further clarified my statement but did not negate it...you understand? We can do this all day.....sitting in a car dealership waiting, Modern design style I think....I wish flat screen TVs had more molding and decoration on them....
Miles: if you listen to the podcast this week I talk all about Mayne after having spent six hours in the same room with him listening to him speak extemporaneously.
The article in the Cornell Sun that discusses Thom Mayne is actually really good. You can read it here. The author of the article is the one who uses "art for art's sake" not Mayne. If you read the article correctly, you see that what Mayne is saying is that architecture should help bring about interactions in communities that foster awareness, transparency, and conflict. What he means by "conflict", and he said this directly at BSU on Monday, is the kind of conflict that happened in the 60s (and is happening now, in many ways), of civil rights and societal upheaval that brought about better conditions for more humans. He's not talking about conflict to be an asshole to his users, he's talking about humans not being complacent in the face of poor priorities and architecture helping them do so.
The other quote, from another excellent article, that architects should be "aggressive", means that we should be willing to step up and try to improve the social condition of our communities through our work. That's what "aggressive" means, in context. betadinesutures put the idea in context in his post on the first page of this discussion, but Shubow's supporters, like him, don't want to hear anything that might interrupt their world view.
Shubow of course has no interest in reading anything in context; he loves yanking quotes out of context so he can subvert their meaning to support his pre-conceived point. That's tabloidism, it's intellectually dishonest, and in this case it's ridiculously self-serving. As gruen summed up beautifully: "It takes a special type of troll to try to undermine an entire profession in order to create fame and fortune for himself."
Jumping into the fray with my own article, written partly as a rebuke to both the Justin Shubows and the Patrik Schumachers of the world. It's on a Cincinnati-based site and includes a number of local references, but also applies to the debate in general.
Donna, I was going to post the same comment. I have a problem with Shitbow quoting a writer, who is quoting a portion of a lecture. Context is so important and quoting without context is begging all sorts of misinterpretation.
David, thanks so much for posting the article, excellent... points out that they have the cannons pointed at the wrong people.... said before it's "Orchids & Onions" and the media should be spending their time criticizing the onions, they're mad at the wrong guys.
Thought I had seen "Look Up", guess not... sorry but think it's excellent.
David, great article! And so much the polar opposite of Shubow. It takes a lot of work and nuanced thought to write an article that tries to educate. It doesn't take anything but a keyboard to write that type of tripe that Forbes thinks has value.
Exactly, beta. Someone could take my post on the previous page where I say "Shubow dropped trou and shat in my lawn" and it would be as much based in reality as his entire article is: direct quote, but not real.
I agree with Donna. This is a very good article, particularly because of the tone of it, which is disarmingly engaging. Nicely done David. What your writing shows is that, regardless of the validity of your arguments, tone is important. As my dad used to say, "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar."
I am in general agreement with your overall premise in this piece, and I have always been very much a "both-and" rather than an "either-or" person when it comes to the modernist/traditionalist question. Again, I think your message is generally a humanistic and universal one. Where I start to diverge a bit, and begin to get concerned is when I read this:
"...In order to be good, architecture should be honest in its materiality and its place in history, and be responsive to its context. Wood should look like wood and not be painted to look like marble. A building built in 2015 shouldn’t attempt to look like a building built in 1895. A sentimental appeal to nostalgia is no excuse for faux-traditional buildings that cheapen their context with knee-jerk imitation, but a building designed for downtown Cincinnati should be sufficiently distinguishable from a building designed for a suburban office park in Southern California."
There are several concepts embedded in that paragraph: Materiality. Time. Place.
Taking the last one first, I absolutely agree that buildings should be responsive to locale in some meaningful, readable, understandable way. Buildings should look like they belong where they are, that they have some deep connection to the land and the region.
As far as the other two criteria, I don't agree that honesty in materials, in the way you are describing it, is a necessary criteria for architecture to be considered "good". I consider that to be one possible option for an aesthetic vocabulary, but not an absolute. What about when Palladio built brick columns on buildings in Vicenza, and then plastered them to resemble stone? Or when Rafael Moneo colored his concrete a most unnatural, almost cream limestone-like color at the Los Angeles Cathedral here in my city? Are these buildings to be judged less "good" because the use of materials is to some degree "dishonest"? Or is it ok for us to say that, if the effect is beautiful, then we can be a bit more free to use materials in a way that resembles other materials?
Lastly, regarding temporality, you said, "A building built in 2015 shouldn’t attempt to look like a building built in 1895." I don't disagree with this statement, actually, but I probably read it a bit differently than I imagine you, and most people on this forum do. The word "attempt" is key, and I think that intent is the real issue. When I design a traditional building, the last thing in my mind is to try to make it look like a building from the past. As we tell our clients, we aren't interested in doing "period" buildings, or museum pieces - this would indeed be "faux-traditional". When we design a building in a particular traditional language, we believe strongly that that language has relevance to the lives of our client's today. If we can't demonstrate that clearly, then we won't do the project. So we are not attempting to make a contemporary structure look like a building from the past - we are using the language of a living tradition to say something about the way a particular client lives now. Nostalgia has nothing to do with it. I think that this hangup most modern architects have on "an architecture of our time", what ever that is, is limiting and unnecessary.
Then Mr. Shitbow, you should plagiarize this in your own method, because this would actually make sense to practicing architects and doesn't suggest 'style' for 'style's sake, it's got this 'honest' modern philosophy to it...
by EKE
"Lastly, regarding temporality, you said, "A building built in 2015 shouldn’t attempt to look like a building built in 1895." I don't disagree with this statement, actually, but I probably read it a bit differently than I imagine you, and most people on this forum do. The word "attempt" is key, and I think that intent is the real issue. When I design a traditional building, the last thing in my mind is to try to make it look like a building from the past. As we tell our clients, we aren't interested in doing "period" buildings, or museum pieces - this would indeed be "faux-traditional". When we design a building in a particular traditional language, we believe strongly that that language has relevance to the lives of our client's today. If we can't demonstrate that clearly, then we won't do the project. So we are not attempting to make a contemporary structure look like a building from the past - we are using the language of a living tradition to say something about the way a particular client lives now. Nostalgia has nothing to do with it. I think that this hangup most modern architects have on "an architecture of our time", what ever that is, is limiting and unnecessary."
of course Mr. Shitshow would never understand any of this, since he's a high class Tabloid writer, with a PhD. no less...
Thanks for the compliments... I'm normally pretty opinionated and tend to come out with guns blazing on social media, but I tried to be on my best behavior when writing this article.
EKE, the question of intent is a good one, and you make a good point about using a particular traditional language to design a contemporary building, rather than just doing "period" buildings. I wasn't prepared to go into that level of nuance in the article, but perhaps I should have given it some more thought. I didn't want the debate to devolve into a traditional vs. modernist pissing contest, although that seems to have happened in the comments anyway.
The example of Moneo's concrete at the cathedral is an interesting one; I don't think it says anywhere that all concrete must be gray, and I have no problem with Moneo's approach. But if, let's say, he had constructed the cathedral's massive forms out of plywood and studs and simply applied a skim coat of concrete to give the appearance of solid walls, I'd have much more of a philosophical problem with it.
What about wood millwork, with a thin skim coat of lacquer paint on it? Is this not dishonest?
Isn't it just a matter of degree?
The problem I have with this is that you issued it as an absolute. "Good architecture must use materials honestly." Yet that condemns some of our greatest buildings to the "bad architecture" bin. How about this: One way that architecture can delight us is through an honest expression of materials. I can get behind that statement.
EKE, I think the problem, as it relates to my philosophy at least, is in thinking that everything IS so absolute. Sometimes wood with lacquer is appropriate and done well, sometimes it's not. I don't think anyone is saying "The only good architecture follows THESE specific rules". If I set out to do a Modern building, then I faux-paint something to look like something else, it's not in keeping with my conceptual intent. But if I have a different conceptual intent then faux-painting might be appropriate.
Michael Benedikt said sometimes certain materials are "real enough". The degree of "enough" will depend on conceptual intent.
Perhaps the word "should" gives us a little wiggle room?
Fair enough. I agree with Donna in that it's all about conceptual intent. If you're going to say "architecture must be X" then the buildings you design should be X. If your philosophy doesn't include X as a priority in the first place, then there's no conflict.
The mentality I was reacting against is a knee-jerk sentiment that seems all too common in Cincinnati: "But the old buildings are pretty. Why can't architects just keep designing them like that?" As if architecture is the only form of art that is never allowed to advance beyond some arbitrary historical period, regardless of any changes in technology or culture over the years.
Just following the traditional discussion where local vernacular should be followed as in the works of Stern or Jacobson….applying traditional & historical cues to modernists design interpretations.
Mar 21, 15 3:08 pm ·
·
Architecture is not periods and so called period architecture is merely associations applied. They are all design philosophies. If the context of place is people living in Italianate, Queen Anne type architecture and you are building a new home in a blank lot that might have had a building before but it was for one reason or another no longer there then designing a new building in the language of the context because it isn't just temporal but place because these styles and people living in such places is very much relevant.
When you look at modern vernacular, we are still in large part operating around the bungalow plan typologies and certain victorian-era plan typologies that are adapted to bungalow typologies or easily because these typologies are more evolution than revolution. Mainly the development of the bungalow typologies comes from the addition of the 3 fixture bathroom which still is common and relevant.
Although we tweak things hear and there, make or furnish what was a basement workshop into game rooms but the fundamental plan typology is still more or less a bungalow type plan although we maybe creative about how we bump out the wall, do some shifting of spaces and what not and how we make make things asymmetrical instead of symmetrical and even rambling the structural form, we often maintain certain functional recipes that persists and remains relevant in today's lifestyle. We may merge the dining and living room function space into a larger great room with less spatial division of the spaces, it often comes back to the basic framework and recipe.
Now, there is nothing wrong with using language common of a time period if there is still a strong integrity of the context in the contemporary day in a particular place. I take local context and what people in a particular locality is familiar with into consideration.
Sure, we look at how existing homes are renovated and meeting certain universal contemporary living standards. It depends, my decision may involve a range of options. If my client's neighborhood has a variety of styles from arts & crafts, craftsman, italianate, queen anne, etc. I may draw from these sources to compose a new custom house design that fits in or otherwise works together. On one part, you try not to create a false sense of history and I prefer to draw from contextually inspired new designs that has compatible material senses to the neighborhood, certain roof form being appropriate. If everyone is 6:12 to 12:12 pitched roofs of gable or hip than it might be inappropriate for the residential building to be gable but a multi-unit residential or commercial might be able to be low slope pitch with a parapet type roof line when it fits the context and zoning consideration also in mind.
Where I live and operate, residential homes have a pitched roof of a variety of types not flat tops which denotes an apartment building or a commercial building.
In a neighborhood of simple ranch or various modern style buildings, using a traditional language recipe may not fit the place. Philosophically, I look to these matters. In modern day, I can't use stone masonry under current code unless I design the foundation like Incan walls which have been tested and proven to survive a 9.0+ mega-thrust earthquake. But the blocks would almost have to rest on a reinforced concrete continuous sill beam and the rest of the wood structure is anchored to the stone masonry but that would go way outside the prescriptive path of code. again, doable but often would be more expensive so the more practical option might be CMU or concrete wall (reinforced of course) with maybe 4" thick stone facing or you have some backing wall that is the primary load bearing system and the stone blocks are more aesthetic and has anchors to tie back the stone blocks to the backing wall. Although it may not be necessarily efficient(minimal) use of material but it may have a degree of long term permanence if done right. That leads into other discussions.
Bottom line, it comes down to knowing the context of place, needs of your client, etc. Just designing a queen anne right out of a plan book for historic continuity sake alone is no way to design for a client because there is alot more things to consider.
I don't explicitly design a new home in so-called strict rule form. I may draw from the past if they make sense to the composition and to extent place. Since we aren't always designing out of a vacuum. We have lots of precedence to draw from but ultimately there is factors of functionality, contextual and other factors to be conscientious about because the work done is in part a social act because there is social implications to our design decisions.
"Architects are always in a precarious position. Unlike doctors and lawyers, their services are never required...If you need design services, it’s just as easy to hire a contractor or engineer to slap something together. Architects are an additional expense, and they have a reputation for being difficult and impractical...
In the past, architects overcame this challenge by demonstrating the superiority of their skills and knowledge. Their buildings were simply better. Now, however, few people believe that. The reputation of architects is at its lowest point ever. They are perceived as being problem-causers, not problem-solvers. They are purveyors of the ugly and dysfunctional, of the emotionally detached and culturally disconnected.
As I previously noted, the profession is collapsing from within as more and more insiders have been admitting the failure of contemporary architecture."
I am an insider. I am a licensed, practicing architect. I admit the failure of contemporary architecture. Society, in general agrees. A taste of the smorgasbord of the overwhelming evidence (quantitative evidence presented to the exclusion of qualitative in order to minimize irrelevant, arbitrary qualitative counter-arguments) the author of the linked article is entirely correct in his position:
"Along the York Street corridor running along the length of Yale University's campus are what are considered three of the best professional schools in the United States. At the south end is Yale Medical School; at the north Yale Law School; in between is the School of Architecture. Each year Yale produces over four hundred graduates from these programs and expects them to follow optimal paths, leading their respective professions and garnering the resulting financial rewards. To receive a J.D. from Yale law requires three years of postgraduate work, an M.D. takes four years (including internship), and an M.Arch entails almost three and a half.
The marketplace immediately sets a value for services Yale graduates provide, signaled clearly by their anticipated starting salaries. After several years of experience, each has received professional certification (license to practice) and begun to climb, in most cases, the career and financial ladder. The market value of their degrees, however, diverges widely at graduation as suggested by the chart below, which compares average starting salaries and early midcareer salaries in each of these professions.
Law Starting 132,000 After 6 years 189,000
Medicine Starting 145,000 After 6 years 208,000
Architecture Starting 44,800 After 6 years 91,900
These numbers have been chosen from their respective sources at the high end of the ranges that Yale graduates can reasonably expect as the "best and brightest" of candidates.
Like doctors in the 2.5 trillion health-care industry, architects operate at the intellectual headwaters of an enormous enterprise, responsible (in the United States) for more than 300 billion in construction spending 2012, and the resulting buildings will require as much as 3 trillion in operating and maintenance costs during their respective lifetimes...
Salaries for architects, lawyers, and doctors in the first decade of their careers are a good proxy for the relative perception, in financial terms, of their work. Its clear that their value, at least as measured by the steely-eyed glare of market capitalism, is vastly different...
Society has traditionally rewarded members of the learned professions well, acknowledging their special status accordingly, as the salary data above demonstrates for lawyers and doctors. Why are architects an exception? This raises the central question of this analysis: Does the value provided by architects -as they operate in the various financial contexts of practice, project, building industry and the overall economy -match the money they make in doing so? Young architectural graduates, especially those with advanced degrees who are educated similarly to their professional peers, rightly argue that the answer is a resounding "no" and the long-term financial prospects of architects seems to prove this conclusion. According to a 2007 study, the lifetime earnings of physicians is approximately 6.1 million, lawyers and judges 4.0 million, and architects 2.9 million -a mere 100,000 more over the course of an architectural career than "models, demonstrators, product promoters, sales engineers, sales and sales-related workers."
-The MIT Press Perspecta 47 The Yale Architectural Journal,
Now, to articulate my personal opinion as a licensed practicing architect who graduated with an M. Arch who also has no intention of ever joining the AIA at any time now or in the future: the AIA is completely out of touch with the proverbial 99% of professional, practicing architects. For example:
-The look up campaign resonated very strongly with me as I watched the ad. However, within several seconds of reflection at its conclusion I realized that while it resonated strongly with the architect me, once again it simply will make no sense (to the point of being counterproductive) in the minds of the average Joe or Mary. Just another layer of befuddling architect-speak-visuals bedazzling other architects (oh look at me how avante garde we are) and downright perplexing to the purported target audience.
-Another obvious example of this self-defeating circle jerk the AIA perpetuates on a daily basis is the magazines and internet sites it publishes, promotes. Why am I going to pay ~500 dollars a year of after tax dollars (to a supposed "non profit") so the AIA can promote the latest starchitect's project on page after page of architectural porn? True, the airbrushed and paintshopped 1% of individuals who happen to be attractive enough in the first place to end up gracing the pages of the latest porn magazine may really be that much more enticing than the 99% out there. But the 1% is not the reality for the rest of us inhabiting the rest of the system. Automobiles provide another example. I occasionally enjoy a foray into dreaming about the latest McLaren, Lambo or Ferrari but the fact is that 99% of automobile designers are not going to be working on them and 99% of drivers are not going to be driving them. While it might be acceptable and even praiseworthy to occasionally peek at the spectacle that is magazine architecture, human pornography, and car porn, its self defeating to get lost as a profession in the idea that we are all aspiring Gehrys, next in line for coitus with a Jennifer Aniston, and a La Ferrari is waiting outside our stop at Starbucks. As architects we've allowed the organization which is supposed to represent the 99% develop a myopic tunnel vision which can only speak to and promote the 1% a the expense of the 99% (worse still, if one sends in the ~500 dollars in dues per year they prop up the very ilk which subverts their daily practice). Magazine architecture/ architecture porn may be the single biggest detriment thing to have nuked the profession into obsolescence IMO. Magazine architecture/ architecture porn is the enemy of the 99%.
-The idea that the AIA is referred to as a "trade" organization by A/E/C industry insiders and laymen alike is telling enough. Have the self-hating, self-defeating, self-harming, emotional-cutters amongst the ranks of the professional organizations, practice, and academia succeeding in sinking a formerly exceptional profession to the depths of which the generic, unexceptional, common, vulgar trades are familiar? It would seem. What is most peculiar is the rabid defense of this ruse propagated by the 1% by the deluded members of the 99%. Professional suicide.
The good news: Rebirth follows death. This profession which has rotted from the inside is dying if not DOA already. The forthcoming newly birthed fruit will be worth the present agony. Don't join the AIA. Not yet. If ever. The AIA needs to be purged of the rotten, metastasizing 1% first.
Good Knight, you must not have read the discussion thread here. I'll re-post what I wrote on the first page:
I'll speak plainly: If you think the AIA is out of touch and unaware of what is going on in the profession right now, YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION.
Here is what I posted on the Facebook page of an architecture group who shall remain nameless. On the other hand, screw it, I name names in the comment so might as well leave it:
Here is my argument, since you asked: Your original - since removed - headline on this article asked "Why do we need the AIA, anyway?" which is what I'm responding to in my argument. This article is at the very least factually incorrect. Shubow has no understanding of architectural practice today, he cherry-picks examples to provide histrionic clickbait. Worse than being poorly-researched, of course, is that he's simply making the most outlandish argument possible to generate clicks. Your previous headline showed that you really have no understanding of what is going on in AIA, either. The AIA is in a time of drastic change, driven by members who want an organization that will be better for the profession and thus for the built environment and those we serve overall.
Here is information about the AIA's ongoing RePositioning initiative, which is addressing the need for overall change in the organization. The entire structure is being revamped, as are its focus, media outreach, and levels of entry. http://www.aia.org/about/repositioning/AIAB099340
Here is information about the AIA Emerging Professionals group, which is addressing how recent graduates and young professionals are facing a practicing discipline extremely different from that of a decade ago. What worked for us old guys won't work for them, and AIA knows this. http://www.aia.org/careerstages/resources/AIAB100248
Here is information about the potential change in titling of accredited program graduates and registered architects, not an AIA initiative but supported by them. It's likely that in a few years anyone with a degree will be able to call themselves an architect, which I support. http://www.ncarb.org/News-and-Events/News/2014/08-FTTF.aspx
Here is a link to the I Look Up website and commercial - I'm guessing you didn't see it yet, because if you had you would know that Shubow's interpretation of it is laughably off-base. http://www.ilookup.org
My sense is that the rebel Taliesin Fellows like to paint AIA with a broad brush of conformity, without actually having knowledge of what the Institute is working on these days. It brings to mind the commonly heard dismissal of Taliesin Fellows as mindlessly devoted Wrightbots. I know, and you know, that the reality of Taliesin and its graduates is far more nuanced and diverse than can be understood without paying attention to what is happening there right now. Take a look at AIA and you'll find the same is true. Articles like Shubow's paint a sensationalized and incorrect view of our profession - the profession you all belong to, too. If you're truly interested in significant and relevant discussion about the profession and where it is headed right now you won't look to him for any of your talking points.
sameolddoctor, EKE, all of you who are slamming the AIA are like anti-vaxxers who, no matter how many scientific facts you shove in their face, shut their eyes and plug their ears and say "I have a right to my beliefs!". Your beliefs are wrong. Justin Shubow is wrong, but by promoting this article you guys ensure that misinformation and bullshit dominates the conversation about what architects actually do.
Also, you say the AIA has to be purged of its dinosaurs: I agree, as do many others. The difference is I'm not sitting on my ass whining about the AIA and refusing to join while expecting *other people* to fix it yo meet my expectations. You want AIA to change to represent your interests? Then get in here with us and work on it yourself.
Donna, thank you for reposting your post. Yes, I did read every post (139?) in this thread in sequential order prior to my posting. My brain tells me that you're argument is qualitatively passionate and persuasive. However, my brain also tells me that all of the AIA efforts you cite, specifically:
-the AIA's ongoing RePositioning initiative
-the AIA Emerging Professionals group
-the I Look Up website and commercial,
are merely more lipstick on a pig. That is, unless and until the quantitative measures of the value proposition of the profession in the marketplace are improved (see my previous post), one cannot legitimately claim that anything effectual has actually been changed for the better.
To the AIA members who give a damn about their profession,
Donna also stated in her repost, "Here is information about the potential change in titling of accredited program graduates and registered architects, not an AIA initiative but supported by them."
My personal opinion is that requiring the professional schools to act professionally and train emerging professionals in the profession is the only professional option. Its mind boggling how exclusive of practice the theory has become in the "professionally" (not trade!) accredited schools. They are, with rare exception, forcing 5-6 years of training in how-to-become abstract starving artists, not value driven professional architects. One might argue it takes an additional 5-6 years to actually undo all the damage the contemporary architecture schooling is doing to young impressionable minds. The AIA has a lot to do with this, by error and/or omission.
To this end:
-require students take an Architect In Training examination (mini-ARE) in order to receive their diploma. Similar to what engineering schools do. (its not about making the student suffer -its about forcing the schools to get back to integrating relevant professional practice curriculum into the student's time spent in school. Certainly if the schools allowed the students to spend the proper amount of time focusing on professional practice as opposed to virtually none as a result of ungodly amounts on design studio, every single student who made it through their final year is capable of passing a mini-ARE)
-require faculty at the accredited schools of architecture BE LICENSED (which by default means at least some period of time has been experienced in professional practice). Duh.
Good_Knight, I respect your skepticism because heaven knows architects can talktalktalk and it's easier to talk about change than to implement it. But I honestly have heard so many people in AIA, over the last two years and across all levels of involvement, saying the phrase "No more talking. It's time to change shit." that I am optimistic that real change is happening. Slowly, but happening.
I personally would love to see more professional practice driven curricula, but I also really respect the work of so many graduates of theory-heavy MArch programs who then go out into the world and do really interesting stuff! That's who my talk at AIA National this year is about.
We (meaning our profession in general) don't want the curricula to become soul-deadening retention pond calcs all day, but we also don't want grads to show up for their first job never having heard the term "retention pond calcs" in their schooling.
The licensure upon graduation experiment is happening already. We'll see where we are in 5 years. hopefully there will be more options for students to curate the kind of education they want relative to the field.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts b3tadine[sutures]. I'm impressed by your tenacity. You said,
"EIT isn't a requirement to graduate."
The technical accuracy of this statement is a moot point. The larger point is still valid either way (though I did have a PE just last week tell me that it was a requirement for his graduation).
The larger point and the reality is that if you haven't taken and passed the EIT, the engineering professions do not place much value on your existence in the corresponding marketplace, if at all. At least within the A/E/C industry. A recent graduate of an accredited architecture program would be in a much better position to have a positive effect on the health and welfare via architecture in the marketplace if, as demonstrated by the engineering profession,
"If you're a graduate from an engineering program approved by your state's licensure board, you can become classified as an "engineer intern" or "engineer-in-training" by successfully completing the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam. Achieving EI or EIT status signals that you have mastered the fundamental requirements and taken the first step toward earning your PE licensure..."
the architecture profession had their own Fundamentals of Architecture exam:
"If you're a graduate from an architecture program approved by your state's licensure board, you can become classified as an "architect intern" or "architect-in-training" by successfully completing the Fundamentals of Architecture exam. Achieving AI or AIT status signals that you have mastered the fundamental requirements and taken the first step toward earning your licensure as a professional Architect..."
-source: TBD if the architecture profession had some self esteem (self efficacy + self respect), foresight, discipline, and cachet.
There are a practically innumerable number of benefits to an AIT becoming the professional standard. To cite yet another, the preoccupation with using the title "architect" in ones name or not would be laid to rest upon passage of an AIT.
b3tadine[sutures] you said,
"Requiring all faculty to be licensed is a horrible idea."
"Many engineers do not sit for the exam as the EI designation is not necessary to do engineering work that does not represent a threat to human life. Depending on the profession, having an EI designation can either be very important or have little bearing on an engineer's career."
-require faculty at the accredited schools of architecture BE LICENSED (which by default means at least some period of time has been experienced in professional practice). Duh.
I've had History of Architecture professors, not practicing architects.
I've had Structures classes taught by, structural engineers.
I've had Photography classes taught by, photographers.
I've had Architecture Studio taught by, Don Wall, not a practicing architect.
Requiring practitioners in those specialized roles, when by our very nature we are generalists, is beyond obtuse. For instance, with Don Wall, I was able to learn more about the nature of design, and what makes a good designer, without the inevitabilities of practice based education. If students, coming out of architecture school were so horribly deprived of an education, then what accounts for the numbers of recent grads I've worked with, that are seemingly well equipped? "Requiring" practitioners, is so shortsighted, and would've deprived me of the education I wanted, and the experience with Don Wall, that I cherish.
b3tadine[sutures], thanks for your responses and clarifications. Thats great that you've received the education you appreciate! excellent.
What about the education that the society and the general marketplace values in a prospering profession, though? As I articulated earlier, I don't think qualitative arguments will lead anywhere meaningful in the external world.
(For example, starving artists probably appreciate their educations as well and would not want to be deprived of their mentors either. This is praiseworthy in and of itself, perhaps, but entirely beside the main point. The marketplace obviously thinks very very little of the quality of the professional education architects are receiving, as noted by the quantitative evidence cited in my earlier post)
The meaningful change the profession of architecture can effect in the external world (and the quality, by default) is directly related to the quantitative value given in the marketplace. The starving artists are the plankton in the food chain. Don't waste attention getting distracted and trying to argue this point. Its just the way it is.
That is, as things have been allowed to devolve to where they are today, 99% of the profession has no clout to practice high quality architecture as long as society withholds it from them. And make no mistake they are as the measurable (quantitative) external monetary evidence clearly shows. And thus 99% of the population's well-being and welfare, if not life safety, suffer in mostly miserable spaces.
Society withholds it because architecture as a profession has lost its way and is on the rocks. The AIA is guilty of being the negligent lighthouse providing unsafe harbor for the 99% of professionals.
Funny, belonged to the AIA for 38 years…wish I had all the stuff I saved from the old days on the AIA saying change was in the works….change is in the works alright, but the AIA remains powerless to make the change, wish I could think of everything….fighting for control of accreditation with the NCARB was just one lost battle. It really just boils down to a lack of money….the AMA spent $20 Million on PAC in 2014, the AIA spent under $300,000. What else needs to be said?
Speaking of the NCARB is there any reason two similar states, say Georgia and Alabama, couldn't issue a blanket endorsement of each other's architects? Both states have rolling hills to the north and a seacoast to the south as well as a virtual identical climate. Is there really any difference at all in building in Atlanta or Birmingham? Why not cut out the NCARB altogether. If it works in that case other states could also form alliances with like-minded neighbors as well. Should not the AIA be pushing proposals like this and save their members needless grief, aggravation, and money?
Doesn't NCARB issue the exams? Now you want these two states to coordinate, and issue the exams? Also, does AL and GA have the same hurricane requirements? I mean, I wouldn't trust these two states to be able to coordinate anything but segregation, err, I mean Southern States Rights.
Well they are both hurricane prone. I have been in a hurricane in Mobile, Al, and in one in Jacksonville, FL, right on the Georgia line so I don't know what your point is. The cheap racial shot was not called for. The place I observed the most racial hatred was New York City during the three years I lived there. Also you seem to be saying the the legislatures of two nearly identical states cannot cut out the cancer that is the NCARB which is adversely effecting their architectural communities and overall state economies. Enjoy your (economic) slavery.
At the AIA Emerging Professionals Summit the possibility of a national license was raised. It would be a long slow process to coordinate all of the individual state licensing boards to adopt it, and I am certain there would still be some states that would require an additional test of some kind, but it is not outside of the realm of possibility that in ten or twenty years we could have a national license.
Again, laugh and moan and complain about the current status of things; it feels good to vent. But also be aware that there are actually real people at real institutions discussing these real changes. Join in and have a voice in the discussion, or don't.
Did any of you AIA lovers see this?
Miles, the messenger and message are two separate things, as you say. In this case, the messenger is wrong because he lacks a breadth of knowledge, and the message is wrong because he chooses to see what he wants to see and has no desire to expand his breadth of knowledge. Like I said, he's an anti-vaxxer.
The I Look Up ad explains that architects don't do exactly what this article accuses them of doing. We listen, seek inspiration, create places for people to live in concert with their cultural and functional desires. That's what the ad shows. We don't fling a "style" at an unwilling public, be that style Classical or anything else.
And it's not true that all journalism is tabloid journalism unless you agree with it. This article is factually incorrect and intentionally inflammatory. It's the equivalent of claiming Jennifer Lopez is pregnant with an alien lizard-baby because an "inside source" saw her buy a terrarium at the pet store.
Your point seemed to be that since the tall building stood alone the winds were not diminished by neighboring structures. I was just pointing out that you were incorrect.
Volunteer let me help you here - my point was it's a lonesome structure exposed to high winds like no other building in its immediate vicinity. You decided to contribute to the conversation by stating that there are other conditions possible for higher winds therefore inferring that the performance of the building,calculated by engineers, is not all that impressive and presumably you tried to discount the fact that this flat highly reflective glass plane is not all that special or Olaf wasn't aware of conditions that cause higher winds........hey volunteer winds are stronger in Dade county during hurricane,and this building stands by itself in Boston........Shubby baby writing style is rubbing off on you! I just made an irrelevant statement based on many presumptions as you did......where do I send the bill?
Well you might use the funds to take some remedial engineering courses, but, on second thought, you probably wouldn't pass.
Donna, so Mayne didn't say that?
I can't be wrong about something if I have not made a statement that indicates qualifiers for value making decisions based on referenced citations..........hi I am Volunteer and you are wrong because I said so, not because I am educated and capable of reading .
Perhaps if you worked on remedial English as well?
And you are an idiot,because I said so because I learned to write from Justin Shubin... The Bernoulli effect is based on proximities and volumes of adjacent structures and not just because there are structures....so your statement is clearly false. And like I said, winds are even higher in Hurricanes, did you know that? Tornadoes have high winds velocities as well.
The Bernoulli effect has to do with the volumes BETWEEN the structures, namely as a given volume of fluid is forced between two surfaces angled toward each other the velocity of the fluid increases and the pressure decreases.
You Google that? Structures can be volumes as well...nothing in my statement doesn't allow for your statement, so in this case you further clarified my statement but did not negate it...you understand? We can do this all day.....sitting in a car dealership waiting, Modern design style I think....I wish flat screen TVs had more molding and decoration on them....
Actually car done....we catch up later. Good talk.
+++olaf "I wish flat screen TV's had more moulding..."
Miles: if you listen to the podcast this week I talk all about Mayne after having spent six hours in the same room with him listening to him speak extemporaneously.
The article in the Cornell Sun that discusses Thom Mayne is actually really good. You can read it here. The author of the article is the one who uses "art for art's sake" not Mayne. If you read the article correctly, you see that what Mayne is saying is that architecture should help bring about interactions in communities that foster awareness, transparency, and conflict. What he means by "conflict", and he said this directly at BSU on Monday, is the kind of conflict that happened in the 60s (and is happening now, in many ways), of civil rights and societal upheaval that brought about better conditions for more humans. He's not talking about conflict to be an asshole to his users, he's talking about humans not being complacent in the face of poor priorities and architecture helping them do so.
The other quote, from another excellent article, that architects should be "aggressive", means that we should be willing to step up and try to improve the social condition of our communities through our work. That's what "aggressive" means, in context. betadinesutures put the idea in context in his post on the first page of this discussion, but Shubow's supporters, like him, don't want to hear anything that might interrupt their world view.
Shubow of course has no interest in reading anything in context; he loves yanking quotes out of context so he can subvert their meaning to support his pre-conceived point. That's tabloidism, it's intellectually dishonest, and in this case it's ridiculously self-serving. As gruen summed up beautifully: "It takes a special type of troll to try to undermine an entire profession in order to create fame and fortune for himself."
Jumping into the fray with my own article, written partly as a rebuke to both the Justin Shubows and the Patrik Schumachers of the world. It's on a Cincinnati-based site and includes a number of local references, but also applies to the debate in general.
Architecture as Experience: The Case for Excellence in Design
David, thanks so much for posting the article, excellent... points out that they have the cannons pointed at the wrong people.... said before it's "Orchids & Onions" and the media should be spending their time criticizing the onions, they're mad at the wrong guys.
Thought I had seen "Look Up", guess not... sorry but think it's excellent.
David, great article! And so much the polar opposite of Shubow. It takes a lot of work and nuanced thought to write an article that tries to educate. It doesn't take anything but a keyboard to write that type of tripe that Forbes thinks has value.
Exactly, beta. Someone could take my post on the previous page where I say "Shubow dropped trou and shat in my lawn" and it would be as much based in reality as his entire article is: direct quote, but not real.
Context is so important and quoting without context is begging all sorts of misinterpretation.
But like Obama said, "you didn't build that"
I agree with Donna. This is a very good article, particularly because of the tone of it, which is disarmingly engaging. Nicely done David. What your writing shows is that, regardless of the validity of your arguments, tone is important. As my dad used to say, "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar."
I am in general agreement with your overall premise in this piece, and I have always been very much a "both-and" rather than an "either-or" person when it comes to the modernist/traditionalist question. Again, I think your message is generally a humanistic and universal one. Where I start to diverge a bit, and begin to get concerned is when I read this:
"...In order to be good, architecture should be honest in its materiality and its place in history, and be responsive to its context. Wood should look like wood and not be painted to look like marble. A building built in 2015 shouldn’t attempt to look like a building built in 1895. A sentimental appeal to nostalgia is no excuse for faux-traditional buildings that cheapen their context with knee-jerk imitation, but a building designed for downtown Cincinnati should be sufficiently distinguishable from a building designed for a suburban office park in Southern California."
There are several concepts embedded in that paragraph: Materiality. Time. Place.
Taking the last one first, I absolutely agree that buildings should be responsive to locale in some meaningful, readable, understandable way. Buildings should look like they belong where they are, that they have some deep connection to the land and the region.
As far as the other two criteria, I don't agree that honesty in materials, in the way you are describing it, is a necessary criteria for architecture to be considered "good". I consider that to be one possible option for an aesthetic vocabulary, but not an absolute. What about when Palladio built brick columns on buildings in Vicenza, and then plastered them to resemble stone? Or when Rafael Moneo colored his concrete a most unnatural, almost cream limestone-like color at the Los Angeles Cathedral here in my city? Are these buildings to be judged less "good" because the use of materials is to some degree "dishonest"? Or is it ok for us to say that, if the effect is beautiful, then we can be a bit more free to use materials in a way that resembles other materials?
Lastly, regarding temporality, you said, "A building built in 2015 shouldn’t attempt to look like a building built in 1895." I don't disagree with this statement, actually, but I probably read it a bit differently than I imagine you, and most people on this forum do. The word "attempt" is key, and I think that intent is the real issue. When I design a traditional building, the last thing in my mind is to try to make it look like a building from the past. As we tell our clients, we aren't interested in doing "period" buildings, or museum pieces - this would indeed be "faux-traditional". When we design a building in a particular traditional language, we believe strongly that that language has relevance to the lives of our client's today. If we can't demonstrate that clearly, then we won't do the project. So we are not attempting to make a contemporary structure look like a building from the past - we are using the language of a living tradition to say something about the way a particular client lives now. Nostalgia has nothing to do with it. I think that this hangup most modern architects have on "an architecture of our time", what ever that is, is limiting and unnecessary.
"A tradition is a living repetition that manages to suggest a fresh truth."
- Demetri Porphyrios
Nice Article David!
David Cole,
Great article.
Well said, EKE, and very much in line with what I was thinking when I read that paragraph.
curtkram,
that Mar 19, 15 10:48 am post is really spot on. Thank you
edit:
Edit wow this thread progressed fast today. took me half a day to submit that and look where it went in that time... don't you people have jobs?
nice article David Cole!
if I was Mr. Justin Shitbow, 2nd cousin to Mr. Partik Shitmacher (Shitmaker in English)
I would link this "Fuck Context"
Then Mr. Shitbow, you should plagiarize this in your own method, because this would actually make sense to practicing architects and doesn't suggest 'style' for 'style's sake, it's got this 'honest' modern philosophy to it...
by EKE
"Lastly, regarding temporality, you said, "A building built in 2015 shouldn’t attempt to look like a building built in 1895." I don't disagree with this statement, actually, but I probably read it a bit differently than I imagine you, and most people on this forum do. The word "attempt" is key, and I think that intent is the real issue. When I design a traditional building, the last thing in my mind is to try to make it look like a building from the past. As we tell our clients, we aren't interested in doing "period" buildings, or museum pieces - this would indeed be "faux-traditional". When we design a building in a particular traditional language, we believe strongly that that language has relevance to the lives of our client's today. If we can't demonstrate that clearly, then we won't do the project. So we are not attempting to make a contemporary structure look like a building from the past - we are using the language of a living tradition to say something about the way a particular client lives now. Nostalgia has nothing to do with it. I think that this hangup most modern architects have on "an architecture of our time", what ever that is, is limiting and unnecessary."
of course Mr. Shitshow would never understand any of this, since he's a high class Tabloid writer, with a PhD. no less...
Thanks for the compliments... I'm normally pretty opinionated and tend to come out with guns blazing on social media, but I tried to be on my best behavior when writing this article.
EKE, the question of intent is a good one, and you make a good point about using a particular traditional language to design a contemporary building, rather than just doing "period" buildings. I wasn't prepared to go into that level of nuance in the article, but perhaps I should have given it some more thought. I didn't want the debate to devolve into a traditional vs. modernist pissing contest, although that seems to have happened in the comments anyway.
The example of Moneo's concrete at the cathedral is an interesting one; I don't think it says anywhere that all concrete must be gray, and I have no problem with Moneo's approach. But if, let's say, he had constructed the cathedral's massive forms out of plywood and studs and simply applied a skim coat of concrete to give the appearance of solid walls, I'd have much more of a philosophical problem with it.
What about wood millwork, with a thin skim coat of lacquer paint on it? Is this not dishonest?
Isn't it just a matter of degree?
The problem I have with this is that you issued it as an absolute. "Good architecture must use materials honestly." Yet that condemns some of our greatest buildings to the "bad architecture" bin. How about this: One way that architecture can delight us is through an honest expression of materials. I can get behind that statement.
EKE, I think the problem, as it relates to my philosophy at least, is in thinking that everything IS so absolute. Sometimes wood with lacquer is appropriate and done well, sometimes it's not. I don't think anyone is saying "The only good architecture follows THESE specific rules". If I set out to do a Modern building, then I faux-paint something to look like something else, it's not in keeping with my conceptual intent. But if I have a different conceptual intent then faux-painting might be appropriate.
Michael Benedikt said sometimes certain materials are "real enough". The degree of "enough" will depend on conceptual intent.
I just went back and reread your article, and I see that I misquoted you. So sorry. You said:
"In order to be good, architecture should be honest in its materiality..." Perhaps the word "should" gives us a little wiggle room?
Agree 100%, Donna.
Perhaps the word "should" gives us a little wiggle room?
Fair enough. I agree with Donna in that it's all about conceptual intent. If you're going to say "architecture must be X" then the buildings you design should be X. If your philosophy doesn't include X as a priority in the first place, then there's no conflict.
The mentality I was reacting against is a knee-jerk sentiment that seems all too common in Cincinnati: "But the old buildings are pretty. Why can't architects just keep designing them like that?" As if architecture is the only form of art that is never allowed to advance beyond some arbitrary historical period, regardless of any changes in technology or culture over the years.
Just following the traditional discussion where local vernacular should be followed as in the works of Stern or Jacobson….applying traditional & historical cues to modernists design interpretations.
Architecture is not periods and so called period architecture is merely associations applied. They are all design philosophies. If the context of place is people living in Italianate, Queen Anne type architecture and you are building a new home in a blank lot that might have had a building before but it was for one reason or another no longer there then designing a new building in the language of the context because it isn't just temporal but place because these styles and people living in such places is very much relevant.
When you look at modern vernacular, we are still in large part operating around the bungalow plan typologies and certain victorian-era plan typologies that are adapted to bungalow typologies or easily because these typologies are more evolution than revolution. Mainly the development of the bungalow typologies comes from the addition of the 3 fixture bathroom which still is common and relevant.
Although we tweak things hear and there, make or furnish what was a basement workshop into game rooms but the fundamental plan typology is still more or less a bungalow type plan although we maybe creative about how we bump out the wall, do some shifting of spaces and what not and how we make make things asymmetrical instead of symmetrical and even rambling the structural form, we often maintain certain functional recipes that persists and remains relevant in today's lifestyle. We may merge the dining and living room function space into a larger great room with less spatial division of the spaces, it often comes back to the basic framework and recipe.
Now, there is nothing wrong with using language common of a time period if there is still a strong integrity of the context in the contemporary day in a particular place. I take local context and what people in a particular locality is familiar with into consideration.
Sure, we look at how existing homes are renovated and meeting certain universal contemporary living standards. It depends, my decision may involve a range of options. If my client's neighborhood has a variety of styles from arts & crafts, craftsman, italianate, queen anne, etc. I may draw from these sources to compose a new custom house design that fits in or otherwise works together. On one part, you try not to create a false sense of history and I prefer to draw from contextually inspired new designs that has compatible material senses to the neighborhood, certain roof form being appropriate. If everyone is 6:12 to 12:12 pitched roofs of gable or hip than it might be inappropriate for the residential building to be gable but a multi-unit residential or commercial might be able to be low slope pitch with a parapet type roof line when it fits the context and zoning consideration also in mind.
Where I live and operate, residential homes have a pitched roof of a variety of types not flat tops which denotes an apartment building or a commercial building.
In a neighborhood of simple ranch or various modern style buildings, using a traditional language recipe may not fit the place. Philosophically, I look to these matters. In modern day, I can't use stone masonry under current code unless I design the foundation like Incan walls which have been tested and proven to survive a 9.0+ mega-thrust earthquake. But the blocks would almost have to rest on a reinforced concrete continuous sill beam and the rest of the wood structure is anchored to the stone masonry but that would go way outside the prescriptive path of code. again, doable but often would be more expensive so the more practical option might be CMU or concrete wall (reinforced of course) with maybe 4" thick stone facing or you have some backing wall that is the primary load bearing system and the stone blocks are more aesthetic and has anchors to tie back the stone blocks to the backing wall. Although it may not be necessarily efficient(minimal) use of material but it may have a degree of long term permanence if done right. That leads into other discussions.
Bottom line, it comes down to knowing the context of place, needs of your client, etc. Just designing a queen anne right out of a plan book for historic continuity sake alone is no way to design for a client because there is alot more things to consider.
I don't explicitly design a new home in so-called strict rule form. I may draw from the past if they make sense to the composition and to extent place. Since we aren't always designing out of a vacuum. We have lots of precedence to draw from but ultimately there is factors of functionality, contextual and other factors to be conscientious about because the work done is in part a social act because there is social implications to our design decisions.
From the article linked in the OP:
"Architects are always in a precarious position. Unlike doctors and lawyers, their services are never required...If you need design services, it’s just as easy to hire a contractor or engineer to slap something together. Architects are an additional expense, and they have a reputation for being difficult and impractical...
In the past, architects overcame this challenge by demonstrating the superiority of their skills and knowledge. Their buildings were simply better. Now, however, few people believe that. The reputation of architects is at its lowest point ever. They are perceived as being problem-causers, not problem-solvers. They are purveyors of the ugly and dysfunctional, of the emotionally detached and culturally disconnected.
As I previously noted, the profession is collapsing from within as more and more insiders have been admitting the failure of contemporary architecture."
I am an insider. I am a licensed, practicing architect. I admit the failure of contemporary architecture. Society, in general agrees. A taste of the smorgasbord of the overwhelming evidence (quantitative evidence presented to the exclusion of qualitative in order to minimize irrelevant, arbitrary qualitative counter-arguments) the author of the linked article is entirely correct in his position:
"Along the York Street corridor running along the length of Yale University's campus are what are considered three of the best professional schools in the United States. At the south end is Yale Medical School; at the north Yale Law School; in between is the School of Architecture. Each year Yale produces over four hundred graduates from these programs and expects them to follow optimal paths, leading their respective professions and garnering the resulting financial rewards. To receive a J.D. from Yale law requires three years of postgraduate work, an M.D. takes four years (including internship), and an M.Arch entails almost three and a half.
The marketplace immediately sets a value for services Yale graduates provide, signaled clearly by their anticipated starting salaries. After several years of experience, each has received professional certification (license to practice) and begun to climb, in most cases, the career and financial ladder. The market value of their degrees, however, diverges widely at graduation as suggested by the chart below, which compares average starting salaries and early midcareer salaries in each of these professions.
Law Starting 132,000 After 6 years 189,000
Medicine Starting 145,000 After 6 years 208,000
Architecture Starting 44,800 After 6 years 91,900
These numbers have been chosen from their respective sources at the high end of the ranges that Yale graduates can reasonably expect as the "best and brightest" of candidates.
Like doctors in the 2.5 trillion health-care industry, architects operate at the intellectual headwaters of an enormous enterprise, responsible (in the United States) for more than 300 billion in construction spending 2012, and the resulting buildings will require as much as 3 trillion in operating and maintenance costs during their respective lifetimes...
Salaries for architects, lawyers, and doctors in the first decade of their careers are a good proxy for the relative perception, in financial terms, of their work. Its clear that their value, at least as measured by the steely-eyed glare of market capitalism, is vastly different...
Society has traditionally rewarded members of the learned professions well, acknowledging their special status accordingly, as the salary data above demonstrates for lawyers and doctors. Why are architects an exception? This raises the central question of this analysis: Does the value provided by architects -as they operate in the various financial contexts of practice, project, building industry and the overall economy -match the money they make in doing so? Young architectural graduates, especially those with advanced degrees who are educated similarly to their professional peers, rightly argue that the answer is a resounding "no" and the long-term financial prospects of architects seems to prove this conclusion. According to a 2007 study, the lifetime earnings of physicians is approximately 6.1 million, lawyers and judges 4.0 million, and architects 2.9 million -a mere 100,000 more over the course of an architectural career than "models, demonstrators, product promoters, sales engineers, sales and sales-related workers."
-The MIT Press Perspecta 47 The Yale Architectural Journal,
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/perspecta-47
Now, to articulate my personal opinion as a licensed practicing architect who graduated with an M. Arch who also has no intention of ever joining the AIA at any time now or in the future: the AIA is completely out of touch with the proverbial 99% of professional, practicing architects. For example:
-The look up campaign resonated very strongly with me as I watched the ad. However, within several seconds of reflection at its conclusion I realized that while it resonated strongly with the architect me, once again it simply will make no sense (to the point of being counterproductive) in the minds of the average Joe or Mary. Just another layer of befuddling architect-speak-visuals bedazzling other architects (oh look at me how avante garde we are) and downright perplexing to the purported target audience.
-Another obvious example of this self-defeating circle jerk the AIA perpetuates on a daily basis is the magazines and internet sites it publishes, promotes. Why am I going to pay ~500 dollars a year of after tax dollars (to a supposed "non profit") so the AIA can promote the latest starchitect's project on page after page of architectural porn? True, the airbrushed and paintshopped 1% of individuals who happen to be attractive enough in the first place to end up gracing the pages of the latest porn magazine may really be that much more enticing than the 99% out there. But the 1% is not the reality for the rest of us inhabiting the rest of the system. Automobiles provide another example. I occasionally enjoy a foray into dreaming about the latest McLaren, Lambo or Ferrari but the fact is that 99% of automobile designers are not going to be working on them and 99% of drivers are not going to be driving them. While it might be acceptable and even praiseworthy to occasionally peek at the spectacle that is magazine architecture, human pornography, and car porn, its self defeating to get lost as a profession in the idea that we are all aspiring Gehrys, next in line for coitus with a Jennifer Aniston, and a La Ferrari is waiting outside our stop at Starbucks. As architects we've allowed the organization which is supposed to represent the 99% develop a myopic tunnel vision which can only speak to and promote the 1% a the expense of the 99% (worse still, if one sends in the ~500 dollars in dues per year they prop up the very ilk which subverts their daily practice). Magazine architecture/ architecture porn may be the single biggest detriment thing to have nuked the profession into obsolescence IMO. Magazine architecture/ architecture porn is the enemy of the 99%.
-The idea that the AIA is referred to as a "trade" organization by A/E/C industry insiders and laymen alike is telling enough. Have the self-hating, self-defeating, self-harming, emotional-cutters amongst the ranks of the professional organizations, practice, and academia succeeding in sinking a formerly exceptional profession to the depths of which the generic, unexceptional, common, vulgar trades are familiar? It would seem. What is most peculiar is the rabid defense of this ruse propagated by the 1% by the deluded members of the 99%. Professional suicide.
The good news: Rebirth follows death. This profession which has rotted from the inside is dying if not DOA already. The forthcoming newly birthed fruit will be worth the present agony. Don't join the AIA. Not yet. If ever. The AIA needs to be purged of the rotten, metastasizing 1% first.
I'll speak plainly: If you think the AIA is out of touch and unaware of what is going on in the profession right now, YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION.
Here is what I posted on the Facebook page of an architecture group who shall remain nameless. On the other hand, screw it, I name names in the comment so might as well leave it:
Here is my argument, since you asked: Your original - since removed - headline on this article asked "Why do we need the AIA, anyway?" which is what I'm responding to in my argument. This article is at the very least factually incorrect. Shubow has no understanding of architectural practice today, he cherry-picks examples to provide histrionic clickbait. Worse than being poorly-researched, of course, is that he's simply making the most outlandish argument possible to generate clicks. Your previous headline showed that you really have no understanding of what is going on in AIA, either. The AIA is in a time of drastic change, driven by members who want an organization that will be better for the profession and thus for the built environment and those we serve overall.
Here is information about the AIA's ongoing RePositioning initiative, which is addressing the need for overall change in the organization. The entire structure is being revamped, as are its focus, media outreach, and levels of entry. http://www.aia.org/about/repositioning/AIAB099340
Here is information about the AIA Emerging Professionals group, which is addressing how recent graduates and young professionals are facing a practicing discipline extremely different from that of a decade ago. What worked for us old guys won't work for them, and AIA knows this. http://www.aia.org/careerstages/resources/AIAB100248
Here is information about the potential change in titling of accredited program graduates and registered architects, not an AIA initiative but supported by them. It's likely that in a few years anyone with a degree will be able to call themselves an architect, which I support. http://www.ncarb.org/News-and-Events/News/2014/08-FTTF.aspx
Here is a link to the I Look Up website and commercial - I'm guessing you didn't see it yet, because if you had you would know that Shubow's interpretation of it is laughably off-base. http://www.ilookup.org
My sense is that the rebel Taliesin Fellows like to paint AIA with a broad brush of conformity, without actually having knowledge of what the Institute is working on these days. It brings to mind the commonly heard dismissal of Taliesin Fellows as mindlessly devoted Wrightbots. I know, and you know, that the reality of Taliesin and its graduates is far more nuanced and diverse than can be understood without paying attention to what is happening there right now. Take a look at AIA and you'll find the same is true. Articles like Shubow's paint a sensationalized and incorrect view of our profession - the profession you all belong to, too. If you're truly interested in significant and relevant discussion about the profession and where it is headed right now you won't look to him for any of your talking points.
sameolddoctor, EKE, all of you who are slamming the AIA are like anti-vaxxers who, no matter how many scientific facts you shove in their face, shut their eyes and plug their ears and say "I have a right to my beliefs!". Your beliefs are wrong. Justin Shubow is wrong, but by promoting this article you guys ensure that misinformation and bullshit dominates the conversation about what architects actually do.
^ Donna, kudos to you for putting your words, and beliefs, into action.
To paraphrase Joseph de Maistre: Toute profession a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite.
Donna, thank you for reposting your post. Yes, I did read every post (139?) in this thread in sequential order prior to my posting. My brain tells me that you're argument is qualitatively passionate and persuasive. However, my brain also tells me that all of the AIA efforts you cite, specifically:
-the AIA's ongoing RePositioning initiative
-the AIA Emerging Professionals group
-the I Look Up website and commercial,
are merely more lipstick on a pig. That is, unless and until the quantitative measures of the value proposition of the profession in the marketplace are improved (see my previous post), one cannot legitimately claim that anything effectual has actually been changed for the better.
To the AIA members who give a damn about their profession,
Donna also stated in her repost, "Here is information about the potential change in titling of accredited program graduates and registered architects, not an AIA initiative but supported by them."
My personal opinion is that requiring the professional schools to act professionally and train emerging professionals in the profession is the only professional option. Its mind boggling how exclusive of practice the theory has become in the "professionally" (not trade!) accredited schools. They are, with rare exception, forcing 5-6 years of training in how-to-become abstract starving artists, not value driven professional architects. One might argue it takes an additional 5-6 years to actually undo all the damage the contemporary architecture schooling is doing to young impressionable minds. The AIA has a lot to do with this, by error and/or omission.
To this end:
-require students take an Architect In Training examination (mini-ARE) in order to receive their diploma. Similar to what engineering schools do. (its not about making the student suffer -its about forcing the schools to get back to integrating relevant professional practice curriculum into the student's time spent in school. Certainly if the schools allowed the students to spend the proper amount of time focusing on professional practice as opposed to virtually none as a result of ungodly amounts on design studio, every single student who made it through their final year is capable of passing a mini-ARE)
-require faculty at the accredited schools of architecture BE LICENSED (which by default means at least some period of time has been experienced in professional practice). Duh.
Requiring all faculty to be licensed is a horrible idea.
Good_Knight, I respect your skepticism because heaven knows architects can talktalktalk and it's easier to talk about change than to implement it. But I honestly have heard so many people in AIA, over the last two years and across all levels of involvement, saying the phrase "No more talking. It's time to change shit." that I am optimistic that real change is happening. Slowly, but happening.
I personally would love to see more professional practice driven curricula, but I also really respect the work of so many graduates of theory-heavy MArch programs who then go out into the world and do really interesting stuff! That's who my talk at AIA National this year is about.
We (meaning our profession in general) don't want the curricula to become soul-deadening retention pond calcs all day, but we also don't want grads to show up for their first job never having heard the term "retention pond calcs" in their schooling.
The licensure upon graduation experiment is happening already. We'll see where we are in 5 years. hopefully there will be more options for students to curate the kind of education they want relative to the field.
Fair enough Donna. Thanks for your sharing more of your thoughts!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts b3tadine[sutures]. I'm impressed by your tenacity. You said,
"EIT isn't a requirement to graduate."
The technical accuracy of this statement is a moot point. The larger point is still valid either way (though I did have a PE just last week tell me that it was a requirement for his graduation).
The larger point and the reality is that if you haven't taken and passed the EIT, the engineering professions do not place much value on your existence in the corresponding marketplace, if at all. At least within the A/E/C industry. A recent graduate of an accredited architecture program would be in a much better position to have a positive effect on the health and welfare via architecture in the marketplace if, as demonstrated by the engineering profession,
"If you're a graduate from an engineering program approved by your state's licensure board, you can become classified as an "engineer intern" or "engineer-in-training" by successfully completing the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam. Achieving EI or EIT status signals that you have mastered the fundamental requirements and taken the first step toward earning your PE licensure..."
-source: http://www.nspe.org/resources/licensure/how-get-licensed
the architecture profession had their own Fundamentals of Architecture exam:
"If you're a graduate from an architecture program approved by your state's licensure board, you can become classified as an "architect intern" or "architect-in-training" by successfully completing the Fundamentals of Architecture exam. Achieving AI or AIT status signals that you have mastered the fundamental requirements and taken the first step toward earning your licensure as a professional Architect..."
-source: TBD if the architecture profession had some self esteem (self efficacy + self respect), foresight, discipline, and cachet.
There are a practically innumerable number of benefits to an AIT becoming the professional standard. To cite yet another, the preoccupation with using the title "architect" in ones name or not would be laid to rest upon passage of an AIT.
b3tadine[sutures] you said,
"Requiring all faculty to be licensed is a horrible idea."
Rationale?
"Many engineers do not sit for the exam as the EI designation is not necessary to do engineering work that does not represent a threat to human life. Depending on the profession, having an EI designation can either be very important or have little bearing on an engineer's career."
EIT
You wrote;
-require faculty at the accredited schools of architecture BE LICENSED (which by default means at least some period of time has been experienced in professional practice). Duh.
I've had History of Architecture professors, not practicing architects.
I've had Structures classes taught by, structural engineers.
I've had Photography classes taught by, photographers.
I've had Architecture Studio taught by, Don Wall, not a practicing architect.
Requiring practitioners in those specialized roles, when by our very nature we are generalists, is beyond obtuse. For instance, with Don Wall, I was able to learn more about the nature of design, and what makes a good designer, without the inevitabilities of practice based education. If students, coming out of architecture school were so horribly deprived of an education, then what accounts for the numbers of recent grads I've worked with, that are seemingly well equipped? "Requiring" practitioners, is so shortsighted, and would've deprived me of the education I wanted, and the experience with Don Wall, that I cherish.
b3tadine[sutures], thanks for your responses and clarifications. Thats great that you've received the education you appreciate! excellent.
What about the education that the society and the general marketplace values in a prospering profession, though? As I articulated earlier, I don't think qualitative arguments will lead anywhere meaningful in the external world.
(For example, starving artists probably appreciate their educations as well and would not want to be deprived of their mentors either. This is praiseworthy in and of itself, perhaps, but entirely beside the main point. The marketplace obviously thinks very very little of the quality of the professional education architects are receiving, as noted by the quantitative evidence cited in my earlier post)
The meaningful change the profession of architecture can effect in the external world (and the quality, by default) is directly related to the quantitative value given in the marketplace. The starving artists are the plankton in the food chain. Don't waste attention getting distracted and trying to argue this point. Its just the way it is.
That is, as things have been allowed to devolve to where they are today, 99% of the profession has no clout to practice high quality architecture as long as society withholds it from them. And make no mistake they are as the measurable (quantitative) external monetary evidence clearly shows. And thus 99% of the population's well-being and welfare, if not life safety, suffer in mostly miserable spaces.
Society withholds it because architecture as a profession has lost its way and is on the rocks. The AIA is guilty of being the negligent lighthouse providing unsafe harbor for the 99% of professionals.
Funny, belonged to the AIA for 38 years…wish I had all the stuff I saved from the old days on the AIA saying change was in the works….change is in the works alright, but the AIA remains powerless to make the change, wish I could think of everything….fighting for control of accreditation with the NCARB was just one lost battle. It really just boils down to a lack of money….the AMA spent $20 Million on PAC in 2014, the AIA spent under $300,000. What else needs to be said?
Speaking of the NCARB is there any reason two similar states, say Georgia and Alabama, couldn't issue a blanket endorsement of each other's architects? Both states have rolling hills to the north and a seacoast to the south as well as a virtual identical climate. Is there really any difference at all in building in Atlanta or Birmingham? Why not cut out the NCARB altogether. If it works in that case other states could also form alliances with like-minded neighbors as well. Should not the AIA be pushing proposals like this and save their members needless grief, aggravation, and money?
Volunteer....AIA lost that fight decades ago, no chance.
Well they are both hurricane prone. I have been in a hurricane in Mobile, Al, and in one in Jacksonville, FL, right on the Georgia line so I don't know what your point is. The cheap racial shot was not called for. The place I observed the most racial hatred was New York City during the three years I lived there. Also you seem to be saying the the legislatures of two nearly identical states cannot cut out the cancer that is the NCARB which is adversely effecting their architectural communities and overall state economies. Enjoy your (economic) slavery.
At the AIA Emerging Professionals Summit the possibility of a national license was raised. It would be a long slow process to coordinate all of the individual state licensing boards to adopt it, and I am certain there would still be some states that would require an additional test of some kind, but it is not outside of the realm of possibility that in ten or twenty years we could have a national license.
Again, laugh and moan and complain about the current status of things; it feels good to vent. But also be aware that there are actually real people at real institutions discussing these real changes. Join in and have a voice in the discussion, or don't.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.