In an LA Times Op-Ed, Emeryville, CA Architect Arrol Garner laments, "If there's one complaint I hear again and again from contractors, tradespeople and anyone else involved in the practical end of building, it's this: 'Why don't architects have to serve an apprenticeship in construction?' " His answer: "Good Question."
But why does he hear that complaint "again and again"?
Read | via UnBeige
14 Comments
I have been wondering this too. I studied a semester in Germany and all of my classmates worked a semester in construction. Do we American architects feel like we are above that?
i'm too busy buying fabulous eyewear...again!
If this practice was to be implemented, would it be better to do the apprenticeship while a student, or after graduation?
Personally I''m all for the idea of it, though I think the implementation could be a total nightmare and only drive people away from the profession.
architects aren't required to do a construction internship for the same reason contractors aren't required to do a design internship....
some ppl might be prepared to do unpaid construction internships - oh oh...
yup happens in germany, but also in Mexico, it is common that when u do an internship u get a job as a construction supervisor, which allows u most of times to get knowledge about the actual way of building things, not always but i dare to say a 80% of the time, interns get this responsability
It was strongly suggested (read: pretty much required) that we worked in the construction trade at least one summer during school. This greatly influenced how I design/detail, it actually made it easier in some respects, as I can now read when GC/sub is spinning BS about how hard/timeconsuming it is to make something.
I wonder if this depends on locale of school, etc. I've noticed in larger cities unions/labor camps hold sway over most laborer/short term positions, is it even possible to do a short term stint in construction in those type of areas? My experience was in a smaller town where anyone physically able could get into construction pretty easy.
as if detailing was the central issue facing architecture today.
this isn't rocket science but the field is so wide a year working as a framer ain't gonna teach you shit all about building in steel, nor vice versa.
so, architects should become construction specialists, spending ten years to become decent carpenter (thats what the internship is in japan anyway) or just getting feet wet is sufficient? or is the idea that a bit f experience goes such a long way? i doubt it, otherwise a bit of HGTV everyday would be more than enough woun't it.
From this website, I think a little HGTV goes a long way for Mr. Garner.
I worked on the construction site. It was very helpful for me to further my education. it would definitely be a helpfull class for the interested. I learned about scheduling, how the things work, foundations, basic carpentery, plumbing, electrical, roofing and measuring and making things plumb.
I really liked it. making it a part of architectural education would only help the profession.
How about teaching contractors how to read drawings ?
Corbuuuu, i couldn't agree more with that. or how about teaching clients that the low bidder isn't always the right way to go
yeah but orhan i grew up building 2x4 houses, starting with shingle-ing and so on when a young teenager. i could probably with a bit of effort build a house on my own, with a few friends.
as designer in firm i deal mostly with steel and concrete and timber frame structures. 2x4 does not enter into the equation. so that experience, which was great fun, does not really inform my work today, other than to understand that someone has to build what i draw. however, i really do not believe that any reasonably intelligent person will not learn the same thing after working in an office for a year.
the benefit of working on site is i think to open up people to new group of people. as a social exercise i think it is a fantastic experience, just to expose architects to the working class folk who make their ideas reality. but as technical education? not so sure. it wouldn't hurt but the article is not saying it is useful, rather they are implying that our schools are failing the industry by not requiring it. which is a fallacy in my book. i find it much more easy to believe garner has a hard time getting decent and intelligent staff, cuz he is not himself working at the higher end of things. the problem is just as likely with him and his inability to attract good people than with the industry and the world of architectural education at large...
i think this is a bit like the myth of mies growing up as bricklayer, when his father was in fact a mason (didn't deal with bricks at all). we mythologise the act of construction when in fact the need for master builders is not as great as the need for master thinkers.
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.