On Sept. 20, 2006, I attended the Deans Roundtable at the Center for Architecture, here in NYC. Thought you might be interested in hearing what they had to say.

Deans present: Alan Balfour, RPI; Judith DiMalo, NYIT; Urs P. Gauchat, NJIT; Thomas Hanrahan, Pratt; Mohsen Mostafavi, Cornell; George Ranalli, City College of NY (CUNY); Mark Robbins, Syracuse; Robert Stern, Yale; Anthony Vidler, Cooper Union. Also included Michael Bell, Director of Core Studies, Columbia; Sarah Whiting, Director of Grad Studies, Princeton

I was disappointed that the Deans from Columbia and Princeton were absent, as those are two of the schools I'm considering. The reps from those institutions didn't get to sit at the Big Table, for whatever reason.

The ostensible topic of discussion was Architecture and Public Policy, moderated by Ray Gastil, the director of the NYC Dept. of Public Planning Manhattan office and founding director of the Van Alen Institute. The main theme was quickly overshadowed by each Dean selling his or her specific institution, and then speaking more generally to Academia's influence on the world at large.

Some main themes throughout the talk were:

I - Academy vs. Practice:

Mostafavi started on the gap between "the Academy" and Practice. School is seen as the site of innovation and invention, while the reality of practice is conventional & conservative - how do we bridge between the two? Bob Stern talked about how Yale is bringing developers into the program to better connect students with the realities of getting built work accomplished. He also spoke of the importance of well-roundedness- a diversity of backgrounds furthers the field and helps people avoid burnout once they jump into actual practice. DiMaio, who I really liked, spoke about the art of being a creative individual, that maintaining a diversity of interests makes one a better architect.

II - A Global vs. Local Focus:

Stern, who had literally just returned from Dubai, mentioned that Yale wants to become the most "global" institution in the world, which sounded very sexy and progressive. Mostafavi and DiMalo responded with similar notes on their own institutions' global initiatives.

The global practice selling point was summarily shot down by Gauchat, who responded with a quote, "architecture is like politics, it is best practiced locally." [Ralph Caplan] He then went on to tell of some successes NJIT has had in doing local planning projects. Ranalli seconded this local notion later on, mentioning the presumptuousness of westerners going to China to tell people how to build. Robbins further expounded on how the city of Syracuse, in its economically depressed state, is a more valuable laboratory for understanding American urbanism and the problems of the Rust Belt city than studying in LA or NYC. It got me thinking- although studying in other cultures and seeing the world is truly mind-expanding, how much of the global practice of architecture is a good thing? Can we do better work if we choose to focus locally? At the same time, what local opportunities exist? What happens when China doesn't need our buildings, or they choose to make their own?

III - Architecture's Responsibility & A Sense of Place

Minalia talked about safeguarding New York City culture and the importance of understanding the specific conditions that create a "sense of place." Hanrahan reiterated on the global dilemma of everyone wanting to build LA, which results in bad buildings and too many parking lots. There's a need to teach people to make good buildings, making things beautiful, and trying to avoid creating center cities which are hyper-monotonous places, resulting in marginalized local peoples.

IV - Optimism for the Future

Everyone spoke to a sense of optimism in the existing student population- that people are genuinely invested in the future, more so than ever. Students want to be good citizens and make a palpable difference. Hanrahan specifically said that "we're in an era when a lot of really great architecture is being built," that cutting-edge design is taken seriously and getting made, as opposed to remaining on the drawing board. Vidler also talked about how students start to question the program with idealistic intent, and in doing so, create new opportunities and reshape conventions.

So what did I get out of all of this? You put 9+ Deans in a room and you're bound to have divergent opinions, which was helpful. The global/local question is particularly compelling. Beyond some of the usual lip service, the overarching sense that I got was that those responsible for shaping the faculties who shape the profession's future are posing honest questions and are actively engaged in how to make a difference in the world. I left the experience feeling that architecture still remains a meaningful and engaged profession.