About 5 years ago, Columbia was infamous for churning out a specific style referred to in the common parlance as "blobitecture." Well, Penn has taken over the cutting-edge reins, and they're all about what might be termed "lizardtecture," "puzzletecture," or perhaps "borgitecture." Some call it algorithmic design, generative components, scripting, etc. I think it's certainly an interesting development and a fascinating approach to design, but is it THE approach to design? I'm not so sure.
First, some caveats: 1) I'm not yet trained as an architectural designer, so it's quite likely that my reaction stems from a lack of in-depth exposure. 2) I woke up at 5:30 am to get the train to Philly from NYC the day I visited Penn, so I was particularly cranky during the open house. 3) Whatever else I have to say, it's just my opinion, and you may have a completely divergent and equally valid opposing argument.
That being said, I'll admit that I had a viscerally negative reaction to UPenn's approach to teaching architectural design, like breaking out into hives bad. Detlef Mertins and the ex-Columbia crew have wholeheartedly embraced emergent, experimental, component-driven design as the future of architecture. From first-year studios to third-year electives, one will encounter some sort of rigorously complex tangle of emergent form throughout Meyerson Hall.
The first warning sign was found in the archispeak-laden descriptions of the individual first-year “500 level” design studios, featuring: "rigorous evolution of componentry," "governing rules of biological systems, "theoretical mathematical models of space," and "experiments... mined for their depth and complexity." I realize I may sound like a reactive Luddite in opposition to such heady newfangled thinking, but I don't totally buy it.
For one, when did "complexity" on its own become the end goal of architecture? What about warmth, humanism, and emotion? Are they not conceptually rigorous enough topics to merit investigation? Is data the only worthwhile generator of form these days? Having encountered my fair share of post-structural and decon goo-gaa, I often skeptically interpret such bombast as a mask for lack of deep understanding.
The second warning sign was seeing the student work. From studio to studio within each year, and even in comparing first-year work to third-year work, I didn't see a wide variety of approaches being taken, and frankly, everything for the most part looked like a variation on a folded, wavy, rhino-scripted, laser-cut skeleton. Upon encountering a lone individual who was making something slightly boxy, I remarked "they let you get away with that here?" Again, this is the response of an untrained eye, but I was hoping for a much larger breadth of form from a school with 200+ individuals. Beyond my distrust of the emergent, generative, component-driven design strategy, I worry that the output speaks to a somewhat dogmatic approach at work.
Escaping from the formal guided studio tour, I took some solace in the new engineering building about a block away,
Skirkanich Hall by Tod Williams Billie Tsien Architects. How enlightening to encounter a very different approach to complexity! Attention to details and materials, and unexpected intermingling of open and closed volumes makes for a lively and enriching experience. A new friend from TX, M_, and I toured around the building, and he kept remarking on how joyous the building was. I couldn't agree more. It doesn't require a complicated data model to create complex, enjoyable architecture...
I also went to the Cecil Balmond (a photo of whom struck me as being particularly Brando-esque) third-year research studio exhibition, which was housed in a giant loft-like space. The work was pretty divergent and the concepts that each group had devised were compelling. However, although the process was meant to be generative, the decision-making in regards to form felt somewhat arbitrary. I did like the way the exhibition was structured.
Like roughly half of incoming MArchs to any given institution, I do not have a background in architecture. So perhaps the lack of a "traditional" grounding in the field clouds my response to the generative process espoused at Penn. I'm of the belief that one must grasp the rules well in order to successfully break them. I also feel that a sound education should share both depth and breadth, so that a student is exposed to a wide range of possibilities from which to choose.
So, while Penn may be yielding some new and innovative approaches, it's probably not the best fit for me. For that realization, I am glad that I attended the open house.
My response to Columbia is up next...
[my apologies for the crappy phonecam pics, I forgot to bring my camera that day]
16 Comments
I am applying to Penn for the M.Arch II, and I'm wondering as you are whether or not this whole generative, algorithmic design approach is actually something productive, or just the latest, hottest runway show.
I think you are right in that there is enough already in making buildings emotionally appealing to people through manipulation of form and material. Not to mention social and environmental factors.
I am suspicious of algorithmic design because it seeks to reduce form-making to an equation. I don't think you can write a recipe for making good architecture.
geimanj - you're my hero.
you're not failing to get it because you're untrained but because you haven't drunk the kool-aid. as someone experienced in architectural schooling, teaching, and practice, i agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments.
we've been discussing computer tools on some other threads this week. if they are simply used as a tool, great. if they flatten out the diversity of the work across a school population, as you've described, not so good. if they enable students to focus on their screens and not the joy of fine construction details and simple spatial relationships you witnessed in the bttw project, not so good.
i think you're going to be great. keep your mind open to everything that you can feed it, but also keep going with your gut.
Great post... I'm facing the same dilemma as I do my own grad school search. I'm certainly open to new ideas and new processes, and I realize the whole point of grad school is to broaden my horizons beyond my comfort zone... But I still worry about spending three years of my life and $100,000 just to learn Maya. As a result, I'm having second thoughts about some of the schools on my short list, including Penn and Columbia.
I'll probably post more in-depth about this on the discussion board later today...
even the most 'complex' algorithmic design remains very simple compared to the actual performance of a real building. the assembly, thermodynamics, and detailing of even a simple building envelope, for instance, remains radically more complex than the scripting of a shape on a computer screen which in the end is a very simple task. architecture is difficult. the complexity lies far beyond a compute screen.
you have to be weary of any totalitzing tendency. the intent of a university is to freely present multiple even dissenting viewpoints and let the student negotiate the differences. (its called learning vs. training).
you're smart. you are taking the time to vist several schools and trusting your intuition about these matters.
yale seems the best right now in terms of presenting multiple, strong approaches to architecture (everything form greg lynn to leon krier). that is a sign of a healthy school and healthy debate. archietctural education remains strongest in the questions, not the answers. the rest of the ivies seem to be seduced by software. this is dangerous.
What's your shortlist of grad schools so far?
Amen geimanj. That's what I'm talking about. Only more clear. You just need some photoshopped stuff in your blog now.
i would be very suspicious of any school / program that is teaching one 'style' of architecture.
Thanks for the positive feedback, all. My intention was to be honest about my reaction to the school. I'm actually quite interested in the possibilities of algorithmic or generative design, but I feel that it's something best investigated in a third-year studio or thesis, after one has been exposed to a wide set of problems and approaches. If you don't apply it in an architectonically sensitive manner, then it's just form for form's sake. Applying a pastiche of fancy jargon on top just makes it that much more suspect.
the only two redeaming factors about penn arch is that: most of the faculty haven't drunk that complexity coolaid, so there still is a little of everything else still floating around. #2 the LARP program rocks (and you can get dual degrees easily with one additional year...
I also visited a number of open houses last week. I wasn't impressed with Penn. MIT was great. Also liked Yale. Harvard was o.k. Blew off Columbia. Didn't like Virginia.
My summary:
Penn - Poor Dubai
Yale - Models
MIT - Smart
Harvard - Harvard
Virginia - Still a state school
geimanj>
As others have noted, great post. When I was looking at grad schools, I had similar visceral reactions to both Columbia and Parsons. I never got a chance to visit Penn but worried openly on this forum that it was too enamoured with the blobitectrural trend. I, like you, believe in the possibilities of algorithmic design, as long as it is tempered by an understanding of the qualities of space and materials.
I was deeply skeptical of the formulaic approach to architecture and the seeming rationalization of the algortihm as form-generator, particularly because it seems there is ALWAYS a point at which the designer must make a decision that falls outside the domain of the given algorithm. And yet it seems that this point is almost always glossed over -- a crucial point that undermines the theoretical claims made by most "emergent" architecture.
I visited Columbia first, and also felt that I just didn't "get it" because I didn't understand the inner workings of the architectural field. But more and more I begin to understand that my skepticism was justified. I ended up at Knowlton for a number of reasons, one because there was a diversity of theoretical leanings in the school from the likes of Doug Graf, Bob Somol, Jeff Kipnis, Mike Cadwell, John McMorrough. A lot of very different approaches.
They started us with the basics, a very open-ended process in which we were encouraged to experiment in any way. Only now (second year) are we being introduced to parametric modeling, not as a panacea but as an introduction to tools and processes that are being developed in the field today. I should note that our professors walk a very fine line between the advocacy of such technology in reshaping the process of architecture and the skepticism of parametric modeling as the great form-giver.
It has been an altogether pleasurable experience because my skepticisms have been welcomed as constructive debate, while I have been afforded the opportunity to experiment with the systems of which I am critical in order to develop a better understanding and potential use.
interesting pov, metamechanic.
disagree about lack of value of archi-education though. here in japan you are qualified to take the exam with 7 years experience, a bachelor degree in anything and 2 years experience, or a masters degree in anything and no experience...usually that degree in anything is a degree inarchitecture, but sometimes not...
this is cuz the JIA or similar group is not involved in deciding what schools have to teach in order to be certified...actually there is no certification. profs just teach whatever they want...somehow school still looks remarkably like school in canada or the uk though, which is interesting...
things get really interesting when architects gots no formal education. most of the people i worked with in my first office were of that variety (like Ando, although he never bothered to get a licence), which was totally cool. technically they were all amazing and i learned a lot, but as designers i would have to say they were, and are still, clueless (which is why i was hired, even without speaking japanese much at the time). archi-school teaches architects to think, and technique is in support of the results of thinking. i believe that is a good thing. mostly because i have had to watch otherwise smart people struggle with a design for a hospital and get stuck in the technical aspects without ever thinking that maybe a hospital should be designed to improve the comfort and well-being of the people who use it, and especially the people who are unfortunately forced to use the hospital for its palleative care. technique is not architecture. it isn't even close.
which is why architecture school is very important, whether it focuses on (or even teaches) technique or not...
This is pretty funny. I was on CNN.com and saw this in the banner ad.
http://www.roboreptileonline.com/
metamechanic> when I was looking at 3+ Masters programs, many people commented that I seemed to have more than average architectural knowledge already, and it came mainly from reading archinect, arch record, jane jacobs, etc, in my free time.
But let me tell you, that didn't make me a good designer. I still feel like a complete failure in the design department, even though occasionally a project of mine will be deemed moderately successful in a review or be selected for the archive or website, or whatever. I constantly look around at other peoples' designs and feel completely inadequate, like my designs will never be as sexy as the ones I see from some students in other studios or here on archinect. I hope that once I get my teeth into a longer project that something will emerge that I can be proud of... perhaps I just have an innate lack of confidence in my own abilities in this arena, and that will pass. That remains to be seen.
I don't know if it is possible to "teach" design, after all of this. I believe it is more likely that a great professor merely coaxes the ability to design out of his or her students...
true -- but without a degree in architecture or demonstrated experience in design, how likely are you to work for a great employer in a design capacity? Not likely.
Everybody knows that arch school is not about learning about the profession. It's about learning about Architecture. Beyond the history and theory, you pick up knowledge and skills along the way, and these are the crude foundations for professional practice. Then you learn how it's done in the real world, and it's not all about semiotics, indexicality, transformative/performative, diagramming, information science, and so on. Why would you want to skip arch school. the veritable dreamland of the profession?
I too was at the penn open house. I am suspicious of schools that don't love the physical material. The program felt rigid, and uninspiring. When you are in a creative place you feel a buzz in your gut and you can't wait to jump in. I couldn't wait to leave.
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.