Given the structure of the profession, and the laws and rules that Architects and allied professions and trades work under, can any real innovation happen in this society?
Especially in residential, but also in commercial and industrial, I see very little difference in the built environment between my great grandfathers time and today.
For the vast majority of people, our buildings and infrastructure is not designed for our use and serves us badly. Like an ill fitting suit of clothes, we try to adapt it to changing fashions, but the basic designs don't work well.
Where are the leaders who will bring a new paradigm?
Where are the people with the vision and power to make drastic shifts?
Are we forever destined to be putting lipstick on pigs?
I think that most of our buildings are designed for our (and developers') pocket books.
There are a handful of architecture NGOs out there, but in terms of regular architectural practice I think there is a limit to the kind of revolutionary impact you could have. Architecture is a subset of the construction industry, which is as a whole driven by the bottom line.
Maybe if Architects start picking up positions outside of trying to be the next super starchitect. Think about it, we receive an education that more or less makes us feel like we are or should be a special class of citizens. We are engineers, artists, designers, politicians, computer specialists, and social scientists all rolled in to one super profession: the Architect. With one sweep of our pen (or mouse) we (supposedly) can solve the problems in a troubled neighborhood or add character to a dull city that will affect people's lives from aspects beyond the tectonics and the engineering.
Maybe it's a fantasy, and out of touch with reality (which seems to be a recurring theme on this forum); but the reality is that we do receive an education that is remarkably different than others in the AEC profession. Which is why so many bright fresh graduates become depressed drafting bathroom details after having spent 6+ years theoretically solving the problems of urban neighborhoods around the world.
Here's a question I ask with all honesty to everyone here. Should architects ALL strive to be the next star? What's wrong with a trained architect picking up a position as a civil servant in the government? After all, what really transforms the built environment and the evolution of a city is not the countless diagrams that describe what could be accomplished through precision programming and form creation. It's the laws that determine what will actually get built. Look around your communities around the United States. How many decision makers in public policy have the background that architects have? Who's more qualified to make a decision about zoning and code reform?
All I'm saying is that there could be an argument to encourage more architects to seek positions and careers outside the path to becoming the next Norman Foster or Jean Nouvel. Not everyone can and will be a celebrity, and those in our profession need to come to terms with that.
I am graduated in 2010 with a M.Arch and a Minor in structural engineering, briefly worked in residential design, then got a job with a steel erector (very Howard Roark, I know), then a design-build company. Young aspiring architects and designers are not all going this path, but there are enough of them - trying to truly understand and experience not just how buildings go together, but how contractors, fabricators, clients, etc... work. How structures work... what makes a building stand up. What good is BIM if you have no idea how it fits into the bigger picture? et al....
I am not claiming to be the solution, but the more we try to take back mastery of the built environment, the more power we have to change our profession. We don't all have to view projects in this way, but we do need to address some very broken things.... The client, contractor, architect relationship has a tendency to inflate costs and destroy quality... the people actually building the buildings and fabricating the structures are still not (largely) plugged into BIM. We have let contractors become the true "Master Builders" of the modern built environment, where money rules everything, but everything is overpriced and poorly built - there is no incentive for contractors to change the building industry, they make beau coup money on it as is...
We also need an alternate to the AIA and NCARB, but that's a different topic.
A.I. " It's the laws that determine what will actually get built. Look around your communities around the United States. How many decision makers in public policy have the background that architects have? Who's more qualified to make a decision about zoning and code reform? "
Exactly what I was thinking of!
We need revolutionary's working within and without the system. The system is moribund. It stifles innovation. At some point, we need new fresh ideas, and people willing to risk themselves to make them happen. The only hope that I see, is that we have a new generation that comes along with a fire in their bellies, to change how we live.
I'm talking about a 60's counterculture type generation, that shakes up society and redirects it.
I wonder if any of the last couple of fresh new generations is up to the task?
I know they have connected themselves (And the rest of us) together with social media. But do they have the stomach to fight the status quo? Or is their revolution a quiet one that is exercised simply by older generations dying off, leaving them to live in their new and different way?
And where is the revolution that will renovate our existing housing stock?
Every year we are offered new cars with new features and "improved" functionality. But the vast majority of people in our society live in houses that are 1600's technology with a few upgrades like indoor plumbing and electricity.
I live in a 2 story brick colonial with single pane glass windows and almost no insulation. No solar power or passive solar techniques. Even the new houses simply offer the latest fad of "open floor plans"., but nothing more. Where are the vast developments of low energy or no energy use houses that we need. Where are the government programs to retrofit our housing stock to limit our dependency on foreign energy and save our own and cut pollution and slow global warming?
Where is the outcry from our citizens for better and more efficient (And less wasteful) ways of living? We ignore our own economic self interests and shoot ourselves in the foot.
I see so much that needs doing, and so many that trudge along the same old paths. Where are the Architects that are willing to break out of the insularity of the profession and become activists and community leaders and even (Gasp!) politicians?
Are we, as a society, just so fat and happy, that we will only respond to an emergency that threatens our own self interests? Do we not have the fortitude to be leaders in the world, by finding our own better path, and thus becoming a shining example to others?
bczygan - this sounds like a rant from someone who either is fresh out of school or hasn't had any substantial experience in the A/E industry. it's not all about being revolutionary and cutting edge. the best of the built environment is the building that nobody notices, yet functions as it should. the new and exciting architecture you hear about in magazines from starchitects is on the extreme end of the built environment spectrum, as is the buildings that fail miserably.
What you want changed sounds just like the throw-away society that exists today. New building stock with latest technology? I saw a new car for sale the other day that has 18 cup holders compared to 17 cup holders in last years models. The reason buildings survive is because they are meant to. Cars are not buildings.
The things you mention about the house you live in can all be added, so why not instead of complaining about the lack of revolutionaries and take it upon your self and add some insulation, some solar cells and replace your windows with some low-e triple pane glass. After all, revolutions start with 1
there are just so many ignorant things you've just said, i'll let someone else point out more
^ I agree. As much as we all love drooling over projects in magazines, the best most useful buildings are truly the ones that are boring. Houses are built like houses because boring ass people live in houses. The general public. They dream of gable roofs and double hung windows at night. You can change a building type all you like, making people live in this new type of house we'll drool over as architects and designers is like making a family of 6 drive a Lamborghini Sesto Elemento because it is a car built for optimum efficiency (speed).
Make all the changes. People still need minivans and big ass trucks. Heck, there's people out there that just plain want a minivans and trucks. They dream of driving minivans, just like they dream of gabled roofs and double hung windows.
Also, not all of us want to be starchitects. We just want to help create a better built environment. One that is safer, more durable, and well designed.
I see architecture as a sort of set design for the play of life. At its best, it adds something beautiful and interesting to this crazy drama, at its worst it is the drama.
This is an interesting post - a lot of what we do is essentially giving form to policy - I think as individuals and a profession we are definitely in a unique position to show a different way forward, but we need to align ourselves with the people who are engaged in influencing and creating policy.
the main things that have emerged over the past few decades are the new urbanists and things like "smart growth," "complete streets," "LEED" etc... Right now there's an opportunity to shift the debate within transportation policy toward focusing on multi-modal travel, and as profession we really need to start aligning ourselves with walking/biking advocates in order to help them show how places designed around walking and biking might look. There are also many other things people care about - sustainable building practices, urban agriculture, "urban resilience," ecological sensitivity, climate change, disaster relief, the problems associated with both urban suburban poverty (and mobility)... a lot of these things have intersecting interests and solutions - some of which where architecture can play a role (as an aside - the big mistake we've made in the past is assuming that architecture is THE solution - not just a piece of something bigger).
I think, for you, the key is finding something you're interested in and figuring out where architecture might fit in.
One thing that irks me consistently is how we design buildings with parking lots. The buildings and their adjacent areas, including approaches are built in a "car first" mentality. Granted, this is driven by all the developers who want that.
But we still need to design with walking and biking in mind.
I constantly see buildings where we make pedestrians just walk through a parking lot. Why not design a pleasant path for anyone walking to the place from any direction? I noticed that too many times.
I think we are living a time period where biking is starting to become normal enough that cities are now starting to design or redesign city streets with those whom bike in mind.
I think our buildings should do the same, unfortunately they don't. I am sure there are plenty of us out there that are progressive in that mindset, but judging by the buildings I see around me, not enough. I am constantly bringing this up on projects that my firm works on.
It is far from a direct solution, but a friendlier walking/biking environment surrounding our buildings will make walking/biking more appealing to those whom would normally drive.
It's not about changing the world. It's about evolving the world. As much as we would like to think that paradigms shift in a month, they usually don't. People need to time to digest, absorb and adapt. Maybe a hard lesson to learn, but realizing that just might keep you sane.
Simple solution, marry the urban planner at the city...then wine and dine her to see things you're way. Worked for me......if you read this honey I'm kidding. Mostly....
@cg_8: at least where I am, developers would be very happy to not have to include parking because it's a loss-leader - it's zoning and neighborhood groups that dictate parking requirements - it's completely politicized and often irrational. Developers also aren't going to be offering any solutions for alternative modes of transportation - but there's an opportunity for municipalities (and regional planning orgs) to do trade-offs - i.e. you can eliminate x amount of parking if you pay into the transit/bike/ped fund or something. This takes leadership from elected officials -but- is unfortunately a very difficult sell to older people who are still in this car-centric mindset - so it'll work in some places and in others not so much.
There's a major cultural shift going on, but it's going to take a while.
btw - biking as a primary mode of transportation becoming more socially acceptable is HUGE - in many places people see bikes as kids' toys or some kind of hobby - or if you're biking places you're poor and/or have a DUI. Reducing the social stigma of biking and walking for transportation is one of the major social justice issues of our generation.
Architecture is different than automotive design. Buildings are not gadgets. We can afford to be fashionable with cars. But if we want to be truly sustainable, then we need to design buildings that will last, and remain relevant to us, not for two years, or ten years, but for hundreds of years. Otherwise, if we are tearing things down and rebuilding in order be be constantly in the "now", we waste a staggering amount of embodied energy.
This means tapping deeply into enduring things: humanity and nature... not the technological zeitgeist, which is transient.
"Nothing ages faster than yesterday's vision of the future" - W. Rybezynski
May 23, 14 7:46 pm ·
·
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.
Can Architects make any Difference?
Given the structure of the profession, and the laws and rules that Architects and allied professions and trades work under, can any real innovation happen in this society?
Especially in residential, but also in commercial and industrial, I see very little difference in the built environment between my great grandfathers time and today.
For the vast majority of people, our buildings and infrastructure is not designed for our use and serves us badly. Like an ill fitting suit of clothes, we try to adapt it to changing fashions, but the basic designs don't work well.
Where are the leaders who will bring a new paradigm?
Where are the people with the vision and power to make drastic shifts?
Are we forever destined to be putting lipstick on pigs?
Bill
Where are the leaders who will bring a new paradigm?
Developing hotels and casinos.
Where are the people with the vision and power to make drastic shifts?
Working for people who pay them not to. Well, maybe not the vision. Or the power.
Are we forever destined to be putting lipstick on pigs?
Porcine makeup artist?
I think that most of our buildings are designed for our (and developers') pocket books.
There are a handful of architecture NGOs out there, but in terms of regular architectural practice I think there is a limit to the kind of revolutionary impact you could have. Architecture is a subset of the construction industry, which is as a whole driven by the bottom line.
Maybe if Architects start picking up positions outside of trying to be the next super starchitect. Think about it, we receive an education that more or less makes us feel like we are or should be a special class of citizens. We are engineers, artists, designers, politicians, computer specialists, and social scientists all rolled in to one super profession: the Architect. With one sweep of our pen (or mouse) we (supposedly) can solve the problems in a troubled neighborhood or add character to a dull city that will affect people's lives from aspects beyond the tectonics and the engineering.
Maybe it's a fantasy, and out of touch with reality (which seems to be a recurring theme on this forum); but the reality is that we do receive an education that is remarkably different than others in the AEC profession. Which is why so many bright fresh graduates become depressed drafting bathroom details after having spent 6+ years theoretically solving the problems of urban neighborhoods around the world.
Here's a question I ask with all honesty to everyone here. Should architects ALL strive to be the next star? What's wrong with a trained architect picking up a position as a civil servant in the government? After all, what really transforms the built environment and the evolution of a city is not the countless diagrams that describe what could be accomplished through precision programming and form creation. It's the laws that determine what will actually get built. Look around your communities around the United States. How many decision makers in public policy have the background that architects have? Who's more qualified to make a decision about zoning and code reform?
All I'm saying is that there could be an argument to encourage more architects to seek positions and careers outside the path to becoming the next Norman Foster or Jean Nouvel. Not everyone can and will be a celebrity, and those in our profession need to come to terms with that.
It all depends on the shade of lipstick
I would like to think so.
I am graduated in 2010 with a M.Arch and a Minor in structural engineering, briefly worked in residential design, then got a job with a steel erector (very Howard Roark, I know), then a design-build company. Young aspiring architects and designers are not all going this path, but there are enough of them - trying to truly understand and experience not just how buildings go together, but how contractors, fabricators, clients, etc... work. How structures work... what makes a building stand up. What good is BIM if you have no idea how it fits into the bigger picture? et al....
I am not claiming to be the solution, but the more we try to take back mastery of the built environment, the more power we have to change our profession. We don't all have to view projects in this way, but we do need to address some very broken things.... The client, contractor, architect relationship has a tendency to inflate costs and destroy quality... the people actually building the buildings and fabricating the structures are still not (largely) plugged into BIM. We have let contractors become the true "Master Builders" of the modern built environment, where money rules everything, but everything is overpriced and poorly built - there is no incentive for contractors to change the building industry, they make beau coup money on it as is...
We also need an alternate to the AIA and NCARB, but that's a different topic.
A.I. " It's the laws that determine what will actually get built. Look around your communities around the United States. How many decision makers in public policy have the background that architects have? Who's more qualified to make a decision about zoning and code reform? "
Exactly what I was thinking of!
We need revolutionary's working within and without the system. The system is moribund. It stifles innovation. At some point, we need new fresh ideas, and people willing to risk themselves to make them happen. The only hope that I see, is that we have a new generation that comes along with a fire in their bellies, to change how we live.
I'm talking about a 60's counterculture type generation, that shakes up society and redirects it.
I wonder if any of the last couple of fresh new generations is up to the task?
I know they have connected themselves (And the rest of us) together with social media. But do they have the stomach to fight the status quo? Or is their revolution a quiet one that is exercised simply by older generations dying off, leaving them to live in their new and different way?
And where is the revolution that will renovate our existing housing stock?
Every year we are offered new cars with new features and "improved" functionality. But the vast majority of people in our society live in houses that are 1600's technology with a few upgrades like indoor plumbing and electricity.
I live in a 2 story brick colonial with single pane glass windows and almost no insulation. No solar power or passive solar techniques. Even the new houses simply offer the latest fad of "open floor plans"., but nothing more. Where are the vast developments of low energy or no energy use houses that we need. Where are the government programs to retrofit our housing stock to limit our dependency on foreign energy and save our own and cut pollution and slow global warming?
Where is the outcry from our citizens for better and more efficient (And less wasteful) ways of living? We ignore our own economic self interests and shoot ourselves in the foot.
I see so much that needs doing, and so many that trudge along the same old paths. Where are the Architects that are willing to break out of the insularity of the profession and become activists and community leaders and even (Gasp!) politicians?
Are we, as a society, just so fat and happy, that we will only respond to an emergency that threatens our own self interests? Do we not have the fortitude to be leaders in the world, by finding our own better path, and thus becoming a shining example to others?
Bill
.
"make a difference"
Make a difference in what? How? Why? How much? All important questions you leave unanswered and unasked.
bczygan - this sounds like a rant from someone who either is fresh out of school or hasn't had any substantial experience in the A/E industry. it's not all about being revolutionary and cutting edge. the best of the built environment is the building that nobody notices, yet functions as it should. the new and exciting architecture you hear about in magazines from starchitects is on the extreme end of the built environment spectrum, as is the buildings that fail miserably.
What you want changed sounds just like the throw-away society that exists today. New building stock with latest technology? I saw a new car for sale the other day that has 18 cup holders compared to 17 cup holders in last years models. The reason buildings survive is because they are meant to. Cars are not buildings.
The things you mention about the house you live in can all be added, so why not instead of complaining about the lack of revolutionaries and take it upon your self and add some insulation, some solar cells and replace your windows with some low-e triple pane glass. After all, revolutions start with 1
there are just so many ignorant things you've just said, i'll let someone else point out more
Make all the changes. People still need minivans and big ass trucks. Heck, there's people out there that just plain want a minivans and trucks. They dream of driving minivans, just like they dream of gabled roofs and double hung windows.
Also, not all of us want to be starchitects. We just want to help create a better built environment. One that is safer, more durable, and well designed.
I don't need a minivan.
I do need my truck (its big, but not that big)
what I really need is a miesy-peezy Farnsworth house from which to watch the sun go down every night.
yum.
viva la revolucion?
I see architecture as a sort of set design for the play of life. At its best, it adds something beautiful and interesting to this crazy drama, at its worst it is the drama.
@jla-x
Well said.
This is an interesting post - a lot of what we do is essentially giving form to policy - I think as individuals and a profession we are definitely in a unique position to show a different way forward, but we need to align ourselves with the people who are engaged in influencing and creating policy.
the main things that have emerged over the past few decades are the new urbanists and things like "smart growth," "complete streets," "LEED" etc... Right now there's an opportunity to shift the debate within transportation policy toward focusing on multi-modal travel, and as profession we really need to start aligning ourselves with walking/biking advocates in order to help them show how places designed around walking and biking might look. There are also many other things people care about - sustainable building practices, urban agriculture, "urban resilience," ecological sensitivity, climate change, disaster relief, the problems associated with both urban suburban poverty (and mobility)... a lot of these things have intersecting interests and solutions - some of which where architecture can play a role (as an aside - the big mistake we've made in the past is assuming that architecture is THE solution - not just a piece of something bigger).
I think, for you, the key is finding something you're interested in and figuring out where architecture might fit in.
^ I agree AGAIN!!
One thing that irks me consistently is how we design buildings with parking lots. The buildings and their adjacent areas, including approaches are built in a "car first" mentality. Granted, this is driven by all the developers who want that.
But we still need to design with walking and biking in mind.
I constantly see buildings where we make pedestrians just walk through a parking lot. Why not design a pleasant path for anyone walking to the place from any direction? I noticed that too many times.
I think we are living a time period where biking is starting to become normal enough that cities are now starting to design or redesign city streets with those whom bike in mind.
I think our buildings should do the same, unfortunately they don't. I am sure there are plenty of us out there that are progressive in that mindset, but judging by the buildings I see around me, not enough. I am constantly bringing this up on projects that my firm works on.
It is far from a direct solution, but a friendlier walking/biking environment surrounding our buildings will make walking/biking more appealing to those whom would normally drive.
It's not about changing the world. It's about evolving the world. As much as we would like to think that paradigms shift in a month, they usually don't. People need to time to digest, absorb and adapt. Maybe a hard lesson to learn, but realizing that just might keep you sane.
Gary
Pacific Land Design
@cg_8: at least where I am, developers would be very happy to not have to include parking because it's a loss-leader - it's zoning and neighborhood groups that dictate parking requirements - it's completely politicized and often irrational. Developers also aren't going to be offering any solutions for alternative modes of transportation - but there's an opportunity for municipalities (and regional planning orgs) to do trade-offs - i.e. you can eliminate x amount of parking if you pay into the transit/bike/ped fund or something. This takes leadership from elected officials -but- is unfortunately a very difficult sell to older people who are still in this car-centric mindset - so it'll work in some places and in others not so much.
There's a major cultural shift going on, but it's going to take a while.
btw - biking as a primary mode of transportation becoming more socially acceptable is HUGE - in many places people see bikes as kids' toys or some kind of hobby - or if you're biking places you're poor and/or have a DUI. Reducing the social stigma of biking and walking for transportation is one of the major social justice issues of our generation.
Architecture is different than automotive design. Buildings are not gadgets. We can afford to be fashionable with cars. But if we want to be truly sustainable, then we need to design buildings that will last, and remain relevant to us, not for two years, or ten years, but for hundreds of years. Otherwise, if we are tearing things down and rebuilding in order be be constantly in the "now", we waste a staggering amount of embodied energy.
This means tapping deeply into enduring things: humanity and nature... not the technological zeitgeist, which is transient.
"Nothing ages faster than yesterday's vision of the future" - W. Rybezynski
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.