All of these things-- from LEED to renderings-- are all marketable skills architecture has.
Now... imagine every possible skill architecture has as some variety of valuable commodity as a straw in a tightly-clenched hand. If we identify every skill in that handful of straws as a skill that can be purchased or done elsewhere and remove it, what skills are left that are only truly unique to an architect?
I ask this because I believe those are the underlying skills one should master if they want to be considered a competent architect. Other skills-- from communication to marketing to graphic design-- can really always be bought themselves in helping the architect.
Removing the legality issue, what is it that you can do that no one else can?
You've got to know that every response will be different because we are all different individuals, as varied as the buildings all around us.
Well first I will say that an architect has always practiced with the environment in mind, if the owner would be persuaded, we don't need a self designated body to give us silver or gold stars, we are not in kindergarten.
An Architect is someone that never ever stops learning.
We continually have to keep up with the latest technology, and movements i.e. bim,ipd, Leed, but we are the one's that have to analyze all these things diametrically, rather than giving in to it.
Making Buildings work, constructing buildings, that is the result of a lifetime of researching our customers needs and wants, our communities, i.e. people. We have to know a little about everything.
We act as the clients representative showing what is possible, what is not. Which goes along with our ability to be the mediators, the negotiators, the guides if you will in the chaotic world of construction.
We must be able to think like Lawyers, doctors so to speak of buildings, Psychologists to analyze our clients needs and wants, Engineers, Construction managers, and all the rest of the professions that chipped away at the Architect. We are not relieved of our duty simply because these other professions exist. We are still the ultimate Coordinator of information.
Because of our train of Thought, we can adapt to any other profession, we able to blend into any other profession, we are smart enough to do that. (i hope anyway)
Like Picasso, we have to have that ability to look at any and every situation from a fourth dimension, to analyze it objectively. Not to mention think 3 dimensionally when analyzing problems.
Being marketable is the last thing on my mind, first worry about being good at what you do.
More than ever there is a huge misconception about what an Architect is. We are not merely computer software monkeys. Not to mention that every tom dick and jane questions the authority of an architect. You would never see a patient questioning a doctors knowledge of anatomy right?
At the moment from what is evident that I have seen there are a lot of people going to Architecture school, and graduating and being happy to be workers rather than doing our own thing, we are supposed to be entrepreneurs.
We are the ones that hear a politicians speech and right away say,
"ok that is what he claims, now i will go do my own research to get to the root of the problem."
We are problem solvers.
We make order out of Chaos. I know its cliche but its true.
Ok i could keep going, lecture is over, send me a nickel, no checks accepted.
At the moment from what is evident that I have seen there are a lot of people going to Architecture school, and graduating and being happy to be workers rather than doing our own thing, we are supposed to be entrepreneurs.
This is, of course, the traditional way we think about what architects do. Unfortunately, there are many non-architects who also see themselves this way and who increasingly poach on what has been our traditional territory.
Over the course of my fairly long career, the profession has tended to narrow - not expand - the areas of expertise in which we offer genuine expertise and credibility. This explains, in part, the increase in the number of participants on the building teams assembled by owners.
Going forward, I believe architects - or architectural firms - will need to expand the universe of problems that we're prepared to tackle. I believe owners prefer simple teams that can offer the expertise they need to accomplish their projects. When we can't - or won't - deliver that expertise ourselves, there are many others who will be happy to step into the vacuum.
Jan 19, 11 12:05 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.
What does architecture have at the end of the day?
Inspired by this recent post:
If there ever was a time to get back to the basics of applying our craft of architecture it is now... --creativity expertThis was in response to LEED. In addition, How the Great Recession has changed architecture—for the better and current rendering trends also have related points-- how architecture uses software, what methodology exists in developing ideas and how those ideas are represented.
All of these things-- from LEED to renderings-- are all marketable skills architecture has.
Now... imagine every possible skill architecture has as some variety of valuable commodity as a straw in a tightly-clenched hand. If we identify every skill in that handful of straws as a skill that can be purchased or done elsewhere and remove it, what skills are left that are only truly unique to an architect?
I ask this because I believe those are the underlying skills one should master if they want to be considered a competent architect. Other skills-- from communication to marketing to graphic design-- can really always be bought themselves in helping the architect.
Removing the legality issue, what is it that you can do that no one else can?
Thats a big question Uxbridge,
You've got to know that every response will be different because we are all different individuals, as varied as the buildings all around us.
Well first I will say that an architect has always practiced with the environment in mind, if the owner would be persuaded, we don't need a self designated body to give us silver or gold stars, we are not in kindergarten.
An Architect is someone that never ever stops learning.
We continually have to keep up with the latest technology, and movements i.e. bim,ipd, Leed, but we are the one's that have to analyze all these things diametrically, rather than giving in to it.
Making Buildings work, constructing buildings, that is the result of a lifetime of researching our customers needs and wants, our communities, i.e. people. We have to know a little about everything.
We act as the clients representative showing what is possible, what is not. Which goes along with our ability to be the mediators, the negotiators, the guides if you will in the chaotic world of construction.
We must be able to think like Lawyers, doctors so to speak of buildings, Psychologists to analyze our clients needs and wants, Engineers, Construction managers, and all the rest of the professions that chipped away at the Architect. We are not relieved of our duty simply because these other professions exist. We are still the ultimate Coordinator of information.
Because of our train of Thought, we can adapt to any other profession, we able to blend into any other profession, we are smart enough to do that. (i hope anyway)
Like Picasso, we have to have that ability to look at any and every situation from a fourth dimension, to analyze it objectively. Not to mention think 3 dimensionally when analyzing problems.
Being marketable is the last thing on my mind, first worry about being good at what you do.
More than ever there is a huge misconception about what an Architect is. We are not merely computer software monkeys. Not to mention that every tom dick and jane questions the authority of an architect. You would never see a patient questioning a doctors knowledge of anatomy right?
At the moment from what is evident that I have seen there are a lot of people going to Architecture school, and graduating and being happy to be workers rather than doing our own thing, we are supposed to be entrepreneurs.
We are the ones that hear a politicians speech and right away say,
"ok that is what he claims, now i will go do my own research to get to the root of the problem."
We are problem solvers.
We make order out of Chaos. I know its cliche but its true.
Ok i could keep going, lecture is over, send me a nickel, no checks accepted.
At the moment from what is evident that I have seen there are a lot of people going to Architecture school, and graduating and being happy to be workers rather than doing our own thing, we are supposed to be entrepreneurs.
that's the rut i'm afraid of falling into
This is, of course, the traditional way we think about what architects do. Unfortunately, there are many non-architects who also see themselves this way and who increasingly poach on what has been our traditional territory.
Over the course of my fairly long career, the profession has tended to narrow - not expand - the areas of expertise in which we offer genuine expertise and credibility. This explains, in part, the increase in the number of participants on the building teams assembled by owners.
Going forward, I believe architects - or architectural firms - will need to expand the universe of problems that we're prepared to tackle. I believe owners prefer simple teams that can offer the expertise they need to accomplish their projects. When we can't - or won't - deliver that expertise ourselves, there are many others who will be happy to step into the vacuum.
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.