To paraphrase Mark Wigley: the true realm of architectural intervention is not in high brand-width, high profile, singular ‘one-off’ projects that exist upon, and in juxtaposition to, innocuous surfaces. Rather those banal, ubiquitous surfaces, such as green grass, white gypsum, gray concrete, and black asphalt are the true field of operations for architectural intervention. This disconnect, between the ‘real world’ and ‘architecture’, has become so commonplace that it is nearly invisible. Within the following framework I will attempt to address what I see as chronic, fatal flaws within the existing construct, and then attempt to propose what I think might lead to holistic and firm solutions.
Problem Number 01: “ ‘Us v. ‘Them’ “
Architecture is perceived by both the public at large and, in many cases, the profession itself as singular prolific works of art for the top two percent of the economic scale [CITATION NEEDED]. Not only is this hugely limiting in terms of the types of projects architects are willing and able to take on, or be involved in, it is hugely damaged to the built environment writ large. It entails that capital ‘A’ architecture is limited both typologically to building types a priori deemed appropriate, and as well to projects that can afford an increased budget for ‘design services.’
This creates an artificial schism in which ‘architecture’ can only be appreciated by professionals within the field, critics, and layman savants. It creates a callous attitude in which the public constituency is predominantly alienated through the obsolescence of their requirements, or rights, to understand, have say in, and appreciate, their own built environment.
Thirdly, this has led to yet another schism in which the academy has willfully neglected or negated [CITATION NEEDED] real world constraints and issues. Whereas the intelligentsia of the profession willfully retreated into ‘paper architecture’ in order to ‘free’ themselves from the headaches of construction and liability. The architectural academy has become the quintessential archetype of the ‘Ivory Tower’. This of course fuels yet further alienation as the academy further develops its own agendas and terminology entirely separate from the profession, never mind the public.
Problem Number 02: “The Technology Fetish”
A ‘fetish’ can be defined as giving more importance to something than it intrinsically or objectively mandates. Architecture has embraced emergent technologies, such as calculus generated forms, ‘parametrics’, and self-organising systems, whilst ignoring, or misplacing the value of overtly encompassing technologies that have the capacity to fundamentally alter the profession for the long term betterment of all parties involved. Somehow, the idealization of ornament and ‘new’ architectural forms has eclipsed technologies that have the capacity to solve fundamental, systemic problems which could also keep architecture relevant and even make it essential moving forward into the information era.
This has served to fuel the disconnect mentioned above regarding schisms between the profession and other entities [such as the public], rather than connect them and dissolve obstacles. It has further separated the singular prolific works, and the banal median, not draw them closer together.
The alternative of the moment seems to be BIM, in which the architect, the client, the contractor and all consultants have access to a single all-encompassing model. Yet, because of it’s relative negation, the full power of BIM is further away than it should be. There are issues with uniformity, communication and liability that are glaring and seemingly insurmountable in the present context.
Problem Number 03: The Architecture Business Model
Due in part to the issues mentioned above, the contemporary architectural business model is completely insolvent without copious and plentiful free labor. The only way to surmount the tedium of drawing as many different models as is necessary, is to throw as much labor at the project as possible. This means that current architecture firms must ‘eat their young’ to survive and remain competitive. They must have either unpaid internships, or pay a wage uncommiserate [incommiserate? im making up words here...] with education to be able to over come the amount of hours necessary to produce the required representation.
Add to this the refusal to accept potentially ‘banal’ project types [or of course lower fees that cannot support the overhead], and mix in the slowness to adopt emergent technologies that could fundamentally streamline the architectural production process, and you have a uniquely broken system. A profession that has to rely on free labor in order to stay alive is a profession of theft.
Which leads me to the third aspect: liability. As architects have run from liability [into the academy [CITATION NEEDED], into formalism, or into obsolescence] they have ceded ground to many specialists with differing agendas. The ‘master builder’ has been bifurcated again and again into General Contractor, Sub Contractor, Building Modeler, Project Manager, Cost Surveyor, and finally Architect with his rag-tag group of consultants. Of course, the fallacy is such that as the architect has ceded liability he/she also cedes responsibility, power, and fee structure. The run from liability can and has reduced the architect to aesthetician or information manager.
Which leads me to correction strategies.
These issues are deep-seeded, holistic, and pervasive. Therefore, they require systemic, dynamic strategies, as opposed to ‘one-off’, static representations of an ‘ideal’. They require comprehensive strategies that rethink fundamentals, rather than band-aids. Strategies that can dynamically shift across cultures, economic situations, and geography, fluidly and readily and efficiently.
I want to propose and explore a revamping of the architecture model as a holistic, systemic enterprise. I think this needs to start with overhead and internal costs before it can truly relate to external costs, fees, recognition and ultimately liability.
The architectural profession has to realize that ‘eating its young’ is not sustainable. It may help a few well known firms, but it creates a vacuum of talent, as the only people who can afford a career in architecture are already independently wealthy.
Furthermore, the profession must accept a larger range of projects as ‘architecturally’ and economically viable. Why can’t an international firm do a parking garage? Designing projects that are closer to the public realm in terms of visibility will foster more communication, more understanding, and, ultimately, more projects. Designing a museum that no one understands but the architect and the client does not lead the profession nor the constituency in a sustainable direction.
To that end, why not actually propose projects in a proactive manner rather than merely waiting for projects to drop on one’s lap? Why not research to foresee a need and in doing so propose a project to a client?
Technologically, the profession needs to become more adept about the right things. Calculus generated forms, and parametrics are worthwhile, yet the profession should develope BIM to such a level to be able to communicate with General Contractors without fear of liability issues. All consultants should be working on the same exact model. The virtual should truly mirror the physical, and not provide merely a dull model of it.
I whole-heartedly think this will lead to more expertise in building technology, more precision in its execution, more responsibility [and as well, higher fees], whilst simultaneously negating pitfalls with liability and it’s bastard twin ‘inaccuracy’. I think the tools are already at our fingertips, we just have yet to truly grab hold.
I'm pretty sure that only the opening paraphrase is about Mark Wigley. I believe the rest of the content here is solely penned by jploudre.
One should note however that OP here has given us a fair amount of dissertation to discussion and has even left the more controversial statements here open ended. That is noted by the "[CITATION NEEDED]" aspect of the way the arguments are built.
Unfortunately, though, architecture lags far too much behind society as a whole to be interpreted through speculative, pop-culture rhetoric. I would even say that some aspects of architecture are so time-delayed that the fundamentals and tenets are beyond the means of even historians. Certainly, the cumulative understanding of architecture could fall into the domain of archaeology.
Have there been any actual changes in architecture since then? Perhaps, the only significant change in the last 160,000 years is the use, confinement and production of non-'biological' energy. And what I mean by non-biological energy is work.
But even then, humans have been collecting and using energy, primarily in the form of wood, as far back as 400,000 years ago. And the use of fire is not even unique to humans; however, the use of fire is a predominate feature of hominids.
First step I think is to lobby for buildings that can designed by designers and verified by engineers and signed off by the DOB. Design-engineer-review. Engineer is liable, done.
So straight out of school you can run a design firm and bill 100+ hour. That's enough incentive for someone who is inteligent to join the non-profession.
And students would demand real world skills that would make them money as they kick douche bag papertect to the curb.
So who has government connections in a state lose enough to allow multi-story or commerical buildings to be designed by LLC's owned by 22 year old kids.
odn - I like your idea. Giving young talent not only incentive to get built what they design, but to also get paid well would get them to demand certain things of the education.
Right now, everyone is of the "oh, you can't learn the real world until many years after grad school, working in a firm for ages and ages without much pay", etc., etc.
Bullsh*t. Almost every other profession out there enables students to work from day one, most with the potential/ability to skyrocket to the top if they are so enabled.
Furthermore, this will make the older generation work harder to maintain relevance. The business model will be dynamic, allowing anyone to do anything, anytime.
Sounds good to me. Start with revamping licensure, or at least the title of 'architect' (which, more or less, is the last strangle hold on this idea).
Let the market decide who is relevant and who succeeds.
[you better aim a lot, lot higher than 100+ hour for billing!]
I say all this in part because I as an exchange student for 3 semester attended a European university that made year long studio projects where concept design was only the first month or two and after that all your engineering classes and urban planning/zoning classes not only were required to inform and help you both spec and detail your design, the finals in those classes were on your design.
So if you didn't know structures well maybe you made a design decision you could handle, or if you wanted the design regardless of your structural engineering skills you spent long hours figuring out what detail and material was best instead of long hours staring at fucking chiipboard.
But to tie that little rant back into the three main points.
As for "us v. them," there's a larger macro issue here that's not exclusive to architecture. There was a series of sociological papers written in the 1970s regarding the growing distrust between the 'general public' and 'academia.' This mistrust is really only expanding.
One interesting development is the mistrust of academia in relation to computer programming, engineering and gaming-- all relatively 'new' fields.
There's a two fold problem with the role of academia in training new graduates to fulfill a "growing gap" in the demand for new game industry workers.
The first problem is that many gaming companies have not only proprietary systems but also methodology that comes with those systems. A university or college simply doesn't have access or the resources to teach every graduating student the ins-and-outs of every major companies' own systems.
The second problem is that many companies also lambaste academics on spending all of their time inventing new words and working on irrelevant, nonsensical projects with little real world value.
When it comes down to it, all a university can really do to prepare students for a career in gaming is teach the the fundamentals of modeling, rendering, rigging (making objects animate able) and basic programming.
Which-- not to offend anyone in particular-- only takes a few months to learn on one's own. Perhaps, this is the same reason as to why a handful of architects from this very community also now work in the gaming industry.
In the world of engineering-- there's two hilarious complaints. Students either known too much software or not enough. It's very much the same argument math students make-- teach basic math without a calculator or teach complex math with a calculator.
There's an interesting correlation here between these other fields and architecture. But even architecture is not necessarily the only field of the AEC industry facing the problem-- planning is confounded my mistrust, engineering is restricted by cronyism and construction has been deemed inhumane.
Irrelevance, although it seems bad, is a far lesser barrier than the professions it rubs shoulders with.
<purposely, and affectionately, skipping Donna's post> ;-)
- if we added technology to your list it'd bring in an entirely different conclusion, right back to odn's post: by encouraging entrepreneurship and unencumbered creativity, University's have managed to generate astounding vision and execution. Look at any firm in Silicon Valley (FB being the latest poster child), how/why/what started them.
Perhaps a stretch, but also a good example of how young people can dream and discover ways to construct those dreams. From the initial idea, beginning execution to the business side with seed money, then venture capital, etc., etc.
The arch/building world doesn't have to be that different. Just like any business, you hire consultants as they are needed, revise business models/plans as needed, etc.
The barriers to entry are mostly encumbered by academia. I am sure some schools are more forwardly thinking/teaching, but so far it seems mostly limited to those few students willing to dive into the MArch/MSRED direction.
Maybe I am just silly and naive, but I like the dream of thinking outside of the box, creating value that attracts investment, and profiting from the planned and executed vision, all while someone (certainly too late for me) is young and hungry, idealistic and uncompromising.
We have glimpses of it here and there. My bet is this recession forces the younger, unemployed to come up with "ideas" outside of the box (far outside). "Ideas" that are focused around sustainable/profitable business models and not some theoretical nonsense and dreams of having a monologue someday.
I think the engineers in Silicon Valley are the type of people who are the most opposite from dreaming architects.
At least friends of mine who have PhD in engineering or science are barely same type of people as architects who are obsessed with "Image".
Naive architects dream with Imaginary, but Engineers in Silicon Vellay dream with Reality.
I am just sick of architect's thinking of architecture regarding "box" or "out of box". Who does really care about whether architecture is box or out of box?
It is the business model that needs to be outside of "the box".
Look past the literal!
That's the point, really. You are looking at it from a purely formal ("box") category. Young SV geniuses are thinking about problems, then coming up with 'real' solutions.
This is largely the problem with architecture and entrepreneurship - there is no thought about overall business approaches (not often, anyways) and how 'ideas' can make sense, solve problems and make money. If things don't make any profit, they make no sense to anyone.
I could argue that stararchitects have figured out how to 'brand' their image and have created 'value', which equals money. Ironically, that is probably the most progressive thing in architecture (business wise) in a long, long time.
It is happening, here and there, what I was rambling on about is (related to this thread) 'why can't this be encouraged and nurtured from day one, from the first day of school?'
I am sorry I had misread "the box" in your comments.
So, do you mean "out of the box" as "out of architectural category"?
But, do you really think that an architect can be an architect out of architectural category?
In 90's they insisted on being an politician and now are they insisting on a business man? Why do they always escape from architectural reality instead of directly facing on that?
And, if they have figured out their business model why they aren't even able to pay their young employee?
Does their business model include the way exploiting the young?
If so, isn't that same as the business model of the earliest capitalism in the 18C in England?
Do you really think that 18C's business model that can sustain only by exploiting others is progressive?
Come on...
No one, except some youngs in a few architecture schools, think that star architects have improved any architecture business models.
If your looking to find and solve problems like SV engineers then go into R&D at a product development firm...we are limited by the confines of building materials and our job is to make best use of this materials. Sure we can make sugguestions and have input for new technologies etc but clients don't have the time or budget for us to dream up and" potentially" develop something that makes their building better.
Sounds like some of you got sold on architecture by your profs and their limited real world experience. It's simple....provide good, quality service to your client; get paid; repeat. The exterior forces of the world will change this profession not the individual architects...look at history for examples of that.
And all this crap about making new grads eligible to run their own firms....you think fees are low now? Wait till that happens and fees bottom out by new grads charging next to nothing to do work. We would become the next web design industry...technical field done by non technical people.
"...the true realm of architectural intervention is not in high brand-width, high profile, singular ‘one-off’ projects that exist upon, and in juxtaposition to, innocuous surfaces. Rather those banal, ubiquitous surfaces, such as green grass, white gypsum, gray concrete, and black asphalt are the true field of operations for architectural intervention." no shit sherlock.
I think that stararchitect's have managed to capitalize on their fame and names. They've created value in their 'brand'. Value equals dollars in everyone's pockets.
So yes, I do think they've added something to the architecture business model that wasn't there before. They are making money, a lot of money, designing what they want (or they did, anyway, before the crash).
The internal payment structure is another matter entirely (and a different discussion somewhere else on Archinect).
But sorry people have such little faith in entrepreneurship and ambitious kids. Things will be shaped, from the outside in, continue to get squeezed more and more, fees going down, etc., etc., unless there is some real innovation (and that certainly isn't coming from the top now, consolidation, mergers and reducing redundancy seems to be the answer of the day, which, just continues to squeeze and marginalize the individual).
I guess I should be thankful that I am on the outside, then.
I do think that these things should be self-evident. And so I agree with your 'no shit, sherlock' statement. Yet notwithstanding H&dM in Miami, or F+P in Bath, when was the last time you saw a world renowned firm take on a hospital or a parking garage?
DS,
The average [AVERAGE] time in New York state from graduation to licensure is 11 years. This is the state that has 30,000 firms in New York City alone. The system is ridiculously over-designed, bloated, and based on out-dated methods of architectural production. In reality, when was the last time anyone in the field ever calculated a moment connection? Or when was the last time anyone drawed a site drainage detail? Architecture, like the rest of the world has gotten more specialized. Personally, I welcome the addition of structural engineers and landscape architects. When I said 'Architects should take back the center.' I meant architects should become more of what they are: generalists operating in a field of specialization. Rather than trying to do everything [and do everything poorly.]. 'Jack of all trades' is a negative connotation here.
trace,
What would it take for the AIA, NCARB to allow architects to practice from 'day one' upon graduation from an accredited program?
More or less nothing. The only real issue I see prohibiting it, in regards to the "professional organizations" is the use of the word "architect". By litigating those that "misuse" it, they are essentially stifling any entrepreneurs and the young (ok DS, I am ready for ya! ;-) )
The second issue, and the important one (as the one above is really silly, imho), is education. There are little avenues to learn about business, about how to run a design firm, let alone find venture capital and build a successful business model.
This, however, is far more broad reaching than just architecture. That's a real problem with academia, in general. I see no reason why, given the costs and competitiveness, that someone can't be 2 years out of high school and start a professional business (not some landscaping job, something 'real'). Really, it will come down to this, for survival, sooner or later (mark my words!).
This will take some real restructuring of how things are taught, why, when, etc. It is also, partially, why the 'rich' keep getting richer - they learn about money and business so early. I didn't learn a thing until I was 20 (I blame education)!
Architecture schools can offer some more rounded education and professional organizations can focus on promoting new ideas and new business solutions rather than "forcing" an ancient model on the world.
My solution would be: let the market decide. Obviously, everyone doing anything needs to adhere to zoning, codes, etc., etc. But no reason that can't be done on a consultation basis, or expert partner, etc., etc. Many ways to skin the cat, as they say.
Again, I do think that, overall, the market will decide who/what survive. Right now, it is the super large firms and the small and nimble firms. I think we'll continue to see this trend and we'll see these smaller firms create solutions to problems that a large firm can't do.
It'll happen, whether someone is calling themselves an "Architect" or "Designer of Architecture" or "Architecture by Designer" or whatever.
Or they could just let you take the exams the minute you graduate. That would at least change somethings and allow those that want to go out on their own right away that freedom.
Maybe the problem lies well beyond architecture. Lets forget about the problems we all agree exist, even if we don't agree exactly what they are, and look at the big picture. I see several things coming together with potentially disasterous results.
We have an unhealthy concentration of wealth in the US that is getting worse. We are becoming a nation of haves and have nots. A smaller middle class = less disposable income = less work for some, no work for others, and a windfall for a tiny few.
Technology is always improving allowing the same work to be done faster. This means less labor is needed. These outside pressures, and others, don't seem to get discussed in the threads. It may be possible for an individual to find a solution that puts them in a good position. It is also possible that this profession as well as others are in a downward cycle with no internal solution.
That's true. The wealth distribution is pretty horrible and getting worse.
Pretty scary, particularly with the dollar's decline.
I agree with your conclusions jbk, overall. My suggestions were along the lines of "free everyone from the current constraints and educate the young on business solutions".
I'll be interesting to watch (from the outside). The part that scares me immediately is the swallowing up of the medium sized firms. I can't imagine that will be good attracting new architects and new innovation/ideas.
while i whole heartedly agree with your position[s], i think it's a bit of a tangental exercise, no? i mean no one singular person in the 'democratic' US has the power to fix all of those things, not even the president. and that's the whole point of democracy, isnt it? a balance of power? im more interested in what we can effect, with our limited knowledge and power. it's our 'vote' after all, right? 'God is in the details'? whether a building succeeds or fails really comes down to the detailing, right? so if we can 'fix' architecture, then perhaps it can be used as a model for 'fixing' other professions and perhaps the nation/world/universe/multiverse writ large.
though, i do agree that the root of the problem does indeed lie beyond architecture. and far beyond western notions of 'business' or 'politics' even. if you take every thread back far enough it leads to a question of ethics and where morality originally springs from. but that is metaphysical and even potentially religious, not architectural.
'sectional' and 'real ra':
those are naked assertions, not arguments. would you like to expand upon why you think what i wrote is 'out of touch' or even 'such BS'? if you don't have anything significant to either contribute or detract, then why even waste the 10 seconds of your life responding? you know you can never ever reclaim those 10 seconds, right?
cc14:
actually, we arent limited by the confines of building materials or even to the laws of physics. we also operate in the virtual. we drive fee structures [virtual], personal and business relationships [semi-virtual], procurement schedules and quantity surveys [virtual and virtual], sexy images [super virtual, yet they actually can drive all of the above].
i dont think architecture is merely about supplying a 'good quality service.' that's a specialist's job. architecture is about asking questions and provding answers. and even providing answers to questions no one has yet thought to ask. its about challenging what the client thinks they want and proposing a better alternative. do you honestly think that the best architects such as Peter Zumthor or Herzog and DeMueron or David Chipperfield really just provide a 'good quality service and repeat'? that's a built space production line, but it isnt architecture.
new grads are and should be completely capable of running there own thing. if they can provide a service or have brilliant ideas, then who, in a capitalist economy, is to say they shouldnt? i don't think fresh ideas and new content are in any way a financial threat to the old established dogs. i highly doubt Situ Studio is stealing clients from Gensler. rather new, innovative firms are actually creating not only their own content, but their own demand as well.
Well, personally, I think the loooong road to licensure is a very, very prohibitive factor (but that's me). Also, there aren't any examples of real 'success', so people kinda fall inline with the standard career path. [by 'real' success I mean monetarily, fame, etc. - things that motivate and attract talent]
If we assume that the overall education factors are beyond the scope of this discussion, I do still feel that architecture school could do much more to promote new thought (and not just formal architectural games, which, I do love). I had one useless "professional practice" class, nothing more required (thankfully I sought out my business classes elsewhere).
I think there can be many solutions if there is a little less rigor with the professional career path.
(I really must be watching too much CNBC! This is sounding like an 'anti regulation to promote entrepreneurship' stance...lotsa truth to it, though)
i haven't read all your looong posts, but it seems to me that the main problem is that there's no overarching body that could administer a consistent set of requirements either for the education of architects or for licensure. the federal government in this country will never have the reach over the individual states that european governments have.
i wonder if a state could set standards for arch schools WITHIN that state, and then give a license automatically (for that state only) to graduates. example: pratt curriculum has to meet NYS reqs, and each pratt student graduates with a NYS license. then ncarb could handle interstate reciprocity only.
that seems like it might work, if americans weren't so down on hiring govt/state employees to make it happen...
elinor, you have the same name as my ex gf, and so i cannot respond because im dumbfounded...
come now, the over-arching body is NCARB! or at least the ARE. and those are both bloated and outdated and ineffiecient and undynamic, and ,ultimately, inconsequential, governing bodies.
don't worry, elinor is just my nom-de-archinect. i can change it at any time if it really gives you the willies :)
the overarching body is absolutely NOT ncarb. they have absolutely no jurisdiction over educational programs. if those programs could somehow be standardized, the ARE would have no reason to exist...
ncarb has no jurisdiction over anyone (except interns...haha) they offer a service and it's up to the states to buy in.
(well greg says the states don't actually pay ncarb, but you know what i mean)
i do agree w/all your assessments of ncarb and the are though.
as stated above, there is not really an overarching body that sets standards.
ncarb sets standards for licensure, but then has no real authority; licensing authority is reserved to the individual states.
and ncarb (despite some apparent confusion above) has no say in educational standards - that's naab.
ncarb's scope of interest really is only (despite their efforts to expand it) health, safety, welfare. (why is pre-design even part of the ARE?)
naab has a much larger scope of interest - taking in the whole of architectural curriculum. despite our constant griping about what is taught in school, what naab attempts to standardize is a body of knowledge and activity upon which the discipline at large (professional and academic) has agreed is important! the curricula will only change as the majority withing the discipline - or at least the majority of those who care enough to take a position - pushes it to change.
i think architects navel gaze and moan too much. there's lip service to a need to 'take back the center' above (original post) which i presume to mean that we need to return to our role as generalists at the center of the design of the built environment. well, i'm not in academia and i'm not a celebrated name in architecture, but i feel fully in that central role every day - with discretion over a whole host of design considerations. i may not be the landscape designer or the acoustical engineer, or the selector of interior finishes or the one determining the scope of allowances for rock removal, but i'm watching over and coordinating all of those roles and - in some cases - leading the various players to different answers than they would come to if left in the safety zone of their expertise.
we just do these things. we use BIM or we don't, we certainly don't shirk responsibility/liability, and we listen to and honor our clients as partners in the process of building. what, then, is this conversation even about?
I think the convo turned to how do we promote something more entrepreneurial, a way that things could be done without the current constraints (or maybe I just took it that way).
For me, like almost all of the creative world, what interests me the most is how things are changing in the digital age. I also am quite fascinated by the business growth that is promoted to the young, while in school, in other professions.
I don't see any of that in architecture. I see the complete opposite, really. I think we were just going on about why that is, what is stifling this creative thinking (not formal stuff, or some 'cool' innovation that costs a billion bucks) while in school, while still young and idealistic.
steven--i don't think he's saying architects should take back the center...i'm sure he knows a lot of us are already there. i think he's saying 'academics' should take back the center....watch out...haha.
steven, If you truly accept liability and responsibility [and hence higher fees and freedoms] to the extent of Tishman or McCarthey or Turner then truly you are the entire goal and point of this post, personified. but you represent the exception, not the rule, even among practicing middle of the road architects [academia and big names notwithstanding].
when i say 'take back the center' there are obvious connections to the GC - architect - owner relationship structure. everyone knows about this, and i dont think i need to beat a dead horse.
however, in the later half of the past century roles have popped up that are called 'Building Modeler' 'Project Manager' 'Construction Manager' 'Facilities Manager' etc etc. these roles are actually in the center, in that they are the nexus of communication between the GC - architect - owner. sometimes even to the extent of filtering information. IE the architect never gets cost analyses directly from the GC or quantity surveyor, but always via the PM.
however, the PM's agenda is different than the architect's, his role is to make everything as easy as possible, not produce a fantastic building. therefore, he makes concessions to the GC and owner behind the architect's back in order to 'facilitate' so he can move on to the next project easily.
theoretically, the architect should be the center of communication, not only because she is driving the design, but also because typically she is the only party who truly cares about the building and the constituency. so much so that she often nearly ends up doing everyone else's jobs for them.
i believe PM CM CA BM FM should all be collasped back into 'Architect'. this is why I am so enamored with what SHoP is doing with SHoP Construction. http://www.shop-construction.com/
i believe PM CM CA BM FM should all be collasped back into 'Architect'.
yeah, and i wish it would rain lemon gum drops, but it's not happening. there is a reason why those specialties evolved - they provide a service that requires knowledge and expertise well beyond what is offered in a "generalist" architecture office.
yes, i like shop too, but let's face it, these guys are rank amateurs compared to offices that really specialize in the alphabet soup you describe above. what they do have going for them and what architects like about them is that design is fundemental to all of their other services. problem is that design is not fundemental to the demands of the vast majority of clients. shop's definitely carved a niche, but i don't think they represent the solution to the larger problems facing the profession.
The first part of the issue is that architecture is not a fast-paced, high-performance industry. The second part, due to the slowness factor, there's less opportunities to test new business structures.
If you have a yearly or even semi-annual production cycle, cause and effect are seen quite rapidly-- a single action's consequences can be seen two or three months in the future.
Architecture, on the other end, has production cycles that last years if not up to a decade or more. Changing office dynamic or office processes will take to the end of the project to judge their efficacy and their return.
It's one thing to talk about business restructuring when all your business does is make and wholesale 10,000 identical toasters. But, again, architecture doesn't make things and there's certainly not 10,000 identical buildings.
So, there's already confounding factors involved here-- if no two projects are even similar, using similar strategies are more than likely to under perform. Perhaps, in some project instances, 'taking back the center' would more than likely be beneficial. However, it other instances... it might be business as usual.
Office structure and strategy should really be customized for each individual project.
At this point, there's nothing really wrong with how architectural firms are run and there's nothing really right.
I'm sure you aware that there's plenty of well-run firms who are feeling a pinch for reasons outside of staff-- from lawsuits to debt service. Kind of hard trying to build a successful business when you have to payout a few hundred thousand dollars a month in past due bills.
I am on board with Trace all the way.
And to the person who thinks if those out of school will bottom out the fee even more, this is completely untrue, this is the beauty of capatilism, if you don't stay on top of your game there won't be a game.
the smart kids will charge less in fees and make more an hour. What happens though is the fellow class mate who isn't on their own charging less and making more an hour is working for a firm ran by older people who don't know how to adapt anymore to the rapid changing business model and hence just can't pay this person a lot for essentially the same skills and knowledge as the other guy.
In short - consult and free lance as soon as you can, and if you can't legally call yourself an architect, offer pre-construction services (hahaha, damn smart CM's)
@OP, i'll focus on your third point "the architecture profession":
"the contemporary architectural business model is completely insolvent without copious and plentiful free labor."
you assume that a handful of unpaid starchitecture internships are representative of an entire profession. in reality, most firms pay their employees. the bigger issue is that the construction industry is viciously cyclical, while the education industry continually grows, so there are more architects (and aspiring architects) than paid work.
"Furthermore, the profession must accept a larger range of projects as ‘architecturally’ and economically viable.... To that end, why not actually propose projects in a proactive manner rather than merely waiting for projects to drop on one’s lap? Why not research to foresee a need and in doing so propose a project to a client?"
which architecture firms are turning down high-paying but "banal" projects?
this point is a contradiction of the previous one - if your time and services are valuable, then you should be able to find clients to pay for it. running around doing unpaid work is the fastest way to go out of business, especially when you are employing other architects/interns. also, if the project isn't economically viable, why would an architect take it?
"the profession should develope BIM to such a level to be able to communicate with General Contractors without fear of liability issues. All consultants should be working on the same exact model."
To be honest, most general contractors don't give a shit about your BIM model. As an architect, you gotta work alongside clients and contractors with varying skillsets, needs and expectations. Preaching to consultants about BIM isn't going to save the world, sorry.
Mar 16, 11 3:34 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.
I'm so sorry.
Truly, I am sorry. Yet:
To paraphrase Mark Wigley: the true realm of architectural intervention is not in high brand-width, high profile, singular ‘one-off’ projects that exist upon, and in juxtaposition to, innocuous surfaces. Rather those banal, ubiquitous surfaces, such as green grass, white gypsum, gray concrete, and black asphalt are the true field of operations for architectural intervention. This disconnect, between the ‘real world’ and ‘architecture’, has become so commonplace that it is nearly invisible. Within the following framework I will attempt to address what I see as chronic, fatal flaws within the existing construct, and then attempt to propose what I think might lead to holistic and firm solutions.
Problem Number 01: “ ‘Us v. ‘Them’ “
Architecture is perceived by both the public at large and, in many cases, the profession itself as singular prolific works of art for the top two percent of the economic scale [CITATION NEEDED]. Not only is this hugely limiting in terms of the types of projects architects are willing and able to take on, or be involved in, it is hugely damaged to the built environment writ large. It entails that capital ‘A’ architecture is limited both typologically to building types a priori deemed appropriate, and as well to projects that can afford an increased budget for ‘design services.’
This creates an artificial schism in which ‘architecture’ can only be appreciated by professionals within the field, critics, and layman savants. It creates a callous attitude in which the public constituency is predominantly alienated through the obsolescence of their requirements, or rights, to understand, have say in, and appreciate, their own built environment.
Thirdly, this has led to yet another schism in which the academy has willfully neglected or negated [CITATION NEEDED] real world constraints and issues. Whereas the intelligentsia of the profession willfully retreated into ‘paper architecture’ in order to ‘free’ themselves from the headaches of construction and liability. The architectural academy has become the quintessential archetype of the ‘Ivory Tower’. This of course fuels yet further alienation as the academy further develops its own agendas and terminology entirely separate from the profession, never mind the public.
Problem Number 02: “The Technology Fetish”
A ‘fetish’ can be defined as giving more importance to something than it intrinsically or objectively mandates. Architecture has embraced emergent technologies, such as calculus generated forms, ‘parametrics’, and self-organising systems, whilst ignoring, or misplacing the value of overtly encompassing technologies that have the capacity to fundamentally alter the profession for the long term betterment of all parties involved. Somehow, the idealization of ornament and ‘new’ architectural forms has eclipsed technologies that have the capacity to solve fundamental, systemic problems which could also keep architecture relevant and even make it essential moving forward into the information era.
This has served to fuel the disconnect mentioned above regarding schisms between the profession and other entities [such as the public], rather than connect them and dissolve obstacles. It has further separated the singular prolific works, and the banal median, not draw them closer together.
The alternative of the moment seems to be BIM, in which the architect, the client, the contractor and all consultants have access to a single all-encompassing model. Yet, because of it’s relative negation, the full power of BIM is further away than it should be. There are issues with uniformity, communication and liability that are glaring and seemingly insurmountable in the present context.
Problem Number 03: The Architecture Business Model
Due in part to the issues mentioned above, the contemporary architectural business model is completely insolvent without copious and plentiful free labor. The only way to surmount the tedium of drawing as many different models as is necessary, is to throw as much labor at the project as possible. This means that current architecture firms must ‘eat their young’ to survive and remain competitive. They must have either unpaid internships, or pay a wage uncommiserate [incommiserate? im making up words here...] with education to be able to over come the amount of hours necessary to produce the required representation.
Add to this the refusal to accept potentially ‘banal’ project types [or of course lower fees that cannot support the overhead], and mix in the slowness to adopt emergent technologies that could fundamentally streamline the architectural production process, and you have a uniquely broken system. A profession that has to rely on free labor in order to stay alive is a profession of theft.
Which leads me to the third aspect: liability. As architects have run from liability [into the academy [CITATION NEEDED], into formalism, or into obsolescence] they have ceded ground to many specialists with differing agendas. The ‘master builder’ has been bifurcated again and again into General Contractor, Sub Contractor, Building Modeler, Project Manager, Cost Surveyor, and finally Architect with his rag-tag group of consultants. Of course, the fallacy is such that as the architect has ceded liability he/she also cedes responsibility, power, and fee structure. The run from liability can and has reduced the architect to aesthetician or information manager.
Which leads me to correction strategies.
These issues are deep-seeded, holistic, and pervasive. Therefore, they require systemic, dynamic strategies, as opposed to ‘one-off’, static representations of an ‘ideal’. They require comprehensive strategies that rethink fundamentals, rather than band-aids. Strategies that can dynamically shift across cultures, economic situations, and geography, fluidly and readily and efficiently.
I want to propose and explore a revamping of the architecture model as a holistic, systemic enterprise. I think this needs to start with overhead and internal costs before it can truly relate to external costs, fees, recognition and ultimately liability.
The architectural profession has to realize that ‘eating its young’ is not sustainable. It may help a few well known firms, but it creates a vacuum of talent, as the only people who can afford a career in architecture are already independently wealthy.
Furthermore, the profession must accept a larger range of projects as ‘architecturally’ and economically viable. Why can’t an international firm do a parking garage? Designing projects that are closer to the public realm in terms of visibility will foster more communication, more understanding, and, ultimately, more projects. Designing a museum that no one understands but the architect and the client does not lead the profession nor the constituency in a sustainable direction.
To that end, why not actually propose projects in a proactive manner rather than merely waiting for projects to drop on one’s lap? Why not research to foresee a need and in doing so propose a project to a client?
Technologically, the profession needs to become more adept about the right things. Calculus generated forms, and parametrics are worthwhile, yet the profession should develope BIM to such a level to be able to communicate with General Contractors without fear of liability issues. All consultants should be working on the same exact model. The virtual should truly mirror the physical, and not provide merely a dull model of it.
I whole-heartedly think this will lead to more expertise in building technology, more precision in its execution, more responsibility [and as well, higher fees], whilst simultaneously negating pitfalls with liability and it’s bastard twin ‘inaccuracy’. I think the tools are already at our fingertips, we just have yet to truly grab hold.
Architects should take back the center.
When I had seen Mark Wigley's comment on the Whitehouse competition, I was truly disappointed at him.
But, looking at the article above, it seems that he is getting back his sharpness.
summary: an academic gives generic advice on 'revamping the profession'
he's so ridiculously out of touch, i almost feel bad.
Where, specifically, do you feel he is out of touch?
The core points of this are eerily similar to what I wrote in my GSAPP admissions essay. Coincidentally, I didn't get in.
I'm pretty sure that only the opening paraphrase is about Mark Wigley. I believe the rest of the content here is solely penned by jploudre.
One should note however that OP here has given us a fair amount of dissertation to discussion and has even left the more controversial statements here open ended. That is noted by the "[CITATION NEEDED]" aspect of the way the arguments are built.
Unfortunately, though, architecture lags far too much behind society as a whole to be interpreted through speculative, pop-culture rhetoric. I would even say that some aspects of architecture are so time-delayed that the fundamentals and tenets are beyond the means of even historians. Certainly, the cumulative understanding of architecture could fall into the domain of archaeology.
Have there been any actual changes in architecture since then? Perhaps, the only significant change in the last 160,000 years is the use, confinement and production of non-'biological' energy. And what I mean by non-biological energy is work.
But even then, humans have been collecting and using energy, primarily in the form of wood, as far back as 400,000 years ago. And the use of fire is not even unique to humans; however, the use of fire is a predominate feature of hominids.
First step I think is to lobby for buildings that can designed by designers and verified by engineers and signed off by the DOB. Design-engineer-review. Engineer is liable, done.
So straight out of school you can run a design firm and bill 100+ hour. That's enough incentive for someone who is inteligent to join the non-profession.
And students would demand real world skills that would make them money as they kick douche bag papertect to the curb.
So who has government connections in a state lose enough to allow multi-story or commerical buildings to be designed by LLC's owned by 22 year old kids.
odn - I like your idea. Giving young talent not only incentive to get built what they design, but to also get paid well would get them to demand certain things of the education.
Right now, everyone is of the "oh, you can't learn the real world until many years after grad school, working in a firm for ages and ages without much pay", etc., etc.
Bullsh*t. Almost every other profession out there enables students to work from day one, most with the potential/ability to skyrocket to the top if they are so enabled.
Furthermore, this will make the older generation work harder to maintain relevance. The business model will be dynamic, allowing anyone to do anything, anytime.
Sounds good to me. Start with revamping licensure, or at least the title of 'architect' (which, more or less, is the last strangle hold on this idea).
Let the market decide who is relevant and who succeeds.
[you better aim a lot, lot higher than 100+ hour for billing!]
Mother fucking Amen!
I say all this in part because I as an exchange student for 3 semester attended a European university that made year long studio projects where concept design was only the first month or two and after that all your engineering classes and urban planning/zoning classes not only were required to inform and help you both spec and detail your design, the finals in those classes were on your design.
So if you didn't know structures well maybe you made a design decision you could handle, or if you wanted the design regardless of your structural engineering skills you spent long hours figuring out what detail and material was best instead of long hours staring at fucking chiipboard.
Oh and in this European country your degree was your license.
But to tie that little rant back into the three main points.
As for "us v. them," there's a larger macro issue here that's not exclusive to architecture. There was a series of sociological papers written in the 1970s regarding the growing distrust between the 'general public' and 'academia.' This mistrust is really only expanding.
One interesting development is the mistrust of academia in relation to computer programming, engineering and gaming-- all relatively 'new' fields.
There's a two fold problem with the role of academia in training new graduates to fulfill a "growing gap" in the demand for new game industry workers.
The first problem is that many gaming companies have not only proprietary systems but also methodology that comes with those systems. A university or college simply doesn't have access or the resources to teach every graduating student the ins-and-outs of every major companies' own systems.
The second problem is that many companies also lambaste academics on spending all of their time inventing new words and working on irrelevant, nonsensical projects with little real world value.
When it comes down to it, all a university can really do to prepare students for a career in gaming is teach the the fundamentals of modeling, rendering, rigging (making objects animate able) and basic programming.
Which-- not to offend anyone in particular-- only takes a few months to learn on one's own. Perhaps, this is the same reason as to why a handful of architects from this very community also now work in the gaming industry.
In the world of engineering-- there's two hilarious complaints. Students either known too much software or not enough. It's very much the same argument math students make-- teach basic math without a calculator or teach complex math with a calculator.
There's an interesting correlation here between these other fields and architecture. But even architecture is not necessarily the only field of the AEC industry facing the problem-- planning is confounded my mistrust, engineering is restricted by cronyism and construction has been deemed inhumane.
Irrelevance, although it seems bad, is a far lesser barrier than the professions it rubs shoulders with.
<purposely-missing-the-point aside>
There is nothing stopping you form getting a license by age 22. There's no legal age cutoff for registration.
<purposely, and affectionately, skipping Donna's post> ;-)
- if we added technology to your list it'd bring in an entirely different conclusion, right back to odn's post: by encouraging entrepreneurship and unencumbered creativity, University's have managed to generate astounding vision and execution. Look at any firm in Silicon Valley (FB being the latest poster child), how/why/what started them.
Perhaps a stretch, but also a good example of how young people can dream and discover ways to construct those dreams. From the initial idea, beginning execution to the business side with seed money, then venture capital, etc., etc.
The arch/building world doesn't have to be that different. Just like any business, you hire consultants as they are needed, revise business models/plans as needed, etc.
The barriers to entry are mostly encumbered by academia. I am sure some schools are more forwardly thinking/teaching, but so far it seems mostly limited to those few students willing to dive into the MArch/MSRED direction.
Maybe I am just silly and naive, but I like the dream of thinking outside of the box, creating value that attracts investment, and profiting from the planned and executed vision, all while someone (certainly too late for me) is young and hungry, idealistic and uncompromising.
We have glimpses of it here and there. My bet is this recession forces the younger, unemployed to come up with "ideas" outside of the box (far outside). "Ideas" that are focused around sustainable/profitable business models and not some theoretical nonsense and dreams of having a monologue someday.
Or maybe I am just watching too much CNBC! :-)
I think the engineers in Silicon Valley are the type of people who are the most opposite from dreaming architects.
At least friends of mine who have PhD in engineering or science are barely same type of people as architects who are obsessed with "Image".
Naive architects dream with Imaginary, but Engineers in Silicon Vellay dream with Reality.
I am just sick of architect's thinking of architecture regarding "box" or "out of box". Who does really care about whether architecture is box or out of box?
It is the business model that needs to be outside of "the box".
Look past the literal!
That's the point, really. You are looking at it from a purely formal ("box") category. Young SV geniuses are thinking about problems, then coming up with 'real' solutions.
This is largely the problem with architecture and entrepreneurship - there is no thought about overall business approaches (not often, anyways) and how 'ideas' can make sense, solve problems and make money. If things don't make any profit, they make no sense to anyone.
I could argue that stararchitects have figured out how to 'brand' their image and have created 'value', which equals money. Ironically, that is probably the most progressive thing in architecture (business wise) in a long, long time.
It is happening, here and there, what I was rambling on about is (related to this thread) 'why can't this be encouraged and nurtured from day one, from the first day of school?'
I am sorry I had misread "the box" in your comments.
So, do you mean "out of the box" as "out of architectural category"?
But, do you really think that an architect can be an architect out of architectural category?
In 90's they insisted on being an politician and now are they insisting on a business man? Why do they always escape from architectural reality instead of directly facing on that?
And, if they have figured out their business model why they aren't even able to pay their young employee?
Does their business model include the way exploiting the young?
If so, isn't that same as the business model of the earliest capitalism in the 18C in England?
Do you really think that 18C's business model that can sustain only by exploiting others is progressive?
Come on...
No one, except some youngs in a few architecture schools, think that star architects have improved any architecture business models.
If your looking to find and solve problems like SV engineers then go into R&D at a product development firm...we are limited by the confines of building materials and our job is to make best use of this materials. Sure we can make sugguestions and have input for new technologies etc but clients don't have the time or budget for us to dream up and" potentially" develop something that makes their building better.
Sounds like some of you got sold on architecture by your profs and their limited real world experience. It's simple....provide good, quality service to your client; get paid; repeat. The exterior forces of the world will change this profession not the individual architects...look at history for examples of that.
And all this crap about making new grads eligible to run their own firms....you think fees are low now? Wait till that happens and fees bottom out by new grads charging next to nothing to do work. We would become the next web design industry...technical field done by non technical people.
"...the true realm of architectural intervention is not in high brand-width, high profile, singular ‘one-off’ projects that exist upon, and in juxtaposition to, innocuous surfaces. Rather those banal, ubiquitous surfaces, such as green grass, white gypsum, gray concrete, and black asphalt are the true field of operations for architectural intervention." no shit sherlock.
I think that stararchitect's have managed to capitalize on their fame and names. They've created value in their 'brand'. Value equals dollars in everyone's pockets.
So yes, I do think they've added something to the architecture business model that wasn't there before. They are making money, a lot of money, designing what they want (or they did, anyway, before the crash).
The internal payment structure is another matter entirely (and a different discussion somewhere else on Archinect).
But sorry people have such little faith in entrepreneurship and ambitious kids. Things will be shaped, from the outside in, continue to get squeezed more and more, fees going down, etc., etc., unless there is some real innovation (and that certainly isn't coming from the top now, consolidation, mergers and reducing redundancy seems to be the answer of the day, which, just continues to squeeze and marginalize the individual).
I guess I should be thankful that I am on the outside, then.
vado,
I do think that these things should be self-evident. And so I agree with your 'no shit, sherlock' statement. Yet notwithstanding H&dM in Miami, or F+P in Bath, when was the last time you saw a world renowned firm take on a hospital or a parking garage?
DS,
The average [AVERAGE] time in New York state from graduation to licensure is 11 years. This is the state that has 30,000 firms in New York City alone. The system is ridiculously over-designed, bloated, and based on out-dated methods of architectural production. In reality, when was the last time anyone in the field ever calculated a moment connection? Or when was the last time anyone drawed a site drainage detail? Architecture, like the rest of the world has gotten more specialized. Personally, I welcome the addition of structural engineers and landscape architects. When I said 'Architects should take back the center.' I meant architects should become more of what they are: generalists operating in a field of specialization. Rather than trying to do everything [and do everything poorly.]. 'Jack of all trades' is a negative connotation here.
trace,
What would it take for the AIA, NCARB to allow architects to practice from 'day one' upon graduation from an accredited program?
More or less nothing. The only real issue I see prohibiting it, in regards to the "professional organizations" is the use of the word "architect". By litigating those that "misuse" it, they are essentially stifling any entrepreneurs and the young (ok DS, I am ready for ya! ;-) )
The second issue, and the important one (as the one above is really silly, imho), is education. There are little avenues to learn about business, about how to run a design firm, let alone find venture capital and build a successful business model.
This, however, is far more broad reaching than just architecture. That's a real problem with academia, in general. I see no reason why, given the costs and competitiveness, that someone can't be 2 years out of high school and start a professional business (not some landscaping job, something 'real'). Really, it will come down to this, for survival, sooner or later (mark my words!).
This will take some real restructuring of how things are taught, why, when, etc. It is also, partially, why the 'rich' keep getting richer - they learn about money and business so early. I didn't learn a thing until I was 20 (I blame education)!
Architecture schools can offer some more rounded education and professional organizations can focus on promoting new ideas and new business solutions rather than "forcing" an ancient model on the world.
My solution would be: let the market decide. Obviously, everyone doing anything needs to adhere to zoning, codes, etc., etc. But no reason that can't be done on a consultation basis, or expert partner, etc., etc. Many ways to skin the cat, as they say.
Again, I do think that, overall, the market will decide who/what survive. Right now, it is the super large firms and the small and nimble firms. I think we'll continue to see this trend and we'll see these smaller firms create solutions to problems that a large firm can't do.
It'll happen, whether someone is calling themselves an "Architect" or "Designer of Architecture" or "Architecture by Designer" or whatever.
Or they could just let you take the exams the minute you graduate. That would at least change somethings and allow those that want to go out on their own right away that freedom.
Such BS it's incredible.
Maybe the problem lies well beyond architecture. Lets forget about the problems we all agree exist, even if we don't agree exactly what they are, and look at the big picture. I see several things coming together with potentially disasterous results.
We have an unhealthy concentration of wealth in the US that is getting worse. We are becoming a nation of haves and have nots. A smaller middle class = less disposable income = less work for some, no work for others, and a windfall for a tiny few.
Technology is always improving allowing the same work to be done faster. This means less labor is needed. These outside pressures, and others, don't seem to get discussed in the threads. It may be possible for an individual to find a solution that puts them in a good position. It is also possible that this profession as well as others are in a downward cycle with no internal solution.
That's true. The wealth distribution is pretty horrible and getting worse.
Pretty scary, particularly with the dollar's decline.
I agree with your conclusions jbk, overall. My suggestions were along the lines of "free everyone from the current constraints and educate the young on business solutions".
I'll be interesting to watch (from the outside). The part that scares me immediately is the swallowing up of the medium sized firms. I can't imagine that will be good attracting new architects and new innovation/ideas.
jbk and trace:
while i whole heartedly agree with your position[s], i think it's a bit of a tangental exercise, no? i mean no one singular person in the 'democratic' US has the power to fix all of those things, not even the president. and that's the whole point of democracy, isnt it? a balance of power? im more interested in what we can effect, with our limited knowledge and power. it's our 'vote' after all, right? 'God is in the details'? whether a building succeeds or fails really comes down to the detailing, right? so if we can 'fix' architecture, then perhaps it can be used as a model for 'fixing' other professions and perhaps the nation/world/universe/multiverse writ large.
though, i do agree that the root of the problem does indeed lie beyond architecture. and far beyond western notions of 'business' or 'politics' even. if you take every thread back far enough it leads to a question of ethics and where morality originally springs from. but that is metaphysical and even potentially religious, not architectural.
'sectional' and 'real ra':
those are naked assertions, not arguments. would you like to expand upon why you think what i wrote is 'out of touch' or even 'such BS'? if you don't have anything significant to either contribute or detract, then why even waste the 10 seconds of your life responding? you know you can never ever reclaim those 10 seconds, right?
cc14:
actually, we arent limited by the confines of building materials or even to the laws of physics. we also operate in the virtual. we drive fee structures [virtual], personal and business relationships [semi-virtual], procurement schedules and quantity surveys [virtual and virtual], sexy images [super virtual, yet they actually can drive all of the above].
i dont think architecture is merely about supplying a 'good quality service.' that's a specialist's job. architecture is about asking questions and provding answers. and even providing answers to questions no one has yet thought to ask. its about challenging what the client thinks they want and proposing a better alternative. do you honestly think that the best architects such as Peter Zumthor or Herzog and DeMueron or David Chipperfield really just provide a 'good quality service and repeat'? that's a built space production line, but it isnt architecture.
new grads are and should be completely capable of running there own thing. if they can provide a service or have brilliant ideas, then who, in a capitalist economy, is to say they shouldnt? i don't think fresh ideas and new content are in any way a financial threat to the old established dogs. i highly doubt Situ Studio is stealing clients from Gensler. rather new, innovative firms are actually creating not only their own content, but their own demand as well.
would there be anything else, or are you done?
Well, personally, I think the loooong road to licensure is a very, very prohibitive factor (but that's me). Also, there aren't any examples of real 'success', so people kinda fall inline with the standard career path. [by 'real' success I mean monetarily, fame, etc. - things that motivate and attract talent]
If we assume that the overall education factors are beyond the scope of this discussion, I do still feel that architecture school could do much more to promote new thought (and not just formal architectural games, which, I do love). I had one useless "professional practice" class, nothing more required (thankfully I sought out my business classes elsewhere).
I think there can be many solutions if there is a little less rigor with the professional career path.
(I really must be watching too much CNBC! This is sounding like an 'anti regulation to promote entrepreneurship' stance...lotsa truth to it, though)
i haven't read all your looong posts, but it seems to me that the main problem is that there's no overarching body that could administer a consistent set of requirements either for the education of architects or for licensure. the federal government in this country will never have the reach over the individual states that european governments have.
i wonder if a state could set standards for arch schools WITHIN that state, and then give a license automatically (for that state only) to graduates. example: pratt curriculum has to meet NYS reqs, and each pratt student graduates with a NYS license. then ncarb could handle interstate reciprocity only.
that seems like it might work, if americans weren't so down on hiring govt/state employees to make it happen...
of course, that would make reciprocity a real bitch...
...and i really don't get the title of this thread..........
elinor, you have the same name as my ex gf, and so i cannot respond because im dumbfounded...
come now, the over-arching body is NCARB! or at least the ARE. and those are both bloated and outdated and ineffiecient and undynamic, and ,ultimately, inconsequential, governing bodies.
don't worry, elinor is just my nom-de-archinect. i can change it at any time if it really gives you the willies :)
the overarching body is absolutely NOT ncarb. they have absolutely no jurisdiction over educational programs. if those programs could somehow be standardized, the ARE would have no reason to exist...
ncarb has no jurisdiction over anyone (except interns...haha) they offer a service and it's up to the states to buy in.
(well greg says the states don't actually pay ncarb, but you know what i mean)
i do agree w/all your assessments of ncarb and the are though.
typical as to my former gf, you both completely agree and completely disagree with me...
i make no sense of your post whatsoever, sorry elinor [pretty name btw]
as stated above, there is not really an overarching body that sets standards.
ncarb sets standards for licensure, but then has no real authority; licensing authority is reserved to the individual states.
and ncarb (despite some apparent confusion above) has no say in educational standards - that's naab.
ncarb's scope of interest really is only (despite their efforts to expand it) health, safety, welfare. (why is pre-design even part of the ARE?)
naab has a much larger scope of interest - taking in the whole of architectural curriculum. despite our constant griping about what is taught in school, what naab attempts to standardize is a body of knowledge and activity upon which the discipline at large (professional and academic) has agreed is important! the curricula will only change as the majority withing the discipline - or at least the majority of those who care enough to take a position - pushes it to change.
i think architects navel gaze and moan too much. there's lip service to a need to 'take back the center' above (original post) which i presume to mean that we need to return to our role as generalists at the center of the design of the built environment. well, i'm not in academia and i'm not a celebrated name in architecture, but i feel fully in that central role every day - with discretion over a whole host of design considerations. i may not be the landscape designer or the acoustical engineer, or the selector of interior finishes or the one determining the scope of allowances for rock removal, but i'm watching over and coordinating all of those roles and - in some cases - leading the various players to different answers than they would come to if left in the safety zone of their expertise.
we just do these things. we use BIM or we don't, we certainly don't shirk responsibility/liability, and we listen to and honor our clients as partners in the process of building. what, then, is this conversation even about?
I think the convo turned to how do we promote something more entrepreneurial, a way that things could be done without the current constraints (or maybe I just took it that way).
For me, like almost all of the creative world, what interests me the most is how things are changing in the digital age. I also am quite fascinated by the business growth that is promoted to the young, while in school, in other professions.
I don't see any of that in architecture. I see the complete opposite, really. I think we were just going on about why that is, what is stifling this creative thinking (not formal stuff, or some 'cool' innovation that costs a billion bucks) while in school, while still young and idealistic.
steven--i don't think he's saying architects should take back the center...i'm sure he knows a lot of us are already there. i think he's saying 'academics' should take back the center....watch out...haha.
steven, If you truly accept liability and responsibility [and hence higher fees and freedoms] to the extent of Tishman or McCarthey or Turner then truly you are the entire goal and point of this post, personified. but you represent the exception, not the rule, even among practicing middle of the road architects [academia and big names notwithstanding].
when i say 'take back the center' there are obvious connections to the GC - architect - owner relationship structure. everyone knows about this, and i dont think i need to beat a dead horse.
however, in the later half of the past century roles have popped up that are called 'Building Modeler' 'Project Manager' 'Construction Manager' 'Facilities Manager' etc etc. these roles are actually in the center, in that they are the nexus of communication between the GC - architect - owner. sometimes even to the extent of filtering information. IE the architect never gets cost analyses directly from the GC or quantity surveyor, but always via the PM.
however, the PM's agenda is different than the architect's, his role is to make everything as easy as possible, not produce a fantastic building. therefore, he makes concessions to the GC and owner behind the architect's back in order to 'facilitate' so he can move on to the next project easily.
theoretically, the architect should be the center of communication, not only because she is driving the design, but also because typically she is the only party who truly cares about the building and the constituency. so much so that she often nearly ends up doing everyone else's jobs for them.
i believe PM CM CA BM FM should all be collasped back into 'Architect'. this is why I am so enamored with what SHoP is doing with SHoP Construction. http://www.shop-construction.com/
now do you get the point?
yeah, and i wish it would rain lemon gum drops, but it's not happening. there is a reason why those specialties evolved - they provide a service that requires knowledge and expertise well beyond what is offered in a "generalist" architecture office.
yes, i like shop too, but let's face it, these guys are rank amateurs compared to offices that really specialize in the alphabet soup you describe above. what they do have going for them and what architects like about them is that design is fundemental to all of their other services. problem is that design is not fundemental to the demands of the vast majority of clients. shop's definitely carved a niche, but i don't think they represent the solution to the larger problems facing the profession.
I agree with "won".
I have enjoyed looking at Shop's works and Shop definitely found a niche.
But, I don't think they see a big picture.
I think there's a larger macro issue here.
The first part of the issue is that architecture is not a fast-paced, high-performance industry. The second part, due to the slowness factor, there's less opportunities to test new business structures.
If you have a yearly or even semi-annual production cycle, cause and effect are seen quite rapidly-- a single action's consequences can be seen two or three months in the future.
Architecture, on the other end, has production cycles that last years if not up to a decade or more. Changing office dynamic or office processes will take to the end of the project to judge their efficacy and their return.
It's one thing to talk about business restructuring when all your business does is make and wholesale 10,000 identical toasters. But, again, architecture doesn't make things and there's certainly not 10,000 identical buildings.
So, there's already confounding factors involved here-- if no two projects are even similar, using similar strategies are more than likely to under perform. Perhaps, in some project instances, 'taking back the center' would more than likely be beneficial. However, it other instances... it might be business as usual.
Office structure and strategy should really be customized for each individual project.
At this point, there's nothing really wrong with how architectural firms are run and there's nothing really right.
I'm sure you aware that there's plenty of well-run firms who are feeling a pinch for reasons outside of staff-- from lawsuits to debt service. Kind of hard trying to build a successful business when you have to payout a few hundred thousand dollars a month in past due bills.
I am on board with Trace all the way.
And to the person who thinks if those out of school will bottom out the fee even more, this is completely untrue, this is the beauty of capatilism, if you don't stay on top of your game there won't be a game.
the smart kids will charge less in fees and make more an hour. What happens though is the fellow class mate who isn't on their own charging less and making more an hour is working for a firm ran by older people who don't know how to adapt anymore to the rapid changing business model and hence just can't pay this person a lot for essentially the same skills and knowledge as the other guy.
In short - consult and free lance as soon as you can, and if you can't legally call yourself an architect, offer pre-construction services (hahaha, damn smart CM's)
@OP, i'll focus on your third point "the architecture profession":
"the contemporary architectural business model is completely insolvent without copious and plentiful free labor."
you assume that a handful of unpaid starchitecture internships are representative of an entire profession. in reality, most firms pay their employees. the bigger issue is that the construction industry is viciously cyclical, while the education industry continually grows, so there are more architects (and aspiring architects) than paid work.
"Furthermore, the profession must accept a larger range of projects as ‘architecturally’ and economically viable.... To that end, why not actually propose projects in a proactive manner rather than merely waiting for projects to drop on one’s lap? Why not research to foresee a need and in doing so propose a project to a client?"
which architecture firms are turning down high-paying but "banal" projects?
this point is a contradiction of the previous one - if your time and services are valuable, then you should be able to find clients to pay for it. running around doing unpaid work is the fastest way to go out of business, especially when you are employing other architects/interns. also, if the project isn't economically viable, why would an architect take it?
"the profession should develope BIM to such a level to be able to communicate with General Contractors without fear of liability issues. All consultants should be working on the same exact model."
To be honest, most general contractors don't give a shit about your BIM model. As an architect, you gotta work alongside clients and contractors with varying skillsets, needs and expectations. Preaching to consultants about BIM isn't going to save the world, sorry.
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.