There was recently a thread in which many of you debated the type of schooling an architect should receive. I was reading the Architect's Handbook of Professional Practice and stumbled upond the following quote from Vitruvius:
"Architecture depends on order, arrangement, eurhythmy, symmetry, propriety, and economy...economy denotes the proper managment of materials and of site, as well as thrifty balancing of cost and common sense in the construction of works."
And this was thought of how many hundreds/thousands of years ago? I mean really people- Why is this not emphasized more in school and thought of as detracting from "good" design?
Because it's difficult and time consuming. There are professionals who specialize in cost estimating and construction management... most of the big projects with cost overruns had plenty of people involved who by training and experience ought to ought to have known better.
But there are political and practical reasons to underestimate budgets and/or overspend. Only in exceptional cases is it solely due to design oversight.
Not that architects shouldn't value efficient, practicable designs. It's more of an ethic than a science though - how do you teach that?
As part of a comprehensive education that includes ecology. With a value system that rejects profit as the only motive (and measure) for everything. By replacing idiotic academics who've never built a fucking thing (those who can't do, teach) with experienced professionals.
When i was in Freshman year we had a drafting class had to draw a simple wood house 2 bedrooms and such, the only way to get an A was to account for every scrap of lumber and if your scraps (based on dimensions or each piece used) did not fit in a box the size of a refrigerator you did not get an A if your scraps fir inside a box the size of a TV then you could skip the final exam. This was the beginning of a practical education, nor naval gazing working with abstract shapes (that cam later in the year) just lines dimensions and knowledge of building materials.
It is not too difficult and time consuming it is just not thought of as scholarly or worthy of high academic discourse, this kind of assignment is looked down on as something trade schools should teach. NCARB is responsible for enabling this line of thinking by not revoking schools accreditation for not graduating competent would be architects, and now we are contemplating giving licencees out upon graduation! cutting out IDP and other practical hands on experience.
We need to get back to basics
Peter N
Dec 8, 14 9:43 am ·
·
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.
Construction Budget and Function
There was recently a thread in which many of you debated the type of schooling an architect should receive. I was reading the Architect's Handbook of Professional Practice and stumbled upond the following quote from Vitruvius:
"Architecture depends on order, arrangement, eurhythmy, symmetry, propriety, and economy...economy denotes the proper managment of materials and of site, as well as thrifty balancing of cost and common sense in the construction of works."
And this was thought of how many hundreds/thousands of years ago? I mean really people- Why is this not emphasized more in school and thought of as detracting from "good" design?
Because it's difficult and time consuming. There are professionals who specialize in cost estimating and construction management... most of the big projects with cost overruns had plenty of people involved who by training and experience ought to ought to have known better.
But there are political and practical reasons to underestimate budgets and/or overspend. Only in exceptional cases is it solely due to design oversight.
Not that architects shouldn't value efficient, practicable designs. It's more of an ethic than a science though - how do you teach that?
As part of a comprehensive education that includes ecology. With a value system that rejects profit as the only motive (and measure) for everything. By replacing idiotic academics who've never built a fucking thing (those who can't do, teach) with experienced professionals.
I could go on but I think you get the point.
Eurhythmy : good proportion or gracefulness. That alone nails quite a few modernists to the wall.
When i was in Freshman year we had a drafting class had to draw a simple wood house 2 bedrooms and such, the only way to get an A was to account for every scrap of lumber and if your scraps (based on dimensions or each piece used) did not fit in a box the size of a refrigerator you did not get an A if your scraps fir inside a box the size of a TV then you could skip the final exam. This was the beginning of a practical education, nor naval gazing working with abstract shapes (that cam later in the year) just lines dimensions and knowledge of building materials.
It is not too difficult and time consuming it is just not thought of as scholarly or worthy of high academic discourse, this kind of assignment is looked down on as something trade schools should teach. NCARB is responsible for enabling this line of thinking by not revoking schools accreditation for not graduating competent would be architects, and now we are contemplating giving licencees out upon graduation! cutting out IDP and other practical hands on experience.
We need to get back to basics
Peter N
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.