Ofcourse, we can all voice our opinions but some of the rumour mongering is starting to sound like a presidential election. We'll be hearing about each candidate's affairs before you know it

ummm, "hello", I could be wrong but in reviewing the above posts I think Doberman is the only DRL person in the thread and I don't think he is "driving" the discussion any more that you are.

And yes, only current AA students, staff, and faculty are considered members of the community and only community members get a vote. So, despite graduating in July, since my program ended in October, I do not get to vote.

I wouldn't worry too much about the "transparency" issue. I mean, what other school even has a democratic structure to begin with? Adding structure doesn't mean the school will become a dictatorship, like most schools, it will probably just mean it will run better.

One more thing, people with anonymous names shouldn't complain about "closed doors" and "rumour mongering".

andrew, i did apply for emtech fall 05 and had some past involvement with aa in early 90s although not as a student. so i have a very strong interest in where its going and choice of chair. if farshid gets selected and immediately wants to merge the programs for this fall, i will re-evaluate if i go. all the other uk schools mix the dips/march and having a professional degree i seek to do a higher level of research and not to work to the regulatory agencies such as ARB Part II criteria. the NAAB criteria is even more constrictive / prescibtive and would be the death of the AA. it is not a good thing. NAAB programs are 2-3.5 year programs and they are not about to change those requirements for the AA.

i wonder if she would see it benificial to merge an undergrad GSD program [if they had one] with grads. different pedegogy intentions. she doesnt understand it or get it.

she is only thinking the $$$ so it would be attracting the US first professional degree folks.

i do agree with your read on brett; after meeting with him i did see the media focus in the work. thats why i choose the emtech program. but the program is never the less exceptionally strong, works torwards a clear agenda -it wasnt what i want. i agree strongley with the collaborative nature of the chair/director role.

I've left the school long ago so maybe i shouldn't take part in this discussion but somehow i still feel a bit concerned about what happens there. Let's say i try to keep an eye on it once in a while. Andrew Kudless made a very valid point in saying that it would be interesting to see what current AA students - both undergard and grad - have to say about the shortlist. In terms of Farshid's application i guess very few of the current students were at the AA when she was teaching there, so i guess oldies like me can still contribute with what they remember of this period...

I think I got carried away – sorry about that. Im just sweating over what to do with the application next year. – perhaps I should wait it out and keep working till there is one year of the new chairman. My name’s Caillum Howard by the way. Sorry about the anonymity issue. Sorry if I offended anyone with my (lack of) knowledge and lack of manners

Although I would prefer it if you call me hello. Caillum may blow my cover.

Andrew, perhaps you could fill me in on the grad school at the AA and London in general. How's it like there? Is it an intensive work schedule? I've heard that you have pretty good studio space as well but you spend most of your time in the studios.

You don't necessarilly need to defer your application, despite all the uncertainties these are very interesting times for the AA. Also it might take more than a year for the school to 'stabilize' and be steered in the new direction the new chair(wo)man has chosen for it. Deciding on which grad school to go to is a very difficult decision and i understand that the apparent lack of serenity at the AA right now might deter some people from going there. But no matter what the outcome i am somewhat confident that the AA will remain an institution at the forefront of the architectural education world and a unique experience for those who decide to attend its various programs.

hi everybody,

Let me say that I am a spanish ex-student from Farshid Moussavi. I cannot vote as I am not member from AA anymore, but I would like to share some thoughts on the statements and candidates. I have been reading the orange book. I think that both candidatures Farshid+kari and Brett are extreamly interesting for the AA. By following their academic and professional works I can say that both teams will be great for the school. I am not so conviced about Jeremy, but to fair on him, I do not know his work that well.
As I said, both teams are granting a great future to the school, but I would like to point out some differences in their statements and visions for the school that are relevant to me with hope it contributes to the debate.
Concerning the figure of the the director or the chairwoman and some comments I read above: The fact that Farshid goes with Karmi garantees that instead of having a 100% devotion to the school, you will have a 180 or 190% investement of talents there. It seems they will share compromise what does mean that they will invest their best in a complementary way. According to what I read it seams that Farshid will promote more the policital and general vision profile, and Kari more the administrative and internal work. Both will build the common agenda for the AA.
Brett, instead, promotes a unique figure plus non defined people that will do the internal work. At the end,both are similar heading structures but in Brett's case the proposal is more vague. We do not know who will be helping him. I personally appreciate the transparency of Farshid and Kari for clarifying their team. In Brett's case I trust his nice personality to find a great parnter, but I would prefer to know his/her name.
A second issue is the unit structure proposal: the agenda of farshid and Kari seems to me to be very challenging (and why not to say it, very difficult). The kind of change they are promoting is a brave decission to be made and I assume they will have problems with the more static and conservative areas of the school. By merging in a vertical structure they are proposing a more integrated system with crossing levels of experience that sounds like a strong structure to face future challenges. Brett is more extending his personal experience in DRL to the rest of the school. DRL has been, and still is a great program, but I would be very aware about the convinience of transfering it too literally to the rest of the school.
Concerning the general profile of the school: I think, Farshid and kari are promoting a converging scheme between professional research and academy that sounds interesting, but I would be aware not to transform the whole school into an office. I think that is vital to any academical structure to open itself to outside imput and to bring outside constraints and agents into discussion. The importance of the role of architects is in danger if we do not update academies. In this point Farshid and Kari are extreamly clear and brave. Brett has a more traditional isolated academical approach. His team, as he proposes it, will be based in complete internal academic staff. Farshid practitioner profile will 'contaminate' in a positive way the school.

In any case, whatever you decide, I wish the best luck to the AA!

Actually Farshid Moussavi is the best looking candidate. Sorry but Jeremy Till loses out on that one, altjhough I cant really see what Brett Steele looks like in that photograph. Its too far away.

The shortlisted three/four gave their presentations today to a packed hall. On the whole, I found it rather disappointing. None of them really opened up – in fact future plans were pretty thin on the ground all round.

Of all the candidates, Brett knows the AA best and should have been full of ideas but as it was he was his usual charming self, pleasant, articulate but really not giving any real info. Jeremy Till was probably most nervous and refused point blank to say what he would do. A couple of Brett supporters gave him a bit of a hard time in the questions but he also gained some supportive words from students. Farshid completely shot herself in the foot by showing a 35 minute lecture of the work of FOA – more or less the same lecture she’d given at the AA in October. Nobody could see how this explained what she would do as Chair of the AA - most people found this unhelpful and some were rather insulted by it. Keri seemed a nice guy but very much the deputy. (but Farshid did wear a great Miyaki coat)

What I had hoped would be a helpful event has left me more or less as I was before.

Was it a bit like the recent UK elections? 3 parties but no matter who you vote for, you can't help but feel you're being shortchanged... Anyways, do you know when they'll announce the results? Who do you predict is most likely to be chair next year?

Doberman - funny you should say that but I'm now trying to work out which is which - Farshid definitely has something of the night about her but is Brett really Tony Blair and Jeremy Till really Champagne Charlie? Well I voted Lib Dem which didn't get me anywhere last week. I suspect it'll be Brett but based on these presentations, I'd prefer a whole new list.

has anyone listened to the interviews posted at AA Radio Bonfi? They interview all of the candidates . . . five questions, and songs to have on a deserted island. I have not been able to attend the actualy sessions at the AA, but by listening you definately get a feel for the candidates. Plus, it is pretty interesting to hear the music they choose, and why they chose it.

did listen. its a bit too bad kari wasnt a candidate on his own. FM brings that team down.

bretts comments appeared to be his true attitudes. farshid felt every answer was an interview and went on and on. her ode to rem went on way too long. i just got the sense she was so busy she was able to book a few minutes to prepare. the song selections came from kari not her. even karis antidote about farshid ringing him from some airport about going for the chair just reinforced the question -- why should the AA deal with a part time chair. it deserves a committed individual[s] as full time chairs. its shouldnt be something you can just schedule in your blackberry.

voyuer noted above that brett would have a non-defined team with the directorship. i think if you look at the orange paper makes it clear that he would have an 3 year academic head and remainder of team from the AA faculty.

my vote would be a Kari/brett team. kari's scholarship is outstanding along with a broader international perspective that i think bretts background from idaho to aa via NY and other places in between, lacks.

about the candidates...It is so disappointing I have to say, the outcome of yesterday's presentations. It is true that Brett's allies planted around the audience didnt help the development, and Farshids 30 minute FOA intervention made things a bit more foggy. However I still don't buy Brett's american charm. All of a sudden he is all there, smiles and understanding. Do we really want such a lukewarm approach? Are we so scared about change or the unknown, that Bretts familiarity ends up being the most positive approach. I am hoping Friday's visit by Farshid and Kari will give us more insight to what they have to say. Rumors are starting to circulate about the academic head (Brett) already?
The interviews on the radio give a lot of insight about how they really are. Although too prepared by Brett don't you think?
Jeremy actually sounded great, in his post-war interview.
I would give Farshid a second chance, I think she is an amazingly talented individual, and as is obvious, as ambitious and committed as it can really get. Don't we want that? Don't we want change? Well directed change?
Brett just sounds like another mohsen, too political!

mmm - did you go to the student meeting today?

no, i didn't, how was it?

me neither

Next year I will start the diploma school, but i hope the new dean became Farshid. I like Breet and i met him, but i am scared that the AA became a software house. The microsoft of architecture.

Now i am working with an ex tutor master of AA but he told that a lot of AA old friend don't like the short list.

Anyway, I hope the best for the AA.

The microsoft of architecture? I doubt if farshid will make pencils, ink pens and T squares the new agenda of the AA...

I just came back from the student meeting with Farshid and Kari. I have to say I was completely inspired. It is definetely a strong team, with a clear vision and a lot of drive to what we can achieve as a school. They presented a much more refreshing approach to what they wish to do, and opened a quite productive discussion. Showing ability to listen, but as well, to provide answers, to provide a clear leadership with an open mind towards what the future may hold for the school. Regardless of microsoft or whatever misconceptions, I really think Farshid and Kari are showing a different direction to bring the school to its former glory. We need to reposition the school, it is gradually falling behind, and they seem to be the appropriate ones to push it forward

mmm --

who was leading the team in the discussions -- kari or farshid?

i think their international perspective would be great for the school v. brett but from their orange paper, its not a new vision -- only different for the aa and appears to want to make it more in line with other so called great institutions [american]which doesnt say its good or bad. i was very impressed with kari on the bondi.

my biggest concern is that the merge of dip/march does nothing for the march program. the aa presently recognizes the distinct difference in research in those seperate but parrelle units and the dip program is heavily influenced by arb part II requirements of basic education that is not a post professional course of study intent. where it would help the dips, it would hurt the marchs. why would any student from the uk who has part II qualification want to do a post professional degree which is merged with the undergrad. could you talk in more specifics on what that new vision was?

and if it is farshid, there has to be a minimum time committement on her part, be it 50% or 70% or more . that part time consideration is a big deal and weighs against the team even if kari is full time. if she's the chief, she has to committe the time! you cant just do the aa in between flights around the world.

well mmm,

about the misconceptions of the microsoft of architecture was only a reference to Corporate Fields that resembles a typical software manual and the design agenda of the DRL.
Just only a reference at the type of approach to do and think the architecture.

Farshid dean AA
Zaera dean Berlage

FOA big deal

and Brett?

Brett stays on at the DRL . . . PLEASE!!!

Regarding your questions TED. Yes Farshid led the discussion, however Kari made quite poignant interventions. They were clear about their roles and in that case Farshid taking the strategic part of the decisions (tutors, units, publications, promotion), while Kari having day to day involvement. In terms of commitment, as I said, I wouldn't doubt on her for it. As she is criticised for her overbearing personality, I think that goes in with the commitment part. The merger. It is to happen as individual projects proposed by unit masters, not as a merger of the whole school, demanding different submissions, and different complementary courses, etc. The individuality of postgraduate degrees would be kept intact if the courses appear to benefit from it, and open up as possibilities or projects arise. It is a way to predict an evolution in the school and enhance it. Programs like DRL are growing to be almost the same size as diploma or intermediate so they will become more complex and diversify from within, as different tutors get incorporated, so it is a way to encourage this diversity and let it evolve as it is demanded. Why would someone want to? Because they are interested in specific projects being led by people who you want to work with. Just like it now happens with Phd students and diploma and March tutors. It is a thematic, or knowledge grouping, with informal inherent stratification
Like I said, there are some weak points, but it is bold statement, with solid ground to work with, and I beleive that is needed, in a way.
Brett, just doesn't cut it! However there are some strong political structures from within working for him, so we'll see.

...Zaera is quitting the Berlage this coming year...

thanks mmm !!!

I think Farshid has made the wrong choice to go in with Jari. Have you heard that guy speak on the presentation and on the radio? my god, lets throw in as many theorists names as possible to make himself sounds intelligent...nothing he said made sense, had no clue what he was on about. Breet, umm...don't buy his amerian charm. I have never seen him in 36 bedford sq before, he was alway hiding at the DRL studio. But lately, he is alway around, smiling at everyone who walks pass him, making little chat to everyone. A bit of a snake if you ask me, got to check if you still has all the fingers if you shake his hand. Jeremy has got no chance, what the hell was the searh commitee thinking when they chose him. I imagine him to be like Alan Balfour, the chairman who got chucked out before Mohsen. no chance, still in Sheffield and stay in the loft of that awful house he designed with Wigglesworth.

I think I am voting for farshid.

who do you think would make a good chairman? lets make our own short list.

George W Bush? Kidding, for me Frank Sinatra will always be the only chairman of the board

Till was head of school here at Sheffield (hes now director or something as he's on sabatical and has handed the job of head to someone else) and Im sure everyone here would be sad to see him go, he has been fairly instumental in making it (one of) the top university outside London for architecture. Check out link for more info . . .

It is difficult to know who should be, but easy to know who should not. It is very simple: the AA Chair is not a part-time job and Farshid is not even willing to devote 50% of her time. The school needs a chairman who is around... She mentioned that she would relegate Kari to an administrative role; if so, why not chose a partner with recognized managerial skills rather than someone with an intellectual profile? Would someone willing to enthusiastically engage in the running of a school like the AA, with a vision for an academic project, only spend a few hours a week in it? No dedication, no commitment… Is this not the approach of someone who is interested only on the title, the salary, the recognition and the power associated to that position? Make no mistake; this is not about voting for a team, this election is to elect a chairman, a chairman is one person. One who is passionately devoted to the school.

Brett, is that you? Don't try to trick us with username2005, we know its you! Is it true Mark Cousins will be your academic head? He is no manager is he?

atowle, no offence but AA ain't like other schools. So please, keep Jazza and don't let him out to embarass himself like that again. Like i said, lock him in the attic of that awful house he designed for himself.

Brett has got an army of DRL to back him up (and his wife is teaching at intermediate), and I am afraid to say he is a pretty safe choice for the tutors as he won't do much to change the structure of the school. But we want precisely the opposite, we need someone to bring the school to a new level, otherwise we might as well not vote out mohsen in the first place. I actually liked mohsen, but he has been here for too long...Farshid is tough as a nail and has a very challenging agenda, 50% of her time probably is more effective than 200% of brett. I am not worried about her devotion.

i think farshid should have gone in with Ciro Najle. well, that was the rumour before the shortlist came out....

Not a Brett supporter, just pointing out that the AA Chair is not about a spiritual leader. It is a hands-on demanding position, a full time job.

You need more than 3 days per week to operate as the School's political representative, forging worthwhile relationships with corporate and government supporters, step change the public identity of the AA through global touring exhibitions etc; oversee a gradual but radical transformation in the structure and academic content that the AA offers - by taking the existing structure and making it more organically operational, more allied to real world architectural challenges, engaging the world's best as visiting critics/workshop leaders/mentors (yes - build the AA's mentoring role for greater political awareness, Brett. Of course he isn't gonna make the whole AA into a software school. He favours coexistence of methodologies, that's clear, if you listen to him, but he better take time to cherry pick the leaders of the new platform)..devise a coherent, dynamic events programme every year, liaise productively with the intersecting clusters of teaching staff on new curricular challenges (confront the political complexity of architecture earlier, for a start, talking from experience, Brett already revealed in his Orange book statement that he reads the zeitgeist very critically, more than the other two, so he should be asked to act on that in polemical teaching; teach regularly in his/her own chosen subjects areas; intervene in the new organic architecture of AA students' educational programme...How many people in the entire School Community, how many people would like to check in with you - if only for ten minutes - every week. Even if someone full-time is not your renaissance man, at least he's there, and seems open to the idea of being empowered by sheer force of your personalities (SC's - after one year of self-organisation, this seems only natural) to act on your behalf. The real power of the Chair (your agent) is through the swarm of the SC. Ask your agent, and probably rather more so than Blair, he will comply. I studied at the AA ten years ago, watched its moves since then and now I run a global practice

I am a bit puzzle about the whole conversation about the chairmanship is a demanding job ever since the start of the search for a new chairman. Why do you think we are surviving pretty well here without a chairman this year? Because things and decisions were made by us, the students, so i think we should do ourselves a favour, put more values on how we make the school with the help of the chairman, academic staff and admin staff, to further our own visions, and not the other way round.

wozoco: "we are surviving pretty well here without a chairman" ...you dont know what you are talking about! This situation is unsutainable. The school needs a devoted chairman urgently, just read above and see how many potential students are running away from the school.

username 2005, don't get me wrong, I am looking forward to a new chairman, but what i was trying to say is that after a year without one, i now strongly believe and understand the power of the students+staff is the instrument that make this place hapening. In fact, I don't see anything that is not working out at the moment, if not this is even BETTER than when mohsen was here. you must have seen the bar this year, what a happening place! people having dicussions, tutorials, leaning to music, fully engaging with the exhibitions. I am hoping with the help of the new chairman, things can even be better. AA is not about the chairman, it is about the students. I think chairman or no chairman is not an excuse to not come to this school, and i don't think the potential students are running away from the school BECAUSE of the chairman matter. you are forgetting there are also lots of potential students who have decided to come because this school can really further one's own interest in architecture.

As one of the potential students, its not my doubts about having no chairman. Its about which chairman. Ive studied in a normal school where most professors are very political and fighting for their positions. I certainly dont want to go to another school like that, I want to go to the aa because its progressive.

farshid has the international and national profile to exert the kind of influence that can allow the AA to operate at a very different level than it ever has in the past. the last 3 chairs at the AA: boyarsky, balfour and mostafavi - none of these were architects in a significant manner. they did not operate as architects, but as administrators, academics, impressarios, managers. brett is along these same lines. perhaps more critically aware and potent, but he is not an architect who is also developing a position through built works. jeremy till is less a theory-based academic, and does operate as a building architect, but it is doubtful that his architectural portfolio will alter architectural culture.

farshid is different to all this and that is the point. if the AA wants a different direction, it needs to make a difficult choice - not repeat versions of the pre-existing condition.

bernard tschumi is the more relevant example and his impact at columbia. it is not a logical conclusion that the students and staff at the AA need someone around more than 3 days a week. the question is one of results. look at farshid's professional trajectory - coming out of rem's office 15 years ago and teaching intermediate and then diploma at the AA, she and alejandro now have a reputation and body of work (built, written and exhibited) that is impressive and influential. no one is asking that the school become a version of FOA - no more than bernard asked that colubmia become a version of his office. diversity and plurality can and should exist, as she has the contacts and knowledge of architects and architectural directions from around the world - not just references back to harvard.

as for brett, one has to wonder about a campaign that follows a script of trying so hard to denigrate the opposition instead of substantiating his own positive attributes. his influences run deep within the staff of the AA (as a mohsen appointee), as witnessed by the display last wednesday. having your wife acting as karl rove, orchestrating an array of planted questions from the audience to give a hard time to jeremy and farshid. and as for george liaropoulos-legendre - his spiteful remarks towards jeremy give some indication that he must be worried that anyone except brett might not look so generously on harvard GSD graduates.

at the end it is always a risk: farshid remains too caught up in her own practice to give enough time; brett is too localised and can't make the connections - political, professional and cultural, to impact in a profound way on the AA; and jeremy - too british and too much of an administrator to give a sustaining vision.

the students (and staff) owe it to themselves on monday, to ask the same tough questions to brett that his compatriots have asked to the other two candidates last week.

I couldnt agree more with dlb, The political intricacy of the whole matter is getting unbearable. Brett seems to be luring the staff, I don't know if by the means of safety regarding their jobs or just charming assurance. All the talk about education and development is forgotten once they have to vote in order to keep their own jobs. It is up to us students, given the staff is mostly bias, to ask profound relevant questions to brett. Farshid stood up to every question, in her bickering way, yet quite compellingly, lets see how he does it now. Although it is more difficult to find discussion, given his discourse is lukewarm and safe from start to finish. There are no real proposals nor directions that can be put into question. We'll see tomorrow, however I really hope the student body critically addresses the issue and moves to vote lookiing towards the future. Good tutors are scarce now in the AA. Ex students from yesterday are now unit masters, many of them DRL promoted by Brett, and it becomes a political circle, where there is absolutely nothing compelling being brought forward. We need interesting people to come forward and I believe Farshid is the most appropriate to attract them. Micheal Hensel is rumored to leave, Ciro left last year, who are the unit masters if Brett comes? How is the school developing this way?

mmm, I dont know what the problem is with ex DRL students teaching at the school is? If there is a monopoly of ex DRL in the staff its because its a good course and Brett is good at promoting his students. After all,the undergraduate school cannot deny that graduate students come to the school with more experience and skills. Thats why we go to the graduate school. I would stop complainning about Brett's hegemony, anyway, the DRL domination of the staff is a little exagerrated dont you think?

Of course ther is no problem about ex DRL, however, it becomes a problem when all the unit masters are part of the same process, there is no critical development, regardless of exceptions. And it may sound awkard yet it is not about Bretts hegemony or DRL domination, I was talking about his support from all the staff (regardless of their background) due to the safety he suggests in terms of keeping their jobs.

aren't virtually all Zaha's 100 staff ex DRL? Looking at the office's current output of global projects, these people are hardly underqualified or undercapable of contributing to creatively compelling results...

Why should Brett want to make proposals he doesn't fulfill, or just be interested merely in trading jobs for votes? Tomorrow he is in the hot seat: what are the hottest things he needs to promise to push the school forward, and within what time frame can he commit to doing it? How many new unit staff have to be attracted?

Actually jac22, I agree with mmm and dlb. I am one of the "less skilled and experienced" undergraduate students, and it is precisely this arrogance from DRL students that we find the least constructive.
The school was founded, as you may well know, by two young architects 19 and 24years old (just look at the AA history)
http://www.aaschool.ac.uk/history.shtm

The school has always being known for its diversity and for being a radical place for experimentation in architecture. I was shocked by what dlb said regarding the link between moshen and brett, but actually, if you look at the current figures (which i have taken time to check) around 35-40% of the staff are recent DRL graduates or linked to the course. Do you think that is promoting diversity across the school ? or furthermore, isnt that setting an unfair advantage for Brett?

DLB, I disagree with a lot that you are saying. How sure are you that AA under Farshid will not be an extension of FOA? Mind you, she spent 35mins showing works of FOA. It sounds like you are over-awed by her profile of having been to OMA, Harvard etc. Altough impressive, this may or may not contribute to her effectiveness as a chair.

The success of Boyarsky [nurtured Zaha and Rem as students and then as tutors], Alan Balfour [nurtured Aleanjadro & Farshid as tutors] and Mohsen [nurtured DRL, EmTech and LU] is precisely that they are academicians. That they do not have a practice to promote and have a critical distance and an eye for nurturing the people within the school.

One important factor that is not considered so far in this discussion is which of the 3 candidates will have the generosity, patience, eye and vision to nurture the next generation. It is important to remember that Alvin was not famous when he took on the chairmanship. And he need'nt be.

DLB, also your comment about Karl Rove and George is incredibly mean-spirited. All the questions were valid.