An invitation to dream up your ideal school of architecture:
What do you think would be interesting to have as part of your course programme?
How do you think the course programme should be structured (number of years/terms/work experience/units/classes/workshops)?
Who'd be your ideal teacher/tutor?
Your dream unit?
Where?
For how long?
What texts should be referenced/read (if any)? Why?
What kind of projects would you be doing?
These questions/teasers are pretty lame - I'm sure you can do better!
So many people here have had or are about to have good or bad experiences with schools - nows the time to put yourself in the shoes and mind set of a chair/dean/faculty and decide what you would like to be taught!
starchitects are great for lectures, core faculty for teaching.
when you go to arch school, look closely at the core faculty and make a decision based on that, not on the visiting starchitects with which schools attract students.
Appreciate the input (and I'd like to add that I noticed 'On Bullshit" was in stock last time I checked at the Triangle Bookshop at the AA in London).
However, when you say "look closely for the core faculty": Could you propose who would be on that core faculty? Names? Professions? Backgrounds?
Use real world examples if need be...Describe someone/a character who in your view should be on the faculty of every school?
well, they are people who mainly teach and have small practices, they do not produce monographs so it depends but most schools have them around.
I know from when I was applying to grad school that I was impressed with the fact that such starchitect would be teaching here and there but it really isn't something that you should base your decision upon.
If they are commited and involved deeper with the school that's great, but otherwise be wary of them as teachers.
I can think of at least 3 "starchitects" that were teachers early in their career (I guess long before they could be branded with the dreaded "st-").
I can't see how the fact that they are now internationally known architects would make them worse teachers today (apart from having less time to dedicate to students). I also like the work that's been published sofar by Harvard's Project On The City...
In any case, my point was to try and steer us away from the negatives of who NOT to have on your faculty and stay on a more positive thinking path. In this vein, I'd encourage people to submit desciptions of someone who was/would be a good teacher/inspiration. Real or fictional.
one thing that makes the starchitects worse teachers after a while is the fact that they become unable to listen and trust students to produce something that's truly their own because they know exactly what lies ahead of every experiment.
but, to keep things positive...
it'd be nice to have some diversity in schools like people from other fields who would be part of studios and not just brought in at reviews only to be shocked at what architecture is or is not
scientists are interesting people if you spend some time to observe them and not just hijack their tools
Traveling Studios
-at least every other studio would be held on location, whether abroad or otherwise.
Support Courses
-to be explicitly woven into the concurrent studio. This way, students apply what they are learning in Materials and Methods or Environmental Technology, but not in an un-guided / mis-guided way.
*A support instructor or GTA would exist to facilitate the cross-relationship between studio and a given support course.
rather than the 5yr BArch or the 4 + 2 MArch, the 5 + 2.
students receive a pre-professional degree, which will take 5 yrs to complete, but will include no less than the equivalent of 9 months of full time employment within the profession. This will be done to negotiate the divide between academia and the profession. Students will still be students, but their institutions will be engaged in their professional beginnings, and vice versa.
The focus of the education would be critical thinking / design / generally unbridled exploration. This co-op would exist to introduce students to the reality of the profession while they are still in an academic mind-frame.
AP nice - but asside from that it should be full time. No summer/winter breaks...but should include travel semesters - where students must produce meaningful dialogue with their place of journey. Either by sketches, productions, etc.
And the classes should be no larger than 50 per year. And perhaps changes locations on an annual basis - this year its the previous site of the Olympics (gawd knows they have the space)
AP - thats a common situation in Australia and New Zealand. I can think of a number of Universities, Uni of Melbourne, QUT, which split their 5 year b.arch into a 3 and 2 year program, with the middle year as an obligatory internship which is part of the degree.
Auckland University also has the same split, but I dont think there is an obligatory gap or work required.
ya ckl, I did. still, sounds like the Au/NZ system is a better BArch...but my statement is calling for architecture to be like other professional degrees (law, medicine) = grad school required.
only one way to become an architect.
5+2 no license exams. watch the numbers drop to where they should be levels and quality go higher. yes 7 years to become an architect. the rest can go and become stage hands and secondary people to the king/ess..;)
yes, it will be interesting to see how many of the AIA cream have a masters degree....and aren't we one of the few professionals where a masters is not really needed?
i personally have a 5 years degree. not bad for a high school dropout. it being from sci arc's early years is remedial.
i think required 7 years of schooling, which some people go through anyway, would raise the ante and put architects in the same necessity level like doctors. yes doctors of urban growth, design, housing expert and cultural asset. it would make them a little more burocratic, which in my opinion is little lacking now, thus developers are running everything. there is still respect for architects in public who still think architects are higher echalon, due to architecture being an upper class profession traditionally. i like it to change from that to architects being the people to employ and listen, when a building, planning, designing, and analysing those matters activity involved. architects shaping the built and to be built environment. more projects opening up for recent graduates. there are tons of projects designed by interior designers, contractors, developers, and plain ordinary homeowners, while people with 5-7 education doing cad drawings for stupid ass details or minimalls. waste of education and talent, never mind the individual sacrifices those people are doing. architects should suit up and walk to capitol demanding a professional wish list in large numbers soon. with architects i mean planners, urban designers, landscape architects and all related professionals who are qualified to deal with physical environment. and there should be room for exceptions too.
yeah -- and none of this crap about doing a masters straight out of undergrad school - minimum 10 year gap between the two. no one, i repeat, no one who does both straight through is getting or giving the most out of it.
free tuition [as long as we can tolerate the google ads and the odd help wanted ad that some how sneaks its way into the news -- if W can do it i guess archinect can blur the definitition of what is new and what is advertising....]
and everyone gets and A so no bitch'n to the profs [if its good enough for the GSD its got to be good enough for archinect]
and free NCARB certificates to all those passing the final exam.
Regardless of what system is put into place (more school, more exams, first born son, etc ) the public always overwhelmingly demands identifiable symbols of tradition, and it is the developer, and his vertical suppliers that recognize and perpetuate the crown molding.
The public has no idea what 'theory' is, or what conceptual ideas went into what part of what for them it's 'cool' or fashionable -- enter the socially opportunistic 'starchitect'
Architecture is 'better' ( or at least aesthetically more developed, or responsible, even) in countries where art takes a larger role in the schools leading up to college.
Architecture starts in kindergarten. It should be taught as a separate subject in conjunction with art and history and sociology and political science and biology. Architecture is under represented in the formatve years and so we have a populatin that orders up architecture the way you order up a McRib sandwich.
Start with this change, and perhaps your grandchildren will benefit.
Hmmm...As much as i appreciate seeing all the posts here, I feel that what's happening is what seems to happen with a lot of threads (lately?) on Archinect - they very quickly veer off into a debate about "what architecture is really about" (and often seemingly opposite view points expressing the, essentially, same ideas ("we don't know") with a bit of starchitect bashing thrown into the mix -which hasn't happened yet I'm happy to see).
More than anything, there's a real bitterness, for lack of a better word, it seems...?! As if architecture was once this classical ideal that has fallen short of everyone's expectations.
But that's me falling into the same trap, and I don't want to be doing that here.
I'm about to start (well, hopefully) an undergraduate degree in architecture at a fairly late stage (never too late, but then you do become more aware of entropy as you get older) in life and my intention behind starting this thread was, perhaps in vain, to grow a debate on what it should take to train an architect today - as per what your view of what an archictect is/could be.
Most architects i know (and when ARE you an architect - when you're accredited, when somebody points their magic staff at you, when you've build "something"???) seem to leave school with worn and tired expressions and little ambition other than to strike it out on their own as soon as possible - whoring it at a practice until this can happen. I'm not really sure what they have in terms of creative aspirations/purpose, but the goal itself seems to be to reach some sort of independence. Fair enough I guess.
However, with this in mind, what would be the appropiate curriculum?
More so, I was hoping to find out what classes/studios/units you found acted as eye openers and maybe from this ensemble we could distill a sort of meta or supercurriculum.
If your experience of architecture was to be summed up in one class, one studio or one trip or project, what would that be like?
What is the relevance of your education, if it's to have any meaningful contribution to your ability to be what you desire to be (hmmm...yeah, ok, or don't desire)?
These are perhaps terribly naive positions/questions....well...somebody will let me know, I'm sure.
Architectural Design I, II - (6)(6)
Visual Design I, II - (4)(4)
Architectural Technology I, II - (4)(4)
Structural Engineering I, II - (3)(3)
General Electives (3)(3)
2nd year:
Design & Technology I, II - (8)(8)
Building Technology I, II - (3)(3)
Building Systems I, II - (3)(3)
History of Art & Architecture I, II (3)(3)
General Electives (3)(3)
3rd year:
Design Electives - (8)(8)
Technology Electives - (3)(3)
Theory of Arch & Urbanism I, II - (3)(3)
General Electives - (3)(3)
4th year:
Internship
General Electives - (3)(3)
5th year:
Design Thesis I, II - (8)(8)
History/Theory Electives - (3)(3)
Project & Construction Management - (3)(3)
Building Laws & Regulations - (3)(3)
Must Reads:
Mathematics of the Ideal Villa
Architecture of the City
Vers une Architecture
Complexity & Contradiction
Learning from Las Vegas
Delirious New York
S,M,L,XL
Manhattan Transcripts
Points + Lines
Architectural Theory since 1968
Modern Architecture: A Critical History
Anti-Aesthetic
Must See:
Breathless
Two, or Three Things about HER
Contempt
Tokyo Story
My Architect
M
Hitchcock (anything)
Citizen Kane
Take Care of My Cat
Last Mansion Standing
I'm sure there are others, can't remember them though.
Ideal tutors:
Stan Allen
Laurie Hawkingson
Lebbus Woods
Reihold Martin
Michael Sorkin
others
Projects:
All types; different contexts. Incorporating technology and construction with design as early as possible. Variety of building materials. Wide range of media/visual contributions.
ok -- this'll undoubtedly be unpopular -- but do away with undergraduate architectural education and refashion it along the lines of pre-med or pre-law for the BA. Then make the MArch a 5-year degree that would include a thesis and a mandatory 3 years of internship as part of the curriculum (1 year part-time in construction, 1 year full-time in an office, 1 year part-time in an office at an advanced level).
basically take a lot of Auguste Perret's (above) curriculum and make it graduate level to be more focused and intense without gen eds and things needed as an undergrad.
1st year
Beginning Design Studios I/II
HistoryTheoryCriticism of Art+Design I/II
Concepts+Principles / Materials+Methods
Analog / Digital Representation
2nd year
Intermediate Design Studios I/II
Building Systems I/II
HistoryTheoryCriticsim of Art+Design III / HTC Elective
Site Planning / Urban Design Principles
3rd year
Advanced Design Studios I/II
Building Systems III / Building Systems Elective
Business Ethics / Management+Finance
Construction Internship (part-time)
4th year
Architectural Internship (full-time/intro)
Professional Practice Seminar I/II (evening)
5th year
Thesis
Architectural Internship (part-time/advanced)
2 electives
Graduates would automatically be eligible to take the ARE and gain licensure. This would be the ONLY path to becoming an architect. No more squabbles about the benefits of a 5, 4+2, 4+3, 2+3+2, etc. Bullshit. "Architect" means "x" and everyone should understand that and comply.
Jun 2, 06 4:54 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.
The Archinect Curriculum
An invitation to dream up your ideal school of architecture:
What do you think would be interesting to have as part of your course programme?
How do you think the course programme should be structured (number of years/terms/work experience/units/classes/workshops)?
Who'd be your ideal teacher/tutor?
Your dream unit?
Where?
For how long?
What texts should be referenced/read (if any)? Why?
What kind of projects would you be doing?
These questions/teasers are pretty lame - I'm sure you can do better!
So many people here have had or are about to have good or bad experiences with schools - nows the time to put yourself in the shoes and mind set of a chair/dean/faculty and decide what you would like to be taught!
they should give this book to everyone in architecture schools
and NO starchitects, please.
starchitects are great for lectures, core faculty for teaching.
when you go to arch school, look closely at the core faculty and make a decision based on that, not on the visiting starchitects with which schools attract students.
ckl -
Appreciate the input (and I'd like to add that I noticed 'On Bullshit" was in stock last time I checked at the Triangle Bookshop at the AA in London).
However, when you say "look closely for the core faculty": Could you propose who would be on that core faculty? Names? Professions? Backgrounds?
Use real world examples if need be...Describe someone/a character who in your view should be on the faculty of every school?
well, they are people who mainly teach and have small practices, they do not produce monographs so it depends but most schools have them around.
I know from when I was applying to grad school that I was impressed with the fact that such starchitect would be teaching here and there but it really isn't something that you should base your decision upon.
If they are commited and involved deeper with the school that's great, but otherwise be wary of them as teachers.
CKL:
True dat!
ckl -
I can think of at least 3 "starchitects" that were teachers early in their career (I guess long before they could be branded with the dreaded "st-").
I can't see how the fact that they are now internationally known architects would make them worse teachers today (apart from having less time to dedicate to students). I also like the work that's been published sofar by Harvard's Project On The City...
In any case, my point was to try and steer us away from the negatives of who NOT to have on your faculty and stay on a more positive thinking path. In this vein, I'd encourage people to submit desciptions of someone who was/would be a good teacher/inspiration. Real or fictional.
one thing that makes the starchitects worse teachers after a while is the fact that they become unable to listen and trust students to produce something that's truly their own because they know exactly what lies ahead of every experiment.
but, to keep things positive...
it'd be nice to have some diversity in schools like people from other fields who would be part of studios and not just brought in at reviews only to be shocked at what architecture is or is not
scientists are interesting people if you spend some time to observe them and not just hijack their tools
I'd like Cameron Diaz as a tutor.
Its not everytime that a top actress fantasises about an architect as her dream date.
Traveling Studios
-at least every other studio would be held on location, whether abroad or otherwise.
Support Courses
-to be explicitly woven into the concurrent studio. This way, students apply what they are learning in Materials and Methods or Environmental Technology, but not in an un-guided / mis-guided way.
*A support instructor or GTA would exist to facilitate the cross-relationship between studio and a given support course.
and, here's a tangent...the 5 + 2 program:
rather than the 5yr BArch or the 4 + 2 MArch, the 5 + 2.
students receive a pre-professional degree, which will take 5 yrs to complete, but will include no less than the equivalent of 9 months of full time employment within the profession. This will be done to negotiate the divide between academia and the profession. Students will still be students, but their institutions will be engaged in their professional beginnings, and vice versa.
The focus of the education would be critical thinking / design / generally unbridled exploration. This co-op would exist to introduce students to the reality of the profession while they are still in an academic mind-frame.
...
AP nice - but asside from that it should be full time. No summer/winter breaks...but should include travel semesters - where students must produce meaningful dialogue with their place of journey. Either by sketches, productions, etc.
And the classes should be no larger than 50 per year. And perhaps changes locations on an annual basis - this year its the previous site of the Olympics (gawd knows they have the space)
1:1 scale models. at least for details
bump
AP - thats a common situation in Australia and New Zealand. I can think of a number of Universities, Uni of Melbourne, QUT, which split their 5 year b.arch into a 3 and 2 year program, with the middle year as an obligatory internship which is part of the degree.
Auckland University also has the same split, but I dont think there is an obligatory gap or work required.
I thought AP meant a full 5 years pre-professional+2 for March not 3+2
boy, am I glad I'm done. it took me 8 years and three schools, but it's over forever
ya ckl, I did. still, sounds like the Au/NZ system is a better BArch...but my statement is calling for architecture to be like other professional degrees (law, medicine) = grad school required.
only one way to become an architect.
5+2 no license exams. watch the numbers drop to where they should be levels and quality go higher. yes 7 years to become an architect. the rest can go and become stage hands and secondary people to the king/ess..;)
yes, it will be interesting to see how many of the AIA cream have a masters degree....and aren't we one of the few professionals where a masters is not really needed?
i personally have a 5 years degree. not bad for a high school dropout. it being from sci arc's early years is remedial.
i think required 7 years of schooling, which some people go through anyway, would raise the ante and put architects in the same necessity level like doctors. yes doctors of urban growth, design, housing expert and cultural asset. it would make them a little more burocratic, which in my opinion is little lacking now, thus developers are running everything. there is still respect for architects in public who still think architects are higher echalon, due to architecture being an upper class profession traditionally. i like it to change from that to architects being the people to employ and listen, when a building, planning, designing, and analysing those matters activity involved. architects shaping the built and to be built environment. more projects opening up for recent graduates. there are tons of projects designed by interior designers, contractors, developers, and plain ordinary homeowners, while people with 5-7 education doing cad drawings for stupid ass details or minimalls. waste of education and talent, never mind the individual sacrifices those people are doing. architects should suit up and walk to capitol demanding a professional wish list in large numbers soon. with architects i mean planners, urban designers, landscape architects and all related professionals who are qualified to deal with physical environment. and there should be room for exceptions too.
yeah -- and none of this crap about doing a masters straight out of undergrad school - minimum 10 year gap between the two. no one, i repeat, no one who does both straight through is getting or giving the most out of it.
free tuition [as long as we can tolerate the google ads and the odd help wanted ad that some how sneaks its way into the news -- if W can do it i guess archinect can blur the definitition of what is new and what is advertising....]
and everyone gets and A so no bitch'n to the profs [if its good enough for the GSD its got to be good enough for archinect]
and free NCARB certificates to all those passing the final exam.
Regardless of what system is put into place (more school, more exams, first born son, etc ) the public always overwhelmingly demands identifiable symbols of tradition, and it is the developer, and his vertical suppliers that recognize and perpetuate the crown molding.
The public has no idea what 'theory' is, or what conceptual ideas went into what part of what for them it's 'cool' or fashionable -- enter the socially opportunistic 'starchitect'
Architecture is 'better' ( or at least aesthetically more developed, or responsible, even) in countries where art takes a larger role in the schools leading up to college.
Architecture starts in kindergarten. It should be taught as a separate subject in conjunction with art and history and sociology and political science and biology. Architecture is under represented in the formatve years and so we have a populatin that orders up architecture the way you order up a McRib sandwich.
Start with this change, and perhaps your grandchildren will benefit.
Hmmm...As much as i appreciate seeing all the posts here, I feel that what's happening is what seems to happen with a lot of threads (lately?) on Archinect - they very quickly veer off into a debate about "what architecture is really about" (and often seemingly opposite view points expressing the, essentially, same ideas ("we don't know") with a bit of starchitect bashing thrown into the mix -which hasn't happened yet I'm happy to see).
More than anything, there's a real bitterness, for lack of a better word, it seems...?! As if architecture was once this classical ideal that has fallen short of everyone's expectations.
But that's me falling into the same trap, and I don't want to be doing that here.
I'm about to start (well, hopefully) an undergraduate degree in architecture at a fairly late stage (never too late, but then you do become more aware of entropy as you get older) in life and my intention behind starting this thread was, perhaps in vain, to grow a debate on what it should take to train an architect today - as per what your view of what an archictect is/could be.
Most architects i know (and when ARE you an architect - when you're accredited, when somebody points their magic staff at you, when you've build "something"???) seem to leave school with worn and tired expressions and little ambition other than to strike it out on their own as soon as possible - whoring it at a practice until this can happen. I'm not really sure what they have in terms of creative aspirations/purpose, but the goal itself seems to be to reach some sort of independence. Fair enough I guess.
However, with this in mind, what would be the appropiate curriculum?
More so, I was hoping to find out what classes/studios/units you found acted as eye openers and maybe from this ensemble we could distill a sort of meta or supercurriculum.
If your experience of architecture was to be summed up in one class, one studio or one trip or project, what would that be like?
What is the relevance of your education, if it's to have any meaningful contribution to your ability to be what you desire to be (hmmm...yeah, ok, or don't desire)?
These are perhaps terribly naive positions/questions....well...somebody will let me know, I'm sure.
Oops, just re-read the thread from the top - looks we did engage in a bit starchitect bashing towards the top. Oh well.
Ok, here is my 'dream curriculum':
1st year:
Architectural Design I, II - (6)(6)
Visual Design I, II - (4)(4)
Architectural Technology I, II - (4)(4)
Structural Engineering I, II - (3)(3)
General Electives (3)(3)
2nd year:
Design & Technology I, II - (8)(8)
Building Technology I, II - (3)(3)
Building Systems I, II - (3)(3)
History of Art & Architecture I, II (3)(3)
General Electives (3)(3)
3rd year:
Design Electives - (8)(8)
Technology Electives - (3)(3)
Theory of Arch & Urbanism I, II - (3)(3)
General Electives - (3)(3)
4th year:
Internship
General Electives - (3)(3)
5th year:
Design Thesis I, II - (8)(8)
History/Theory Electives - (3)(3)
Project & Construction Management - (3)(3)
Building Laws & Regulations - (3)(3)
Must Reads:
Mathematics of the Ideal Villa
Architecture of the City
Vers une Architecture
Complexity & Contradiction
Learning from Las Vegas
Delirious New York
S,M,L,XL
Manhattan Transcripts
Points + Lines
Architectural Theory since 1968
Modern Architecture: A Critical History
Anti-Aesthetic
Must See:
Breathless
Two, or Three Things about HER
Contempt
Tokyo Story
My Architect
M
Hitchcock (anything)
Citizen Kane
Take Care of My Cat
Last Mansion Standing
I'm sure there are others, can't remember them though.
Ideal tutors:
Stan Allen
Laurie Hawkingson
Lebbus Woods
Reihold Martin
Michael Sorkin
others
Projects:
All types; different contexts. Incorporating technology and construction with design as early as possible. Variety of building materials. Wide range of media/visual contributions.
ok -- this'll undoubtedly be unpopular -- but do away with undergraduate architectural education and refashion it along the lines of pre-med or pre-law for the BA. Then make the MArch a 5-year degree that would include a thesis and a mandatory 3 years of internship as part of the curriculum (1 year part-time in construction, 1 year full-time in an office, 1 year part-time in an office at an advanced level).
basically take a lot of Auguste Perret's (above) curriculum and make it graduate level to be more focused and intense without gen eds and things needed as an undergrad.
1st year
Beginning Design Studios I/II
HistoryTheoryCriticism of Art+Design I/II
Concepts+Principles / Materials+Methods
Analog / Digital Representation
2nd year
Intermediate Design Studios I/II
Building Systems I/II
HistoryTheoryCriticsim of Art+Design III / HTC Elective
Site Planning / Urban Design Principles
3rd year
Advanced Design Studios I/II
Building Systems III / Building Systems Elective
Business Ethics / Management+Finance
Construction Internship (part-time)
4th year
Architectural Internship (full-time/intro)
Professional Practice Seminar I/II (evening)
5th year
Thesis
Architectural Internship (part-time/advanced)
2 electives
Graduates would automatically be eligible to take the ARE and gain licensure. This would be the ONLY path to becoming an architect. No more squabbles about the benefits of a 5, 4+2, 4+3, 2+3+2, etc. Bullshit. "Architect" means "x" and everyone should understand that and comply.
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.