I've grown to understand Joe's perspective ever since I started working on this side of the building industry and I have to say I agree with a lot of his points, even if they come off as brash. He's really seen it all and is quite funny (and Canadian!) if he is a little too straight-forward. Here's some other highlights:
"I can’t speak for the architectural community, although I often try to – that is I think the arrogance of the profession drives me crazy. I think they feel it’s beneath their dignity to worry about these little, minor problems, like how to keep the rain out of the building, how to keep the air in and the air out."
"The most effective technology transfer in the world is a lawsuit."
Regarding LEED: "I couldn’t understand why a licensed engineer or a licensed architect would have an outside bunch with a checklist supplement their professional knowledge and experience. I mean how insulting is that? Because that tells me that you are so poor as a professional that you believe that the judgment of a third-party checklist is more significant than your knowledge."
hey emily baosol started a discussion on same interview a couple of weeks ago when it first came out here
holz.box had this to say "lstiburek's a bit of a clown. he loves to pan other building scientists because it makes him sound like he's the only real one on the continent."
Aside from that I know a person who has used him in a situation where he had a personal problem and he is one hot shot Lawyer. Being there was a hot shot Architect involved, it took some real scientific study to figure out what the heck was going on. They all seem to be on friendly terms after the problem was solved.
he is interesting but is playing a game cuz its fun and cuz it makes him look good. i would hate to be forced to live in a building he designed. it would probably keep the rain out but make me suicidal ;-) the guy is unbalanced. too much time fixating on fixing makes him think everything is broken.
about LEED, that is just silly. building code is also evidence of incompetence i suppose. perhaps he prefers we go back to the code of hammurabi. it would work much better than a lawsuit !
I think some of this goes back to the notion that people don't really understand what architects *can* do and tend to think we just make the building look pretty. Unless it's explicitly stated very few contracts for architectural work include sufficient fee for R&D.
Who gets fee for R&D? Kieran Timberlake might, and SHoP, and maybe Piano et al are big enough names that their starpower can demand enough fee to cover research. But Jane Average Architect with Joe Common client won't even consider trying beta technologies in their building, so the experimentation that develops happens in academia or in other fields for the most part.
And I'm sorry but this quote: "I can’t speak for the architectural community, although I often try to – that is I think the arrogance of the profession drives me crazy. I think they feel it’s beneath their dignity to worry about these little, minor problems, like how to keep the rain out of the building, how to keep the air in and the air out." is pure generalizational bullshit, and he says so in the first two phrases of the quote! He knows how to say things that keep him in the media, as do James Kunstler and Fred Kent. I'm not saying that all of their criticism of the built environment isn't accurate, but that they've discovered this meme of "architects all think they're FLW" and have figured out how to use it to further their own agenda at our expense, because it's easier to criticize others than to figure out the very difficult process of collaborating with us to actually improve things.
Imagine if Dr. Joe went round to interviews saying "Architects have a set of skills that enables them to not only create beautiful spaces but also save money and the planet through application of green technologies, and it's a shame that we've gutted programs like the GSA's Design Excellence agenda that allowed higher quality more efficient buildings to further the knowledge of those technologies." Not nearly as sexy as being a rabblerouser, eh?
great article except for the points donna makes, you mean...
the dude is basically wrapping a core of truth with rubbish. better to start thinking about the issues but with less drama no? wait a minute, what am i saying? we think of these issues ALL OF THE TIME. The idea that architects don't deal with construction on a daily basis and all the other crap he says are just ignorant.
The only clear cut point he might have on his side is that we don't always aim for energy efficiency, but that is for reasons beyond competence.
i used to really be disgusted by joe, he seems to get a ridiculous amount of pleasure insulting everyone. but he's grown on me, i just wish he wasn't so beholden to petroleum-based foam...
funny part about the archi-bashing - his wife's an architect... i also recall he's got a libertarian streak, so doubtful you'd hear him comment on successes of GSA or other govt programs.
i get what he's saying, he just lacks... tact, maybe? but the dude is right, the average architect (even if he knows a sh*t ton about construction) struggles to adequately detail or even understand bulk moisture, vapor, air infiltration, exfiltration, issues in the envelope. having weak as sh*t energy codes certainly doesn't help, either.
he also nails it on he inefficacy of LEED to actually LEAD on the energy efficiency front, "they’re interested in what the emission rate of the paint is, and what the embodied energy of the carpet is, and the biggest problem is their original design. That just drives me crazy. LEED is a colossal joke for that reason... ...The fact that people are now publishing the results and they’re pretty poor has given a wake-up call. At the end of the day, LEED is going to get fixed because they have no choice. It’s just that we’ve wasted a decade."
ah but that is a different point holz. i agree that LEED is no so good, but not because architects are incompetent. he is pretty full of ad hominem bullshit no? what he does is totally cool. what he says is pointless.
anyway, he isn't tactless he's just an ass. ain't done much for the industry except help himself so why should anyone listen to him to begin with? there are other ways to learn to build better than have an ass shit all over the profession, no?
as for construction, no i don't think i know so many architects who have major trouble with any of the technical stuff. not after working for a few decades or so. getting everything built on budget is more of an issue. it's also hard to get workmen to build to specs sometimes. but the actual science? i don't think there is that much of a gap.
you think he is right and architects just don't care?
yeah, there are more effective ways to pass on knowledge. sometimes i think joe's offended so many people and they just tune him out (at their own risk). budgets, craftsmanship are definite challenges.
but on the actual science side, i dunno... how many architects have any clue whether their exterior sheathing would be at risk for condensation? how many could point out the air barrier in their drawings? know what solar vapor drive is? incorporate details destined to perform poorly?
do i think that architects don't care? i think it's either that, or serious lack of knowledge on fundamental building physics...
it's also hard to get workmen to build to specs sometimes. - will
This is the biggest challenge to doing anything above typical level of construction. Which goes back to fee, of course, because when you firmly demand that the contractor build it as shown, they come back with an exorbitant up-charge, not because it's that much more difficult, but because they're lazy. Then they try to discredit you to the Owner so they can go ahead and do it their way AND claim the time wasted talking about it needs to be taken off the schedule.*
*In this paragraph I'm guilty of bullshit generalizations just as I accused Joe of above. Yes there are amazing contractors who love the exploration of doing things in a new way and are totally committed to getting the best possible product, I am fortunate to work with some of them often.*
holz, part of the frustration perhaps is that so much of the science seems contradictory. In my first three years as a CAD monkey I heard opposing views within the field - from architects, builders, and product reps - on proper placement of the vapor barrier. And it all rests on weather conditions that only exist part of any given year, anyway. I know little about Passivhaus, maybe it is a system that deals with all those variables better?
The one time I worked on a "tight" building project, with a client-contracted building science specialist who I adored and who totally knew his stuff, I learned a ton. But! as much as he knew about super-sealed insulation, he had no idea how big a room needed to be for 25 people, why emergency egress doors HAD to be placed in that one wall, and not another one, that structural steel needs to be fire-proofed, or why the limestone sill was actually important in making the design work with its historic neighborhood context. Plus, then, of course the contractor fought tooth and nail not to build it exactly the way it was detailed, anyway. I'm saying, I guess, that architects, for all Joe wants us not to be, have to be generalists, and have to know when it's appropriate to bring in specialists who know their stuff.
hmm if we actually performed our role as he states we should, we would be seen as being more credible in the eyes of the building community and perhaps even be able to command a decent fee for services from clients and not look like a bunch of egotistical "stylists".
whistler, I totally agree, and what I'm saying is that it would be nice if he could use his apparently commanding personality and media presence to push the agenda that we CAN provide those services (because every practicing architect I know personally most certainly can) and that those services are part and parcel of the value of good design and therefore worth paying for to make a better built environment for us all.
But what developer looking to flip a fully-leased two year old strip mall project is going to agree with him?
we won't ever get the respect we desire as a profession until we know how to be always right and know everything, in advance, every time. every single thing must be considered and the right solution anticipated, whether it's the owner's priority or not, because it may end up being the owner's priority later, at which time we'll have to answer for it.
we've recently been held responsible for something we didn't even draw - it was on the civil plans - and about which the owner never really expressed a desire for it to be different than drawn. our fee for the project was 5% of construction cost and we'll be paying for the complete cost of rebuilding the little building in a different location. so if returning our 5% would be a 100% money-back guarantee, we're actually giving them the 2000% money-back guarantee. [sigh.]
and, despite this, we got raked over the coals in the local paper for the mistake, making us look bad throughout a whole small-town community.
mr lstiburek has a tiny piece of the overall building project to consider, as does the lighting consultant and the geotechnical engineer. as i once heard in a panel discussion, in a debate between an architect and a traffic engineer, the traffic engineer will always be 'right' because his/her range of considerations is so much more limited. when you've got to take every variable into account, including conflicting ones, you'll always be wrong somewhere.
@holz, i hear you, and read recently about the gang project with thermal bridging, BUT in the cases you posit, well i suppose a choice was made. by the architects, the builder or the owner, and the result is less than optimum (although i think gang's tower is otherwise seriously excellent, and that stilty building is cool enough too). In the end a building is not the science used to analyse its performance. As important as that stuff is, so many sustainable buildings look like hell and deserve to be ridiculed as much as you might like to vent over the artsy projects. somewhere there is a happy medium i am sure, but it seldom gets visited. Morphosis perhaps, renzo, the other hi-tech brits (and germans) ...maybe.
what gets lost in this kind of talk is the culture side of things. sustainability has to be about culture first. it is a big part of the definition, but seldom spoken of. Energy reduction is just mitigation, and not enough (not remotely so). A building should be good enough that it captures the imagination of its users and community. Even if it performs poorly in technical ways as a result. I think that is a fair trade off. It also has to fit into the financial and legal and other constraints that make our world work. If it ain't doing that then its not relevant ....which is i guess why nobody really is willing to give much time to passivhaus or sustainable anything. The definition of good is too narrowly defined to find agreement amongst anyone but building scientists. and not even then.
Thank you for bringing culture into the discussion Will. I'm a much bigger fan of projects that can strengthen a culture of sustainability rather than just get enough points on a checklist to qualify as LEED-whatever (or whatever the green flavor of the month is).
Remember that LEED was created to catalyze a green materials marketplace. It built a system that allowed green material producers to find green material consumers and rewarded both ($$ for the producers; points and plaques for the consumers). But yet if you really want to look at it, the culture of consumerism is probably one of the biggest obstacles to overcome when looking at environmental sustainability. Economical sustainability might say something different.
Either way, I'm all in favor of architects knowing how to do their job and builders knowing how to do theirs in order to effectively carry out the architects' plans. But in the end I think we need to start talking about what sort of culture our buildings promote regardless of how well they perform if we are going to get anywhere with the idea of sustainability, holistically speaking.
So of course I missed the original thread on this, sorry about that... and I checked the "notifications" box to receive emails when people posted but I never got an email so I thought no one was posting! Ah well. But I'm really appreciative for all the thoughtful responses above.
I do agree with Donna and not per's comments and I think the last post by Brian brings up a good post about LEED, but LEED has gone beyond that idea of a green materials marketplace, hasn't it? What struck me about Joe's interview is that it reflected a sentiment that I've held for a while, which is that if the AIA was doing its job in the first place, then LEED might have never existed. Or at the very least we wouldn't have another system under which we have to take exams and receive credentials and do continuing education every year. This is a broad generalization but hopefully you get my point.
To me it's a fundamental question of "who do we want to be as architects", and when I asked myself that question, I've found that I do want to be the kind that's focused on this aspect of building science and making buildings smarter, and I think that there's room for my type and other types in the industry. It's just that, as Donna and not per pointed out, we have to ultimately responsible for all of these things coming together. But it's gotten so hard, with such huge buildings being built, and with so many considerations of technology and systems and sustainability, that I don't think one person should be responsible for all of these things. More like, a team of specialist architects needs to jointly be responsible. It's a major shift from the master builder mentality that we learned about in history class and romanticized in architecture school just a decade ago.
Think about other professions: lawyers and doctors go to school and learn general basic principles, yes, but they always go on to specialties. Even general practitioners "specialize" in being generalists... they could diagnose average ailments but you wouldn't ask them to operate on your knee. To me it's about saying, look, we as architects are learning the basic fundamentals, but some of us are going to go on to specialize in building science, some of us will go on to specialize in envelopes, some of us will do formal experimentation, and so on. And that's OK. And we have to be willing to say that's OK.
What makes an architect responsible for that building, at the end of the day? What makes Brad Pitt* more "architect-like" than many architects I know? Maybe it's more about leadership and about knowing how to put a team together than it is about having to have all the answers all of the time.
Speaking of being an architect, I'm totally procrastinating studying for Structures right now, so I should probably go do that.
A hot topic for the usual suspects.. Most of those "projects" don't get past the imaginary phase...-frank lloyd wright lover KevinW "If the roof doesn't leak, the architect hasn't been creative enough."
Some items from the article-
There should be no reason that we have all of these outside consultants that are sucking bits of the architectural key out of the process. The architects should grab that for themselves and deliver the whole building the right way, to be the boss of the job, to be the master builders again. I mean my daughter is an architect and I keep telling them, “Your generation has to fix this. You guys need to be in charge again.”
I agree with him, architects will lose more of the profession if they abandon parametric control. Emily gives a valid response - it's more about leadership and about knowing how to put a team together than it is about having to have all the answers all of the time.
On modeling software Joe says- What drives me crazy is WUFI models and computer simulations. None of that is necessary, and most of it is done wrong anyway.
This is because the software is not specific enough or is being used badly. For water infiltration studies, use of software is not a substitute for empirical observation/building physics.
It would benefit Joe to apply his knowledge outside of the CVS/Walgreens buildings he seems to love. The fact that he has a "if it ain't broke don't fix it" attitude towards buildings is really one-sided, and that is the only reason he makes any money.
however such water infiltration software helps a situation when used properly, and its highly doubtful Joe doesn't rely on software. If there was a computational Joe, he would probably design CVS's
Jun 12, 12 10:46 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.
"If architects did their job there wouldn’t be any need for building science."
Did anybody catch this interview on Inhabitat?
INTERVIEW: Building Science Pioneer Dr. Joe Lstiburek on the Good, Bad and Ugly Side of Buildings
I've grown to understand Joe's perspective ever since I started working on this side of the building industry and I have to say I agree with a lot of his points, even if they come off as brash. He's really seen it all and is quite funny (and Canadian!) if he is a little too straight-forward. Here's some other highlights:
"I can’t speak for the architectural community, although I often try to – that is I think the arrogance of the profession drives me crazy. I think they feel it’s beneath their dignity to worry about these little, minor problems, like how to keep the rain out of the building, how to keep the air in and the air out."
"The most effective technology transfer in the world is a lawsuit."
Regarding LEED: "I couldn’t understand why a licensed engineer or a licensed architect would have an outside bunch with a checklist supplement their professional knowledge and experience. I mean how insulting is that? Because that tells me that you are so poor as a professional that you believe that the judgment of a third-party checklist is more significant than your knowledge."
Thoughts?
hey emily baosol started a discussion on same interview a couple of weeks ago when it first came out here
holz.box had this to say "lstiburek's a bit of a clown. he loves to pan other building scientists because it makes him sound like he's the only real one on the continent."
Emily,
I subscribe to his web letters. They are always enjoyable reading. Like all public authors,
he keeps the good stuff in his closet. So we really know all the secrets.
Emily,
Aside from that I know a person who has used him in a situation where he had a personal problem and he is one hot shot Lawyer. Being there was a hot shot Architect involved, it took some real scientific study to figure out what the heck was going on. They all seem to be on friendly terms after the problem was solved.
he is interesting but is playing a game cuz its fun and cuz it makes him look good. i would hate to be forced to live in a building he designed. it would probably keep the rain out but make me suicidal ;-) the guy is unbalanced. too much time fixating on fixing makes him think everything is broken.
about LEED, that is just silly. building code is also evidence of incompetence i suppose. perhaps he prefers we go back to the code of hammurabi. it would work much better than a lawsuit !
duuhhhh! he's Canadian... no point in even talking 'architecture' with them xD
I think some of this goes back to the notion that people don't really understand what architects *can* do and tend to think we just make the building look pretty. Unless it's explicitly stated very few contracts for architectural work include sufficient fee for R&D.
Who gets fee for R&D? Kieran Timberlake might, and SHoP, and maybe Piano et al are big enough names that their starpower can demand enough fee to cover research. But Jane Average Architect with Joe Common client won't even consider trying beta technologies in their building, so the experimentation that develops happens in academia or in other fields for the most part.
And I'm sorry but this quote: "I can’t speak for the architectural community, although I often try to – that is I think the arrogance of the profession drives me crazy. I think they feel it’s beneath their dignity to worry about these little, minor problems, like how to keep the rain out of the building, how to keep the air in and the air out." is pure generalizational bullshit, and he says so in the first two phrases of the quote! He knows how to say things that keep him in the media, as do James Kunstler and Fred Kent. I'm not saying that all of their criticism of the built environment isn't accurate, but that they've discovered this meme of "architects all think they're FLW" and have figured out how to use it to further their own agenda at our expense, because it's easier to criticize others than to figure out the very difficult process of collaborating with us to actually improve things.
Imagine if Dr. Joe went round to interviews saying "Architects have a set of skills that enables them to not only create beautiful spaces but also save money and the planet through application of green technologies, and it's a shame that we've gutted programs like the GSA's Design Excellence agenda that allowed higher quality more efficient buildings to further the knowledge of those technologies." Not nearly as sexy as being a rabblerouser, eh?
Great article. It's a good place to start thinking about the issues.
great article except for the points donna makes, you mean...
the dude is basically wrapping a core of truth with rubbish. better to start thinking about the issues but with less drama no? wait a minute, what am i saying? we think of these issues ALL OF THE TIME. The idea that architects don't deal with construction on a daily basis and all the other crap he says are just ignorant.
The only clear cut point he might have on his side is that we don't always aim for energy efficiency, but that is for reasons beyond competence.
i used to really be disgusted by joe, he seems to get a ridiculous amount of pleasure insulting everyone. but he's grown on me, i just wish he wasn't so beholden to petroleum-based foam...
funny part about the archi-bashing - his wife's an architect... i also recall he's got a libertarian streak, so doubtful you'd hear him comment on successes of GSA or other govt programs.
i get what he's saying, he just lacks... tact, maybe? but the dude is right, the average architect (even if he knows a sh*t ton about construction) struggles to adequately detail or even understand bulk moisture, vapor, air infiltration, exfiltration, issues in the envelope. having weak as sh*t energy codes certainly doesn't help, either.
he also nails it on he inefficacy of LEED to actually LEAD on the energy efficiency front, "they’re interested in what the emission rate of the paint is, and what the embodied energy of the carpet is, and the biggest problem is their original design. That just drives me crazy. LEED is a colossal joke for that reason... ...The fact that people are now publishing the results and they’re pretty poor has given a wake-up call. At the end of the day, LEED is going to get fixed because they have no choice. It’s just that we’ve wasted a decade."
ah but that is a different point holz. i agree that LEED is no so good, but not because architects are incompetent. he is pretty full of ad hominem bullshit no? what he does is totally cool. what he says is pointless.
anyway, he isn't tactless he's just an ass. ain't done much for the industry except help himself so why should anyone listen to him to begin with? there are other ways to learn to build better than have an ass shit all over the profession, no?
as for construction, no i don't think i know so many architects who have major trouble with any of the technical stuff. not after working for a few decades or so. getting everything built on budget is more of an issue. it's also hard to get workmen to build to specs sometimes. but the actual science? i don't think there is that much of a gap.
you think he is right and architects just don't care?
yeah, there are more effective ways to pass on knowledge. sometimes i think joe's offended so many people and they just tune him out (at their own risk). budgets, craftsmanship are definite challenges.
but on the actual science side, i dunno... how many architects have any clue whether their exterior sheathing would be at risk for condensation? how many could point out the air barrier in their drawings? know what solar vapor drive is? incorporate details destined to perform poorly?
do i think that architects don't care? i think it's either that, or serious lack of knowledge on fundamental building physics...
and it's not limited to seattle!
it's also hard to get workmen to build to specs sometimes. - will
This is the biggest challenge to doing anything above typical level of construction. Which goes back to fee, of course, because when you firmly demand that the contractor build it as shown, they come back with an exorbitant up-charge, not because it's that much more difficult, but because they're lazy. Then they try to discredit you to the Owner so they can go ahead and do it their way AND claim the time wasted talking about it needs to be taken off the schedule.*
*In this paragraph I'm guilty of bullshit generalizations just as I accused Joe of above. Yes there are amazing contractors who love the exploration of doing things in a new way and are totally committed to getting the best possible product, I am fortunate to work with some of them often.*
holz, part of the frustration perhaps is that so much of the science seems contradictory. In my first three years as a CAD monkey I heard opposing views within the field - from architects, builders, and product reps - on proper placement of the vapor barrier. And it all rests on weather conditions that only exist part of any given year, anyway. I know little about Passivhaus, maybe it is a system that deals with all those variables better?
The one time I worked on a "tight" building project, with a client-contracted building science specialist who I adored and who totally knew his stuff, I learned a ton. But! as much as he knew about super-sealed insulation, he had no idea how big a room needed to be for 25 people, why emergency egress doors HAD to be placed in that one wall, and not another one, that structural steel needs to be fire-proofed, or why the limestone sill was actually important in making the design work with its historic neighborhood context. Plus, then, of course the contractor fought tooth and nail not to build it exactly the way it was detailed, anyway. I'm saying, I guess, that architects, for all Joe wants us not to be, have to be generalists, and have to know when it's appropriate to bring in specialists who know their stuff.
Too bad none of the scripty aficionados have weighed in here yet.
"Too bad none of the scripty aficionados have weighed in here yet."
haha
Most of those "projects" don't get past the imaginary phase..
hmm if we actually performed our role as he states we should, we would be seen as being more credible in the eyes of the building community and perhaps even be able to command a decent fee for services from clients and not look like a bunch of egotistical "stylists".
- just saying!
whistler, I totally agree, and what I'm saying is that it would be nice if he could use his apparently commanding personality and media presence to push the agenda that we CAN provide those services (because every practicing architect I know personally most certainly can) and that those services are part and parcel of the value of good design and therefore worth paying for to make a better built environment for us all.
But what developer looking to flip a fully-leased two year old strip mall project is going to agree with him?
we won't ever get the respect we desire as a profession until we know how to be always right and know everything, in advance, every time. every single thing must be considered and the right solution anticipated, whether it's the owner's priority or not, because it may end up being the owner's priority later, at which time we'll have to answer for it.
we've recently been held responsible for something we didn't even draw - it was on the civil plans - and about which the owner never really expressed a desire for it to be different than drawn. our fee for the project was 5% of construction cost and we'll be paying for the complete cost of rebuilding the little building in a different location. so if returning our 5% would be a 100% money-back guarantee, we're actually giving them the 2000% money-back guarantee. [sigh.]
and, despite this, we got raked over the coals in the local paper for the mistake, making us look bad throughout a whole small-town community.
mr lstiburek has a tiny piece of the overall building project to consider, as does the lighting consultant and the geotechnical engineer. as i once heard in a panel discussion, in a debate between an architect and a traffic engineer, the traffic engineer will always be 'right' because his/her range of considerations is so much more limited. when you've got to take every variable into account, including conflicting ones, you'll always be wrong somewhere.
and that's our job.
exactly donna and not per. very well put..
@holz, i hear you, and read recently about the gang project with thermal bridging, BUT in the cases you posit, well i suppose a choice was made. by the architects, the builder or the owner, and the result is less than optimum (although i think gang's tower is otherwise seriously excellent, and that stilty building is cool enough too). In the end a building is not the science used to analyse its performance. As important as that stuff is, so many sustainable buildings look like hell and deserve to be ridiculed as much as you might like to vent over the artsy projects. somewhere there is a happy medium i am sure, but it seldom gets visited. Morphosis perhaps, renzo, the other hi-tech brits (and germans) ...maybe.
what gets lost in this kind of talk is the culture side of things. sustainability has to be about culture first. it is a big part of the definition, but seldom spoken of. Energy reduction is just mitigation, and not enough (not remotely so). A building should be good enough that it captures the imagination of its users and community. Even if it performs poorly in technical ways as a result. I think that is a fair trade off. It also has to fit into the financial and legal and other constraints that make our world work. If it ain't doing that then its not relevant ....which is i guess why nobody really is willing to give much time to passivhaus or sustainable anything. The definition of good is too narrowly defined to find agreement amongst anyone but building scientists. and not even then.
Thank you for bringing culture into the discussion Will. I'm a much bigger fan of projects that can strengthen a culture of sustainability rather than just get enough points on a checklist to qualify as LEED-whatever (or whatever the green flavor of the month is).
Remember that LEED was created to catalyze a green materials marketplace. It built a system that allowed green material producers to find green material consumers and rewarded both ($$ for the producers; points and plaques for the consumers). But yet if you really want to look at it, the culture of consumerism is probably one of the biggest obstacles to overcome when looking at environmental sustainability. Economical sustainability might say something different.
Either way, I'm all in favor of architects knowing how to do their job and builders knowing how to do theirs in order to effectively carry out the architects' plans. But in the end I think we need to start talking about what sort of culture our buildings promote regardless of how well they perform if we are going to get anywhere with the idea of sustainability, holistically speaking.
So of course I missed the original thread on this, sorry about that... and I checked the "notifications" box to receive emails when people posted but I never got an email so I thought no one was posting! Ah well. But I'm really appreciative for all the thoughtful responses above.
I do agree with Donna and not per's comments and I think the last post by Brian brings up a good post about LEED, but LEED has gone beyond that idea of a green materials marketplace, hasn't it? What struck me about Joe's interview is that it reflected a sentiment that I've held for a while, which is that if the AIA was doing its job in the first place, then LEED might have never existed. Or at the very least we wouldn't have another system under which we have to take exams and receive credentials and do continuing education every year. This is a broad generalization but hopefully you get my point.
To me it's a fundamental question of "who do we want to be as architects", and when I asked myself that question, I've found that I do want to be the kind that's focused on this aspect of building science and making buildings smarter, and I think that there's room for my type and other types in the industry. It's just that, as Donna and not per pointed out, we have to ultimately responsible for all of these things coming together. But it's gotten so hard, with such huge buildings being built, and with so many considerations of technology and systems and sustainability, that I don't think one person should be responsible for all of these things. More like, a team of specialist architects needs to jointly be responsible. It's a major shift from the master builder mentality that we learned about in history class and romanticized in architecture school just a decade ago.
Think about other professions: lawyers and doctors go to school and learn general basic principles, yes, but they always go on to specialties. Even general practitioners "specialize" in being generalists... they could diagnose average ailments but you wouldn't ask them to operate on your knee. To me it's about saying, look, we as architects are learning the basic fundamentals, but some of us are going to go on to specialize in building science, some of us will go on to specialize in envelopes, some of us will do formal experimentation, and so on. And that's OK. And we have to be willing to say that's OK.
What makes an architect responsible for that building, at the end of the day? What makes Brad Pitt* more "architect-like" than many architects I know? Maybe it's more about leadership and about knowing how to put a team together than it is about having to have all the answers all of the time.
Speaking of being an architect, I'm totally procrastinating studying for Structures right now, so I should probably go do that.
*That was for Donna.
"If AIA was doing its job in the first place, then LEED might have never existed."
AIA is not a "they" or "them" - it's a "we" or "us".AIA is not a "they" or "them" - it's a "we" or "us".
Can we make t-shirts of this?
What makes Brad Pitt* more "architect-like" than many architects I know?
Can we also make t-shirts of this?
A hot topic for the usual suspects..
Most of those "projects" don't get past the imaginary phase...-frank lloyd wright lover KevinW
"If the roof doesn't leak, the architect hasn't been creative enough."
Some items from the article-
There should be no reason that we have all of these outside consultants that are sucking bits of the architectural key out of the process. The architects should grab that for themselves and deliver the whole building the right way, to be the boss of the job, to be the master builders again. I mean my daughter is an architect and I keep telling them, “Your generation has to fix this. You guys need to be in charge again.”
I agree with him, architects will lose more of the profession if they abandon parametric control. Emily gives a valid response - it's more about leadership and about knowing how to put a team together than it is about having to have all the answers all of the time.
On modeling software Joe says-
What drives me crazy is WUFI models and computer simulations. None of that is necessary, and most of it is done wrong anyway.
This is because the software is not specific enough or is being used badly. For water infiltration studies, use of software is not a substitute for empirical observation/building physics.
It would benefit Joe to apply his knowledge outside of the CVS/Walgreens buildings he seems to love. The fact that he has a "if it ain't broke don't fix it" attitude towards buildings is really one-sided, and that is the only reason he makes any money.
however such water infiltration software helps a situation when used properly, and its highly doubtful Joe doesn't rely on software. If there was a computational Joe, he would probably design CVS's
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.