...I know that there are some pretty renowned arch/design theorists in the world, people who influence the profession but aren't architecture professionals themselves. Not necessarily critics or historians, but philosophers, scientists, sociologists, etc.
Think - Rem's AMO.
I have a few friends who up here who run and work at a design think-tank, and I'm somewhat drawn to the theoretical/research aspects of design.
Has anybody here worked for such a firm? Do they exist in any number at all? Have any of you worked in 'pure' theory and research, producing simply ideas, publishing them, and never intending to build anything tangible?
this was supposed to do that and also build buildings, but of course bofill's range quickly eroded and the think tank aspect and the whole organization became a corporate office with a large portfolio of developer ventures. but if you read the team philosophy and the definetion of the 'team', you might see some elements of what you are asking. i guess multi disciplinary was their key word.
you are talking about a very interesting model that might be the nature of the architects' offices in few decades when science start to take a bigger role in the built environments and buildings require much more than the traditional gravity based structural systems and building programs start to change. yeah..
I must admit to being totally naive about this subject in regards to architecture specifically, but I think it's where design in general is heading over the next decade or two.
There's a lot of stuff going on that will need to be examined in that time frame. Now that we're starting to understand the effects of the technology we've created, our role in the larger man-made and natural environments, our quantifying of previously-unquantifiable subjects, etc.... it's not enough to continue with the status quo - at least not for everybody. People are finding out that they want more - both designers, clients, and the public at large.
This isn't meant to be heavy-handed or overbearing. This isn't some ill-considered manifesto. I just think that there's a role that research can play in our related fields that doesn't exactly exist at the moment - or at least it's in its infancy, and could be helped along by the right people.
I agree slantsix - it seems like we are at a moment when interdisciplinary collaboration and serious research into our field - and others - is going to be necessary. I know little about it too, but I'm optimistic.
the possibilities make me both excited and tired. architects will have to set aside time and resources in order to make this kind of interdisciplinary effort a reality.
i mean, it's challenging enough to tweak standard construction details into something a little less standard and communicate to contractors how to get them built correctly. can you imagine bringing scientists or musicians to a construction progress meeting?
feeling cynical today. i really DO think that collaboration is an exciting thing and i would like to be involved in making some rubbing of elbows happen, but when you think about it relative to the daily activities of an architecture office... well, like i said, it makes me tired.
It exhausts me too, but I think it could be worth it. It is exhausting to get a contractor to build anything "non-standard" but they are more than willing to do it IF the architect will take responsibility for its failure (or at least for certain aspects of its failure). We architects just may need to take more responsibility for our work, become more "expert", which I think is what slantsix is suggesting in part.
If architects truly do become experts, wouldn't we be more valued i.e. more highly paid?
I heard a guy named Andrew Lang speak about the research that his firm does, DEGW I think. They've done a lot to convince their (albeit wealthy corporate) clients that it is in their best interest that research be done. And so, these clients pay extra for the firm to conduct research mostly in the area of social behavior and productivity... it's pretty interesting as a model. If you could convince the people who are paying you that it is in their interest for you to find out some more information then it seems a realistic way of working research into what we already like to do.
Of course, there are limits. Only clients with deep pockets can afford it and how extensively can you criticize those who are paying for your research? A theory think tank would be rather different. We used to call those schools, I think. Back in the day, before we made schools into CAD training centers and celeb meet and greets... :-)
A theory think tank would be rather different. We used to call those schools, I think. Back in the day, before we made schools into CAD training centers and celeb meet and greets.
Well put, k-stan .... I love the fact the people have to be convinced that research is important or necessary. It seems so tautological, especially for those of us currently in school.
In addition to DEGW, ReD Associates is a user-experience consultancy (based in Copenhagen) that has done work in the past with architects and planners. I believe they are currently engaged in an urban design project for the Port of Copenhagen.
my school definitely wasn't a CAD training center or a celeb meet and greet. there's still good research being done in the schools. the problem is that that research often doesn't find its way to practice, and practice is becoming increasingly skeptical of academia. practices that have their feet in both worlds i feel have a distinct advantage and the potential to push new ideas forward (wasn't this always the case? think kahn/yale); the difficulty is finding enough hours in the day to teach, research, and run a practice (let alone have a family). not an easy assignment.
What are we talking about here? Not being sure what we are talking about when we say think tank, I know some of the architectural non-profits out there were started in offices to look at something that itnerested the office. Public Architecture started that way and so did architecture 2030.
I think those non-profits, along with some academic institutions, are fulfilling the roles of think tanks. In the non-profit side of things you also get work that is usually more environmentally and socially focused, which I find important.
Some organizations that are out there doing and thinking:
As non-profits:
-Design Corps
-Public Architecture
-2030
-Architecture For Humanity
-Designers for Social Responsibility
-Rural Studio
As studios that I know of:
-MIA LEHRER + ASSOCIATES is working on the LA river doing research on similar projects
-Schwartz is doing 'Quick Cheap and Green'
I think that the non-profit route is one that can be helpful for architects interested in looking at particular issues.
i have been working for a large international firm for a year now. maybe it was my naivete but i thought there would be some sort of design research core here. especially given the profits we make, the fact that we are constantly saying we want to "push the edge", and the fact that our ceo just made a huge announcement about our involvement with sustainability on every project. i compared it to something like a pharmaceutical company--- they wouldnt exist if they didnt have research. why would architecture be any different. the longer i have been here, the more i began to recognize the similarities in design in every project from the US to Signapore. it has made me more and more sick to my stomach every day. i thought i would try to start something here within the firm... so i began by presenting my regenerative research publication to the firm. i have never seen so many lost faces in my life... sad as it is- they are comfortable with the "same". so then i sad down with some VPs and principles to discuss developing a small research core here in our office. they want a business model for it. so i am working on that.
overall i see it as an uphill battle. which is why i applied to post-pro grad school. maybe after i conduct some further developed research on my own and publish a few more times, i can stand some ground and develop my own thinktank and research core. at this point i feel that doing this within an academic realm and having the university support is the most beneficial. get the post-pro degree, get published some more, become a professor, start up my own research core firm, and apply for a fullbright. maybe THEN this large firm will see the benefits both financially and humanitarian in having a research core. (after all of that i cant imagine i will care what they think anymore). be a renegade!
There's never enough time in the day, of course. So we either need to make time, or make that 'research' a part of our design process/program. Will that be tough to sell to clients? Yes! But if the results are better, people will line up for our services.
But that's not the point.
I was more speculating along the lines of a group of people who DON'T practice architecture. They don't build models. They consult with bricks-and-mortar firms. It's a little bit of outsourcing, possibly, but it might make for a more holistic design strategy. The researchers are left to investigate, research, and conceptualize without the need to build anything.
01. *the world resources institute* does a great deal of research + investigative work on ecology, sustainability, etc as scientists, consultants, and designers for many different fields- not excluding architecture. (someone i work with left here a few months ago to go join them)
02. architect turned scientist *Wolf Hilbertz* developed his own research and experimental methods for rebuilding coral reefs ... his work is scientific, but he developed it and came to the conclusion after having battling the ideas of sustainability and biological problems within architecture.
its funny that we want to be experts on every thing except how to put a building together. and even this is becoming increasingly difficult. that is why we depend on manufacturer reps and consultants. it's impossible not to these days. buildings are complicated animals and to know all is impossible.
Right --- tell you about one thing that is more complicated -- a boat , a ship if you can't bear to hear the word , --- so with something just as "complicated" how come there are plenty skilled profesionals and craftsmen who can grasp that ???
Bside a house is not a complicated thing ; architects for miliniums seen it as a roof and some walls , the outher thing that make it's borders , and I guess there are so little guts in academics that this is the way a building will be pecived yet another millinium.
slantsix, now, i'm not sure what you're really asking. of course there are consultants whether they be on historical preservation, urban design, etc. from your question, though, i think you're envisioning that there's some think tank out there that's going to be at the beck-and-call of architects to answer architecture-related questions or do architecture-related research, like AMO was to OMA. i highly doubt that such a office exists unless it was created by an architect.
that being said, corporate consulting firms like mckinsey are doing the type of work you seem to be interested in. sadly architects can't seem to afford their services.
vado, what I'm saying is that we SHOULD be experts at putting a building together. I think we've given over our responsibility in this area mistakenly.
i dont know if it is possible to be an expert at putting a building together. especially not every building type. we should know the basics. we should know more than an intern, or a common person. but there are too many specializations to become experts at everything. once you see a weakness in a building type or construction method, etc, it is your responsibility to research it. but sometimes that research has great potentials far beyond your abilities- and then you become a research expert as well as an architect. it's not for everyone. neither is a phd, or for some even an architectural license. but i dont think it should be as a "consultant". architects can be scientists, researchers, etc. and few become researchers- which is a highly valuable asset to our profession.
not all doctors are researchers. there are a few who actively participate in the advancement of medicine. and then there is the ER doc. the same analogy can be applied to architecture.
So much here to absorb and investigate. Thanks everybody. I'm glad we can have a civil discussion on here once in a while.
I don't know that we can be experts at "putting together a building" in the way most people think - that is, know how every single nut and bolt works on all different types of structures. I do, however, believe that we should be ABLE to pull resources together that will not only get the job done, but do it right.
No, we maybe we can't afford to do our own research or pay for original research performed by somebody else. But what we MAY be able to do is work with teams - funded by the public and private sectors - who dedicate their time to exploring up-and-coming fields and issues (user experience, technology/human-machine interfaces, biomimicry...).
We don't have time to investigate any of these issues in-depth, but if others take the lead and we absorb some of their work, I see potential benefits.
Then we can think about things that must cevelob in real action ?
Architecture at worse dictating the color of the curtain and that nothing must look nice, --- Logistic all of it no room for beauty self learning units , but who speak ; not the positive projections. Not even the theorists who acturly tried doing that to a building, what theorie without caurse expected ; highrise with seasickness a the wind pover shal crank the pieza crystal dynamos.
All up the history it's been a one man show Basta.
Think tanks and 'heavy' theory
...I know that there are some pretty renowned arch/design theorists in the world, people who influence the profession but aren't architecture professionals themselves. Not necessarily critics or historians, but philosophers, scientists, sociologists, etc.
Think - Rem's AMO.
I have a few friends who up here who run and work at a design think-tank, and I'm somewhat drawn to the theoretical/research aspects of design.
Has anybody here worked for such a firm? Do they exist in any number at all? Have any of you worked in 'pure' theory and research, producing simply ideas, publishing them, and never intending to build anything tangible?
Interesting question, and I have no answer, so I'm bumping the thread. Anyone else?
I know an artist like that, but in the last five years he's been actually producing work...so i'm no help either
bump no.2
how much are they getting paid?
maybe...
crimson
Alain de Botton
not exactly a think tank, but i know that kieran timberlake has a few staff members that are dedicated to research...
this was supposed to do that and also build buildings, but of course bofill's range quickly eroded and the think tank aspect and the whole organization became a corporate office with a large portfolio of developer ventures. but if you read the team philosophy and the definetion of the 'team', you might see some elements of what you are asking. i guess multi disciplinary was their key word.
you are talking about a very interesting model that might be the nature of the architects' offices in few decades when science start to take a bigger role in the built environments and buildings require much more than the traditional gravity based structural systems and building programs start to change. yeah..
how bout a dunk tank instead...
what are they throwing that you'd need steel cage to protect the dunkee?
hey quit criticizing my design jeffe!
wm mcdonough was the first architect that i ever heard had an 'r&d' department. that was back in '91.
I must admit to being totally naive about this subject in regards to architecture specifically, but I think it's where design in general is heading over the next decade or two.
There's a lot of stuff going on that will need to be examined in that time frame. Now that we're starting to understand the effects of the technology we've created, our role in the larger man-made and natural environments, our quantifying of previously-unquantifiable subjects, etc.... it's not enough to continue with the status quo - at least not for everybody. People are finding out that they want more - both designers, clients, and the public at large.
This isn't meant to be heavy-handed or overbearing. This isn't some ill-considered manifesto. I just think that there's a role that research can play in our related fields that doesn't exactly exist at the moment - or at least it's in its infancy, and could be helped along by the right people.
http://www.tanktheory.com
Think Thank's stink It's a one man show.
please don't.
I agree slantsix - it seems like we are at a moment when interdisciplinary collaboration and serious research into our field - and others - is going to be necessary. I know little about it too, but I'm optimistic.
the possibilities make me both excited and tired. architects will have to set aside time and resources in order to make this kind of interdisciplinary effort a reality.
i mean, it's challenging enough to tweak standard construction details into something a little less standard and communicate to contractors how to get them built correctly. can you imagine bringing scientists or musicians to a construction progress meeting?
feeling cynical today. i really DO think that collaboration is an exciting thing and i would like to be involved in making some rubbing of elbows happen, but when you think about it relative to the daily activities of an architecture office... well, like i said, it makes me tired.
It exhausts me too, but I think it could be worth it. It is exhausting to get a contractor to build anything "non-standard" but they are more than willing to do it IF the architect will take responsibility for its failure (or at least for certain aspects of its failure). We architects just may need to take more responsibility for our work, become more "expert", which I think is what slantsix is suggesting in part.
If architects truly do become experts, wouldn't we be more valued i.e. more highly paid?
i just want to agitate.
I heard a guy named Andrew Lang speak about the research that his firm does, DEGW I think. They've done a lot to convince their (albeit wealthy corporate) clients that it is in their best interest that research be done. And so, these clients pay extra for the firm to conduct research mostly in the area of social behavior and productivity... it's pretty interesting as a model. If you could convince the people who are paying you that it is in their interest for you to find out some more information then it seems a realistic way of working research into what we already like to do.
Of course, there are limits. Only clients with deep pockets can afford it and how extensively can you criticize those who are paying for your research? A theory think tank would be rather different. We used to call those schools, I think. Back in the day, before we made schools into CAD training centers and celeb meet and greets... :-)
more sand in the vaseline from cranky steven:
how do we become experts at new things?
how often do clients allow us to fail?
a little too accurate for comfort, kablak.
Well put, k-stan .... I love the fact the people have to be convinced that research is important or necessary. It seems so tautological, especially for those of us currently in school.
In addition to DEGW, ReD Associates is a user-experience consultancy (based in Copenhagen) that has done work in the past with architects and planners. I believe they are currently engaged in an urban design project for the Port of Copenhagen.
my school definitely wasn't a CAD training center or a celeb meet and greet. there's still good research being done in the schools. the problem is that that research often doesn't find its way to practice, and practice is becoming increasingly skeptical of academia. practices that have their feet in both worlds i feel have a distinct advantage and the potential to push new ideas forward (wasn't this always the case? think kahn/yale); the difficulty is finding enough hours in the day to teach, research, and run a practice (let alone have a family). not an easy assignment.
What are we talking about here? Not being sure what we are talking about when we say think tank, I know some of the architectural non-profits out there were started in offices to look at something that itnerested the office. Public Architecture started that way and so did architecture 2030.
I think those non-profits, along with some academic institutions, are fulfilling the roles of think tanks. In the non-profit side of things you also get work that is usually more environmentally and socially focused, which I find important.
Some organizations that are out there doing and thinking:
As non-profits:
-Design Corps
-Public Architecture
-2030
-Architecture For Humanity
-Designers for Social Responsibility
-Rural Studio
As studios that I know of:
-MIA LEHRER + ASSOCIATES is working on the LA river doing research on similar projects
-Schwartz is doing 'Quick Cheap and Green'
I think that the non-profit route is one that can be helpful for architects interested in looking at particular issues.
Finally, I do hope that Toshiko Mori and company follow up on the proposal of a holistic environmental think-tank for all design professions .
i have been working for a large international firm for a year now. maybe it was my naivete but i thought there would be some sort of design research core here. especially given the profits we make, the fact that we are constantly saying we want to "push the edge", and the fact that our ceo just made a huge announcement about our involvement with sustainability on every project. i compared it to something like a pharmaceutical company--- they wouldnt exist if they didnt have research. why would architecture be any different. the longer i have been here, the more i began to recognize the similarities in design in every project from the US to Signapore. it has made me more and more sick to my stomach every day. i thought i would try to start something here within the firm... so i began by presenting my regenerative research publication to the firm. i have never seen so many lost faces in my life... sad as it is- they are comfortable with the "same". so then i sad down with some VPs and principles to discuss developing a small research core here in our office. they want a business model for it. so i am working on that.
overall i see it as an uphill battle. which is why i applied to post-pro grad school. maybe after i conduct some further developed research on my own and publish a few more times, i can stand some ground and develop my own thinktank and research core. at this point i feel that doing this within an academic realm and having the university support is the most beneficial. get the post-pro degree, get published some more, become a professor, start up my own research core firm, and apply for a fullbright. maybe THEN this large firm will see the benefits both financially and humanitarian in having a research core. (after all of that i cant imagine i will care what they think anymore). be a renegade!
There's never enough time in the day, of course. So we either need to make time, or make that 'research' a part of our design process/program. Will that be tough to sell to clients? Yes! But if the results are better, people will line up for our services.
But that's not the point.
I was more speculating along the lines of a group of people who DON'T practice architecture. They don't build models. They consult with bricks-and-mortar firms. It's a little bit of outsourcing, possibly, but it might make for a more holistic design strategy. The researchers are left to investigate, research, and conceptualize without the need to build anything.
that being said...
01. *the world resources institute* does a great deal of research + investigative work on ecology, sustainability, etc as scientists, consultants, and designers for many different fields- not excluding architecture. (someone i work with left here a few months ago to go join them)
02. architect turned scientist *Wolf Hilbertz* developed his own research and experimental methods for rebuilding coral reefs ... his work is scientific, but he developed it and came to the conclusion after having battling the ideas of sustainability and biological problems within architecture.
"The researchers are left to investigate, research, and conceptualize without the need to build anything."
Nice to know. --- So it is allowed ???
its funny that we want to be experts on every thing except how to put a building together. and even this is becoming increasingly difficult. that is why we depend on manufacturer reps and consultants. it's impossible not to these days. buildings are complicated animals and to know all is impossible.
Right --- tell you about one thing that is more complicated -- a boat , a ship if you can't bear to hear the word , --- so with something just as "complicated" how come there are plenty skilled profesionals and craftsmen who can grasp that ???
Bside a house is not a complicated thing ; architects for miliniums seen it as a roof and some walls , the outher thing that make it's borders , and I guess there are so little guts in academics that this is the way a building will be pecived yet another millinium.
slantsix, now, i'm not sure what you're really asking. of course there are consultants whether they be on historical preservation, urban design, etc. from your question, though, i think you're envisioning that there's some think tank out there that's going to be at the beck-and-call of architects to answer architecture-related questions or do architecture-related research, like AMO was to OMA. i highly doubt that such a office exists unless it was created by an architect.
that being said, corporate consulting firms like mckinsey are doing the type of work you seem to be interested in. sadly architects can't seem to afford their services.
vado, what I'm saying is that we SHOULD be experts at putting a building together. I think we've given over our responsibility in this area mistakenly.
i dont know if it is possible to be an expert at putting a building together. especially not every building type. we should know the basics. we should know more than an intern, or a common person. but there are too many specializations to become experts at everything. once you see a weakness in a building type or construction method, etc, it is your responsibility to research it. but sometimes that research has great potentials far beyond your abilities- and then you become a research expert as well as an architect. it's not for everyone. neither is a phd, or for some even an architectural license. but i dont think it should be as a "consultant". architects can be scientists, researchers, etc. and few become researchers- which is a highly valuable asset to our profession.
not all doctors are researchers. there are a few who actively participate in the advancement of medicine. and then there is the ER doc. the same analogy can be applied to architecture.
Emagine today a carpenter, a timberer , a bricklayer wanting to become an architect --- what a laugh !!!
Emagine today someone with the skills and knowleage about how a house is build want to become an architect --- what a laugh !!!
------- Esp. today where if you want to climb one step more at the academic ladder , you use the copy and paste button. Serious work.
So much here to absorb and investigate. Thanks everybody. I'm glad we can have a civil discussion on here once in a while.
I don't know that we can be experts at "putting together a building" in the way most people think - that is, know how every single nut and bolt works on all different types of structures. I do, however, believe that we should be ABLE to pull resources together that will not only get the job done, but do it right.
No, we maybe we can't afford to do our own research or pay for original research performed by somebody else. But what we MAY be able to do is work with teams - funded by the public and private sectors - who dedicate their time to exploring up-and-coming fields and issues (user experience, technology/human-machine interfaces, biomimicry...).
We don't have time to investigate any of these issues in-depth, but if others take the lead and we absorb some of their work, I see potential benefits.
"I see potential benefits"
Then we can think about things that must cevelob in real action ?
Architecture at worse dictating the color of the curtain and that nothing must look nice, --- Logistic all of it no room for beauty self learning units , but who speak ; not the positive projections. Not even the theorists who acturly tried doing that to a building, what theorie without caurse expected ; highrise with seasickness a the wind pover shal crank the pieza crystal dynamos.
All up the history it's been a one man show Basta.
I see the potential benefits
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.