I was really wondering which university I should choose.
UToronto is a great university but after 4 yeas undergrade I could only get a bachelor of arts in Architecture, but the courses are very interesting including something about Humanities which I think is important in the further development.
Architecture in McGill is a part of engineering, bachelor of science in architecture after 4 years study but I can get M.Arch in 5.5 years.
And Montreal is a good city I think.
You can maybe get a M.Arch at McGill in 5.5 years, but it's only 6 years at UofT, so don't let that be a deciding factor.
Your undergrad architectural degree is much less important than you'd think. You won't come out with an advantage at either place, because no M.Arch program will care whether your degree is in the arts or sciences. They'll look at your portfolio.
Also, keep in mind that it's not automatically assumed that you'll get into the M.Arch program at the same school as your undergrad. In many cases, you won't get accepted because typically architecture departments want you to study under a variety of profs and in a variety of settings.
Ultimately, you'll gain more connections if you go to UofT, but I'd rather live in Montreal.
Both are great downtown urban campuses in the hearts of two great cities.
I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think McGill M.Arch. only accepts students directly from their bachelor of science in architecture program. So this means that if you did the architecture B.A. at U of T, you can't apply to McGill M.Arch. I could be wrong, but I believe this was the way it worked years ago when I was applying to architecture school...
On the other hand, if you do go to McGill, you could always finish your B. Sc. and then apply to U of T and other M.Arch. programs for professional school, if you want to change things up.
U of T has some really great profs, including alot of great adjunct professors from good firms in the city. Don't know much about McGill profs, but it's an english speaking university in a french canadian city... There are two other very good architecture schools that are french speaking, I wonder how McGill's relationship is with the top local architecture firms and french speaking architects? Something to look into...
Another thing to consider is: what other faculties does the school have ties to... This might impact what electives and other kinds of exposure you might get there... McGill's architecture school is part of the school of engineering whereas U of T's architecture school is part of a faculty including landscape architecture and urban design...
I don't know too much about McGill, but having gone to U of T for undergrad, not for archischool, I will say that the downtown St. George campus has lots of opportunities to try other things... There are alot of diverse course options, electives, etc... You can do double majors, there's a great business school, arts and sciences programs, film studies, etc. The undergraduate experience at U of T, at least from my experience, has alot of freedom to make your own education... I graduated with an undergraduate business degree, but along the way I took alot of different kinds of courses... history, english, sciences, economics, architecture, geology, philosophy... If you live on the campus, you're at the heart of alot of downtown life in one of the most diverse cities in north america... You can walk to chinatown, museums, all kinds of restaurants, shopping, bars and nightclubs... U of T also has, I think either the 2nd or 3rd largest university library system in North America... U of T is also divided into colleges, similar to the british univerities... The colleges don't determine what courses you can take, but each college has its own residences and special programs, as well as events... The college I was in had a program in International Relations... Personally, I was pretty happy with my undergrad at U of T... Another thing you might want to consider is the flexibility of the program, because, for example, what if you study for 3 years and then find out you don't like architecture, and are more interetested in business or law? Also, even if you aim to do an M.Arch, it's sometimes good to do a degree in another field... You can apply to most M.Arch. programs in the States and Canada from any 4 year undergraduate degree. IMHO, I think it's a good idea to take advantage of your undegraduate years to try something different, learn something else and gain other perspectives that you can bring into a degree in architecture later... Also, having a degree different field in undergrad might give you a little bit of flexibility when you graduate and need to start a career... You'd have two different fields of study under your belt rather than just one... One of the nice things about U of T is, you don't even have to do the B.A. Architecture to be able to take the architecture seminar courses as electives...
Waterloo has a good undergrad program. It's in a small town but many students take advantage of the co-op program to work in larger cities. New York and London are perennial favourites. You gain two years of work experience at architecture firms, which is extremely beneficial to your education. Each class also spends four months studying in Rome at the beginning of fourth year.
"Also, even if you aim to do an M.Arch, it's sometimes good to do a degree in another field... You can apply to most M.Arch. programs in the States and Canada from any 4 year undergraduate degree."
This might have been true in the past, but this is not the case anymore in Canada. To gain direct entry into a 2-year M.Arch program, an undergrad architecture degree is essentially mandatory. You can apply all you want to any school, but you won't get in. Your 'architecture' undergrad degree can be from the faculty of arts, sciences, design, etc.... but it must be architecture-related.
If, however, you apply to schools in the US, this is not the case. Getting reciprocity might be a bit of a hassle, though, from what I've heard.
As mentioned, I have an undergrad degree in DESIGN and I couldn't even get into a 2-year M.Arch program in Canada. One of my studio mates (who's since dropped out) couldn't get into a 2-year M.Arch program in Canada, even though he already has a Master's in theatrical stage design.
If you decide to do an undergrad in a different area (which isn't at all a bad thing, I think it's a great advantage), be prepared to enter a pre-master's period of study (usually 1.5 to 2 years) before you'll be able to apply to a 2-year Master's.
"The Architecture Pre-Master Program is a two-year preparation program for students with a previous undergraduate degree but with little or no formal design education. ...... A minimum of four years is required to complete both the Architecture Pre-Master (two years) and Master of Architecture (two years) Programs...... In any given year individuals are admitted to the program with a wide range of backgrounds such as Zoology, Geography, Biology, Commerce, Physical Education, English, Engineering, Psychology, Philosophy, History of Art, Theatre, Music, Photography, Industrial Design, Interior Design, Fashion, Sculpture, Painting, Graphic Design, or Urban Studies."
The UCalgary M.Arch is a four-year program if you take their 2-year architectural studies pre-professional stream. Their site is baffling to me, in that I can't figure out how long it will take to do anything if you don't have an architecture undergrad degree.
"Students entering the program with an undergraduate degree normally take a minimum of three and one half years to complete the requirements. However, students holding a pre-professional architectural degree [Bachelor of Environmental Design or Bachelor of Arts with a major in Architecture, for example] will typically be given advanced standing at the discretion of the School's Admissions Committee."
"Applicants whose background includes a university degree in a non-related area are required to apply to the B.Sc. (Arch.) program. Admittance will most likely be to the first year, with the possibility of some advanced credits for courses which are similar to those in the B.Sc. (Arch.) program."
"Students who have not yet studied architecture should apply to the BEDS program. Most transfer students who have completed a four-year pre-professional architecture degree (BAS, BED, BES, BSc[Arch], BArchSci, etc.) at another university will need to complete one or more senior undergraduate courses at Dalhousie in the winter term to be eligible for admission to the MArch program."....." BEDS is a senior undergraduate program that is preceded by at least two years of university studies in other subjects. It consists of two years of required architectural courses in design, representation, humanities, technology, and professional practice, plus a four-month co-op workterm. It concludes at the end of the winter term, in April. BEDS graduates then may be admitted to the MArch program."
"Admission to our M.Arch. program requires that you have completed at least a four-year honours undergraduate program in pre-professional Architecture or equivalent. "
"Applicants who do not possess an equivalent B.A.S. degree (see below) may be admitted to a qualifying-year program.... Completion of the Qualifying Year is not a guarantee of admission to the M.Arch.Professional or Post-Professional Program. Re-application to the M. Arch. program is required."
"The Master of Architecture is a three-and-one-half-year first professional degree program intended for
individuals who have completed a four-year bachelor’s degree"
(ie you can do it, but it'll still take 3.5 years)
So, to clear things up - Canadian architecture school is NOT American architecture school! It will take anywhere from 6 to 8 years of school to get a M.Arch in Canada.
Slantsix, thanks for the clarification. Yeah, it's true that there are quite a number of Canadian schools that require that you enter into an architecture undergraduate program in order to follow into their professional M.Arch program... Waterloo, McGill, Dalhousie are among those, and most schools that do accept students from other backgrounds into their professional M.Arch will give "advanced standing" to students with a prior architecture undergraduate degree.
The "advanced standing" typically means simply that you save a year to a year and a half to get the same professional degree that you would graduate with in 3.5 years.
So, yes, the quickest way to graduate with a professional degree is still to do an undergraduate degree in architecture (or related degree such as environmental design, etc,). However, my personal view is that there are benefits to having a different undergraduate degree and to take the extra time to enter a 3.5 year M.Arch. The 3.5 year M.Arch offered by the University of Toronto, UBC, Calgary, Manitoba, are similar to the M.Arch course of study at American universities. I did a Bachelor of Commerce at U of T, and applied to architecture school at U of T, UBC, Calgary and Dalhousie (which is a 2 year bachelors followed by a 2 year M.Arch, which is essentially the same length of time as a 3.5 year M.Arch when you consider the co-op work terms)... I had taken some elective architecture seminars, but nothing that qualified me for advanced standing, and I was accepted at those four schools of architecture... I ended up going to UBC for my M.Arch... In our year at UBC, we had people from all different backgrounds. There were students who had previous architecture experience from Ryerson and Carleton, as well as a couple American transfer students from the university of washington, and the university of oregon... And a few with foreign architecture degrees... They all received advanced standing so they could graduate a bit earlier... We also had a few engineering grads who typically would receive credit for the structures classes. But we also had a greater half of the students with no prior experience in architecture, from backgrounds such as art history, fine arts, music, one student who switched from a PhD in chemistry, physics, a guy who did film at Ryerson... Landscape architecture... One guy who had architecture, but had done pyschology in a previous degree...
So these 3.5 year M.Archs, like the American schools (which also require the same 4 year degree before you can apply), typically accept students from diverse backgrounds. In fact, I think the schools are very much interested in that diversity in building their student body and choosing students... It is one of the things that makes studio work interesting, the different perspectives that people bring to the table.
My personal view is that architecture is a lengthy profession, and the learning doesn't stop with school, and it's a creative profession where you never stop learning. An extra year and a half of school, if it allows you to explore other diverse fields as well, and if it gives you some flexibility, and gives you the later option of applying to most american schools or a number of very good canadian schools, is not a bad option, depending on what your goals are... The 4 year bachelors + 3.5 year M.Arch takes a long time, but I'm not sure that I would be in too great a rush to graduate from the start, since there's alot to learn, and there are alot of diverse kinds of knowledge that are involved in architectural practice later, architecture is a lenghty career path that takes a long time to develop out of school anyway...
This is just my 2 cents, and it's largely based on my own personal experience...
Oh, I absolutely agree 1000%. My undergrad isn't in architecture, either. I didn't want to give the impression that the quickest way is the best way. Not by a long shot.
I'm in my first year (of 4) at UManitoba. All of us first-years are in the same studio - next year we get to choose our studios for ourselves. My current studio consists of grads with degrees in English, fine arts, microbiology, engineering, industrial design (that's me), philosophy, human ecology, and one person with previous architecture experience who got advanced standing into second year (as transfer from Carleton). A diverse group of people who bring a lot of talent to the mix, for sure. These different backgrounds are seen as assets by the school. I've done body piercing for 8 years so some of my admissions portfolio featured photos of piercings I've done, and I was accepted. The majority of the undergrads in our school go away for M.Arch because the school doesn't seem too interested in having students with such a narrow range of experience.
So yes, I agree with you that slow and steady wins the race. I posted the information so that people would see, with their own eyes, that the Canadian M.Arch system is not the American syste, and that there may be some hurdles along the way if one applies for M.Arch without an architectural background. I wish some of this information had been a little clearer when I was applying to school - so thanks for clearing things up, as well.
one other thing to consider, if you haven't started yet, is that to get your education reciprocicatified in UK and europe you will need to have 5 years archi education...just in case you think you might want to live outside NA at some point in the future.
other than that i think undergrad in something else is quite ok.
Thanks for all replys and I have considered a lot for my study in architecture. I think the courses in UofT are flexible and interesting, however, it isn't suitable for me to get a master degree for 7-8 years because the living expenses and the tuition for an international student are too high to afford(approximately $300,000) considering I could only find an internship in my master period.
I think after I have finished 5.5 years study in McGill I can apply for a M.Arch II or MLA program in America and get a further development there. It may be much better for me compared with just staying in Canada.
Another question, which minor is good for an architect to take? I mean that the arts, humanity , math or something about environment such as environment engineer.
if you want to get a licence in nort america is useful to be aware that work experience you can count towards idp is limited. you don't really get to go to town til after you have your pro degree.
if you are taking undergrad in architecture school there is no minor to take. the system in my uni (u of manitoba) at least was that way. we took about 10 more credits than folks in other faculties and they were all archi-related. outside elective courses were quite limited...maybe dif at your 2 choices, but somehow think if you are doing archi-school the electives will be distraction more than anything...
slantsix,
I'm considering an MArch at UMan, how is the program? By that I mean, what sort of direction does it take and what sort of students are there? Also I've heard good things about the Arch Testing Building they have, have you had any time to play around in there?
Finally as a complete sidebar, how's the fixer upper market there? I plan on working on a fixer or two and flipping it whilst studying to help pay for some of the fees.
I'm loving it. The curriculum is well balanced between technical courses (building envelopes, materials and processes) and studio. The two sides even come together because an engineering consultant is required for studio work in M.Arch.
As I probably mentioned, I'm in a pre-master program, which means that none of my studio mates have any architecture experience. This 2-year program gives us the equivalent experience of an undergrad education, and in fact, as of next year, people who go through this pre-master program will be getting a Bachelor of Environmental Design. Too bad I missed out on that one! My studio mates come from various backgrounds - fine art, English, engineering, microbiology, philosophy, etc.
The head of our department brings some clout and is making some serious changes. The school used to be all about modernism and training modernist architects, but those days are long gone. Unfortunately I can't really compare the school to anywhere else because this is the only architecture school I've attended. I'm having the time of my life - and I've only pulled one all-nighter so far this year.
What I really like is how the studios are run. At the beginning of the year, students listen to a day of 'recruiting' speeches by profs. You choose whom you'd like to study under for the year, and then you interview (with porftolio) for a position in their studio. So you end up with a wide mix of students, from M.Arch II all the way down to third-year undergrad. Newer students learn from the older ones. I've made some great relationships this year, friendships that I'll probably have for the rest of my life. When you spend 12+ hours a day with six or seven other people, you learn to love them or hate them pretty quickly!
As for the CAST building, I haven't had any time to check it out too much, as I'm a first year student and it's fairly restricted in terms of who gets to work their - it's separate from the studio program. They've done some neat stuff there this year, like pour a fabric-formed Y-shape column, tested different beams, and done a rammed-earth experiment. It's a unique place, that's for sure.
And lastly, for housing - I'm not sure where you're coming from, but housing is probably less expensive here. But prices are going up very quickly! We (my gf and I) looked into buying but to get a mortgage you've gotta jump through some hoops which aren't really possible for us right now - things like having a full-time job for a certain amount of time, etc. The thing about the cheap areas is that they're cheap for a reason. The north end of this city is essentially gangland and though I've driven through there one time, I couldn't live there. But obviously some people do, and not everybody gets shot. Check MLS.ca to see what you can find.
slantsix,
Thanks for the update,
I'm actually coming from an engineering background, so I'd end up in the same program. The heavier emphasis on tech is what drew me to the program, that and the CAST (forgot its name this morning) building. I'm also looking at Dalhousie, b/c they seem to have alot more emphasis on work experience and prof practice than other schools.
It's good to see that there is a mix of backgrounds in the program, what I also wanted to know is what is the character of the student body, ie. are they the sorts of people whom only want to design and work in an office, or are they the sort that like to get their hands dirty and experiment, or do they want to get into business for themselves (I'm in the latter two)? I know that the mix will differ year to year but what sort of attitude does the school try to foster in its students, as your first impression?
I'm coming from the Toronto area, looking to buy into downtown Winnipeg, probably into one of those old brick buildings with nothing in it, if they're still around that is. I actually saw a great three storey century brick building on MLS not too long ago, it used to be a store with living space above but now it's completely gutted. I was thinking of transforming the first floor to studio/retail space, renting out the second floor and living in the top floor. However I seriously doubt that the building will be there in a couple of years.
Anyway I'm off topic, money won't be too much of a problem for me and the wife, I'll have worked for about 8 years by the time I apply, and I own two properties right now (although I'm levered in debt to my eyeballs). Borrowing money definately does depend heavily on the bank and they can be pretty tough on the whole unemployed student thing, but generally if you can bankroll half the mortgage and can provide enough proof that you will be able to pay off the rest whilst in school you should be ok, also convincing them that you plan on renting out a part of the home helps significantly.
I know the buildings you're talking about - beautiful in the little online pictures, but a nightmare in real life. The buildings on that block are all falling over on eachother because of differential settlement of the foundations. The parts of Winnipeg that aren't clay are just swamp. Also, if you buy a heritage building, the development bylaws here say something ridiculous like you have to be able to prove that you have $2 million to spend on restoration/renovation. If the building sits untouched for 2 or 5 years (I forget which) then the city claims and you're out of luck!
Re: the students.... I'd say that corporatism is generally seen as the enemy of good design around here. There are a few big firms that tend to gobble students up and they don't have great reputations from what I've heard, at least not in the long run. But I suppose that's not unique to this city, it's everywhere.
The school definitely lacks in technology. The computer lab's excellent and the woodshop/model shop is great, but that's about all there is. There's a laser cutter but no milling machines, CNC anything, etc. (Though some of these things do exist in various biosystems and engineering buildings, we generally don't have access). There's a heavy emphasis on doing things with your hands, whether it's building models or drawing. We have CAD classes but they're intros only and it's up to you to get as good as you want with that technology. So long as you know how to work a little Autocad, that's all that employers care about. I wouldn't say that there's a distrust of technology here, it's just that profs tend to see right through it if the content's not there...... and even though I know 3D modelling and Autocad, that suits me just fine. Drawing and rendering by hand is a lot more enjoyable and allows me to work through problems more intuitively than in front of a computer screen.
If you're looking for a technically-focused curriculum, you might want to look at either Dalhousie or McGill, or even Waterloo. All are excellent programs. I'd characterize the Manitoba program as balanced, swaying a little more toward theory and 'weird shit' as it's been called by some famous guests.
yeah id def agree on that end (weird shit). but in good way.
mark west, the guy who started CAST was a student of hedjuk and smart /sharp as heck. he is not one to leave much bullshit laying on the floor if thats all you got, but equally he is not what i'd call a straight traditional guy. that he is into weird shit is fair to say. but in a technical way, and very interesting. but then anyone who would think spandex would be a good material to make concrete formwork is not conventional...
u of m accepts tradition if you want to go with it, but i would say it is not a place that allows students to take anything for granted, nor one that allows people to use dogma as a rationale for design work. it is necessary to think and explain thinking.
that is probably true of any architecture school in canada however...
That's absolutely true. There's very little "getting away with it" when you're not prepared, especially if the department head is your guest crit. He called my drawings "the worst he'd ever seen" during my second architecture crit ever...... and it's not like I can't draw: I have 10 years of serious art and design school behind me. I presented drawings that weren't made for presentation, and he called me on it!
Basically, it's impossible to hide behind anything here, whether you're super-esoteric-theory-guy or a pragmatic engineer or a 3D wiz kid. It doesn't mean shit if your work isn't extremely well thought-out and presented as such.
It's too bad about those buildings, but I'm not about to get involved in foundation remediation, not enuf cash nor enuf patience for that nonsense.
I'm not too interested in being a corporate whore (I'm too selfish for that), I guess what I wanted to know is if the school/profs are willing to educate students about running an archi office or are willing to setup students with internships that emphasise the business side of architecture?
I'm glad to hear that they emphasise doing things by hand, it really does give you a better understanding of the design especially the minor details that you miss if you do it via PC (and it's always the details that screw you up and make you waste countless trips to the hardware store to find the exact part or tool...sorry I'm having a reno flashback).
The doing stuff by yourself part interests me too, I have the attention span of a fly when I'm being taught something, but once I do something myself I can go at it for hours. It's too bad about the lack of tech and CNC, how easy is it to sneak into the eng labs to use their equipment anyway?
I like hearing that they will tear you apart during crits, it's a good way to know what holes to patch up for the next time. Plus shock always works better than sugar in my opinion. When they get a bad crit, some ppl get pissed, some cry, but those that get over it and over their egos generally go back to do a much better job (spite and anger helps me alot in this case too ;-) )
"weird shit"?
I like "weird shit", the concrete formwork stuff is how I found the CAST lab in the first place. I really like mixing weird with traditional and new with old.
I'm still on the fence about arch school in general, it's either that or a business and policy degree, however I'm having a hard time accepting the $50k/yr fee for an MBA b/c I know it's just bullcrap to fleece the students, also I get along with architects better than most business ppl.
There are certain requirements for a professional architecture degree in Canada for professional practice courses. The professional practice courses usually involve at minimum I believe at least one course in the building code, a course in contracts and the operations structure of architecture work, and something more like a small business management course where you build a business plan that sells your mock firm... I think these are probably universal for M.Archs across architecture schools, but I also think the quality of these kinds of courses can vary alot based on professors. It's tough to really tell which schools have the good profs when it comes to courses like this... A good way may be to visit the schools.
That being said, these kinds of courses are just course requirements at most architecture schools... They are what you make of them, and like all courses, structures, building technology, etc., they last only a few semesters and they give you a foundation, but not the kind of in depth specialized knowledge on the subject. For that, I think you will have to take advanced research electives which are usually more like real graduate work, working with a mentor professor on a research paper. It's almost always the students' initiative to focus on a specialized piece of knowledge, and sometimes I think people build relationships with professors in a certain field and follow up the M.Arch with a post professional research masters degree... You may also want to look at what schools offer post-professional masters programs, because these might reflect where the schools' interests lie in advanced research.
As far as professional practice education, I think that is individual initiative as well, you make your own education. Programs like Dalhousie and Waterloo that emphasize internships and work experience will probably help, give some real valuable exposure to real architecture practice... But you can get that at any school... If you are self motivated, and take initiative to make a potfolio and resume and hunt for internship jobs, I'm sure you can find one on your own, whether or not you get help from your school... Also, if you choose a school in a larger city, alot of your profs may be in professional practice, and there will probably be enough local work opportunities...
our pro practice courses were fine...i believe they were typical. which is to say they were easy and mildly retarded.
law courses were useful, the rest were pretty open to gaming cuz lets face it pretending you have an office with 100 people in it and actually having the office is totally diffrent kettle of antelopes.
more than that i think you are looking down too much on architecture as profession to ever enjoy it. you like to mix old an new, which is cool, but how do you feel about making entirely new things. you will, i guarantee you, have to do that through most of your education in archi-school. and you will have to do it with a will. sure you can try an aldo rossi approach, but then you gots to be all that too. cuz just saying the modern shit is rubbish or that i like to do things with my hands will only get you as far as..."oh yeah, and...?"
in grad school i welded i-beams, built furniture, experimented with fabric formwork, and built models of all types. i also did lots of watercolors and 3d renders...its all good stuff, nothing is a priori privileged. whatever works is totally cool for me. i'm even known to have done work on construction sites to get my designs builted...
BUT...even though i am quite happy to do the grunt work when it makes sense the frank fact of the matter is that construction experience teaches you shit all about how to be an architect. sure its useful but not in the end a big deal. what really matters is being willing to try new things as much as being willing to try old things. and then you gotta know why you decide what you are doing.
if in the end the quality of the old just rocks your socks that is entirely cool, but the disdain for everything else approach is not going to be an easy sell.
bRink,
"You make your own education", I completely agree, I'm motivated to study arhcitecture right now, but who knows how I'll be in a few years, which is one reason why I'm waiting.
jump,
I see you've been reading my other posts; I should clarify that I have nothing against 'new' and thinking about 'new', that is actually one of the reasons why I'm looking at arch, b/c it allows me to create 'new'.
The reason I like hands on work and especially construction work is b/c in order to effectively direct a group of people (tradesmen/contractors in this case) you have to understand their work, you have to know what nuances will delay work and you have to know whom is BSing you about the cost and time required to do the work.
Also I think that having an understanding for the work that contractors do will allow you to create or at least understand building solutions to new designs.
As for welding, I used to supervise welders and weld inspectors, and consequently learnt to weld and inspect welds whilst doing this work, partly out of interest for the work and partly b/c I wanted to understand the work these people do, to effectively manage them.
In the end I have to disagree with you; architects whom understand trades and construction are better architects for it.
I am basing this on my engineering experience though, wherein I found that the best engineers and engineering designers were those whom understood the work the skilled tradesmen had to do to create the design or perform the work. Also tradesmen are more inclined to perform better work for you when they know you respect them and the work they do.
the respect goes both ways though, and understanding is not the same as being able to do something. i can weld. very poorly. i get the basics. the point is that architects don't need to know how to weld. they/we really don't.
there is a part of me that likes the idea of being a master craftsman, knowing how to build anything i design. i grew up in farming family so i know how to build. like most farmers i know how to build just well enough to get by. and i can respect the folk who have had the decade or two it takes to become really good at finish carpentry or welding or whatever...but i also think the 18 years i have put into this biz so far have not been misplaced. there is a craft to design, and to the business of architecture that i think you are discounting because it isn't "hands on", whatever that means. there is a business aspect that takes years to learn, technical things to grasp that are deep beyond measure, and all kinds of things that are impossible to even know i should be worried about yet.
architecture education is about learning to deal with the unknown. how to think in the face of it, how to respond intelligently, and how to use the past when necessary. also when to disregard it.
the carpenters i work with are brilliant. they are also terrified of the unknown. the training of a craftsman is based on the known. it needs to be. so if i give my carpenters a detail they are unfamiliar with i often have to spend some time explaining what the point is and how to do it. these are men with 30 years experience, literally gods with wood. they spent 10 years learning how to make complex timber frame joinery and perfect finish carpentry (is why japanese carpenters are well paid). but a non-standard joint baffles them. so we set down and we go through dwgs and test pieces til it works...we get to where we need to go, and i respect them, but it doesn't mean i need to have their skill set in order to get the job done. what i need is an idea, and we will work from there. maybe we all learn something in process.
skepticism is essential to architecture practice, but disdain is not such a nice place to start. i could be wrong but it feels like mostly all you got for architects is disdain. which is cool. architects don't need the world to love them. but it would very likely make your experience at architecture school really frustrating.
Here's my 2 cents, I'm not trying to criticize, just offer what I've learned from my own experiences in architecture school and then how the value translates in the real industry... About architectural education generally, especially the studio aspect of it. I think an essential thing which designers need, apart from knowledge and craftsmanship, is creativity and critical thinking skills. Apart from coursework, at least half of your time as an architecture student is spent in design studios...
Design studio is the place for experimentation, and where essential conceptual, critical, creative, and visual and verbal communication skills that are very important in the real industry are developed. A good trial lawyer, for example, doesn't learn their art by studying from books... Although there are often alot of egos flying around, for the most part, design studios are an ongoing humbling exercise... It's not about where you are, but where you are going, so no need to be defensive, just take things in stride, maintain an open mind and a sense of humor about your work and the whole critique process generally, and always take risks...
While no doubt after graduation, in the work environment, you will have lots of opportunities to grow and experiment in design, the design studio is the only opportunity in which you can really push the boundaries of what is possible... Push your own boundaries, expand your vision, try new things, things that you might not normally do, in order to broaden your range of thinking. In studio, you're allowed to drop the ball, whereas in real word practice, you don't really have that freedom... This means that the expectations of studio work is different. The expectation is that you push your own envelope, you are supposed to play hard with the ball, all the time... follow through with a new idea or experiment, even if the end result is not pretty...
In a studio critique, "played it safe" is not a good thing. You can't get by simply by doing the same things you always do, or working from things you already know how to do... The point is to try something new that makes you grow as a designer, not just to make a pretty building based on your existing knowledge base. This is not to say that the avenue you take has to be focused on broad stroke, very conceeptual ideas. I think it's a good idea to try this in a project once in a while to get that under your belt... Because how can you know how to think like that if you have never done it before? but you can also be very conceptually strong, critical, and innovative on a detail level, focus on really assembling something in a new way... Maybe your project is all about the details. The entire idea of the project is driven by a single detail, and a thought process about assembling something, and the whole concept came out of the idea of that detail.
But whatever you do, you have to be able to communicate that intent. That's an essential skill in the real industry. Being able to think of something, conceptualize something, and be clear about what your work is doing... This is I think what makes architecture more of a graduate level program, different from a technical college: the fact that you are required to synthesize new knowledge rather than just learn existing knowledge...
Because in the real industry, this is part of the real value that a designer brings: their creative vision, at different scales and conceptually and physically, that the architect brings and employs at the service of the client... It's one of the things that wins work, and produces good work (the other being maybe execution and craft)... So you are not just valuable as a expert consultant or a production person, you are also valuable because you have a creative mind and a critical eye that takes in new things all the time and synthesizes new things... Studios are meant to be like design boot camp. If you go in thinking you have nothing to learn, nothing new to discover, then, from my experience, you will have a very tough time getting through architecture school...
I think the point of studio education it generally isn't just to make lots of pretty, well made things, it's also to explore new ideas, develop creative and critical thinking skills... Whether this is what architecture school *should* be is debatable... Maybe there isn't enough technical education there?
Also, I think it's important to have good studio professors... A variety of different professors who have different takes on things, who are dedicated teachers, and some of which have accomplished architecture practices. (It can also be nice to take a studio for a change with a professor from a somewhat different background, say urban design, or fine art, or history/theory, or sustainable design)...
Anyway, sorry that was long winded, others may have had different experiences or takes on architecture studio...
jump,
I never meant that an architect should become an expert in a vocational skill, just that they should understand the work involved, the same applies to engineers and those tradesmen that they work with. On that point I think we can both agree.
I mean I can weld (badly) but that experience has helped me understand the interaction between the metals, the pre and post heat requirements and the amount of electrical charge required to make good welds, and even though I doubt I could create a good weld I know when to recognise one. The same applies to carpentry, I can create a table or chair, but it generally looks bad and I use a heck of a lot of fasteners, however I can recognise good wood and a good furniture product.
I don't mean to come off as disdainful of architects, I actually have a healthy respect for them. However the levels of respect vary, in my opinion every architect and engineer needs some experience in the field to broaden their horizons but many are content to just sit in a cube, my respect for the former is greater than that for the latter, simply because the former have a borader experience of their work.
Anyway I admit I have certain prejudices regarding architecture, but I am the sort of person whom is always open to new ideas. I generally never follow these new ideas rigidly but I mix and match them with my own experiences to hopefully create a better hybird (or least one that's better for me).
bRink,
If I recieve the sort of education you mentioned from an MArch. It will be cash well spent.
Apr 17, 08 9:18 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
UToronto or McGill Undergrade?
I was really wondering which university I should choose.
UToronto is a great university but after 4 yeas undergrade I could only get a bachelor of arts in Architecture, but the courses are very interesting including something about Humanities which I think is important in the further development.
Architecture in McGill is a part of engineering, bachelor of science in architecture after 4 years study but I can get M.Arch in 5.5 years.
And Montreal is a good city I think.
Give me some advises. Thx.^^
You can maybe get a M.Arch at McGill in 5.5 years, but it's only 6 years at UofT, so don't let that be a deciding factor.
Your undergrad architectural degree is much less important than you'd think. You won't come out with an advantage at either place, because no M.Arch program will care whether your degree is in the arts or sciences. They'll look at your portfolio.
Also, keep in mind that it's not automatically assumed that you'll get into the M.Arch program at the same school as your undergrad. In many cases, you won't get accepted because typically architecture departments want you to study under a variety of profs and in a variety of settings.
Ultimately, you'll gain more connections if you go to UofT, but I'd rather live in Montreal.
Carleton.
Both are great downtown urban campuses in the hearts of two great cities.
I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think McGill M.Arch. only accepts students directly from their bachelor of science in architecture program. So this means that if you did the architecture B.A. at U of T, you can't apply to McGill M.Arch. I could be wrong, but I believe this was the way it worked years ago when I was applying to architecture school...
On the other hand, if you do go to McGill, you could always finish your B. Sc. and then apply to U of T and other M.Arch. programs for professional school, if you want to change things up.
U of T has some really great profs, including alot of great adjunct professors from good firms in the city. Don't know much about McGill profs, but it's an english speaking university in a french canadian city... There are two other very good architecture schools that are french speaking, I wonder how McGill's relationship is with the top local architecture firms and french speaking architects? Something to look into...
Another thing to consider is: what other faculties does the school have ties to... This might impact what electives and other kinds of exposure you might get there... McGill's architecture school is part of the school of engineering whereas U of T's architecture school is part of a faculty including landscape architecture and urban design...
I don't know too much about McGill, but having gone to U of T for undergrad, not for archischool, I will say that the downtown St. George campus has lots of opportunities to try other things... There are alot of diverse course options, electives, etc... You can do double majors, there's a great business school, arts and sciences programs, film studies, etc. The undergraduate experience at U of T, at least from my experience, has alot of freedom to make your own education... I graduated with an undergraduate business degree, but along the way I took alot of different kinds of courses... history, english, sciences, economics, architecture, geology, philosophy... If you live on the campus, you're at the heart of alot of downtown life in one of the most diverse cities in north america... You can walk to chinatown, museums, all kinds of restaurants, shopping, bars and nightclubs... U of T also has, I think either the 2nd or 3rd largest university library system in North America... U of T is also divided into colleges, similar to the british univerities... The colleges don't determine what courses you can take, but each college has its own residences and special programs, as well as events... The college I was in had a program in International Relations... Personally, I was pretty happy with my undergrad at U of T... Another thing you might want to consider is the flexibility of the program, because, for example, what if you study for 3 years and then find out you don't like architecture, and are more interetested in business or law? Also, even if you aim to do an M.Arch, it's sometimes good to do a degree in another field... You can apply to most M.Arch. programs in the States and Canada from any 4 year undergraduate degree. IMHO, I think it's a good idea to take advantage of your undegraduate years to try something different, learn something else and gain other perspectives that you can bring into a degree in architecture later... Also, having a degree different field in undergrad might give you a little bit of flexibility when you graduate and need to start a career... You'd have two different fields of study under your belt rather than just one... One of the nice things about U of T is, you don't even have to do the B.A. Architecture to be able to take the architecture seminar courses as electives...
Waterloo has a good undergrad program. It's in a small town but many students take advantage of the co-op program to work in larger cities. New York and London are perennial favourites. You gain two years of work experience at architecture firms, which is extremely beneficial to your education. Each class also spends four months studying in Rome at the beginning of fourth year.
"Also, even if you aim to do an M.Arch, it's sometimes good to do a degree in another field... You can apply to most M.Arch. programs in the States and Canada from any 4 year undergraduate degree."
This might have been true in the past, but this is not the case anymore in Canada. To gain direct entry into a 2-year M.Arch program, an undergrad architecture degree is essentially mandatory. You can apply all you want to any school, but you won't get in. Your 'architecture' undergrad degree can be from the faculty of arts, sciences, design, etc.... but it must be architecture-related.
If, however, you apply to schools in the US, this is not the case. Getting reciprocity might be a bit of a hassle, though, from what I've heard.
As mentioned, I have an undergrad degree in DESIGN and I couldn't even get into a 2-year M.Arch program in Canada. One of my studio mates (who's since dropped out) couldn't get into a 2-year M.Arch program in Canada, even though he already has a Master's in theatrical stage design.
If you decide to do an undergrad in a different area (which isn't at all a bad thing, I think it's a great advantage), be prepared to enter a pre-master's period of study (usually 1.5 to 2 years) before you'll be able to apply to a 2-year Master's.
Canadian M.Arch application information for those who don't hold an architecture-related undergraduate degree
UManitoba:
http://umanitoba.ca/faculties/architecture/media/ARCH_Pre-Masters_ProgramInfo.pdf
"The Architecture Pre-Master Program is a two-year preparation program for students with a previous undergraduate degree but with little or no formal design education. ...... A minimum of four years is required to complete both the Architecture Pre-Master (two years) and Master of Architecture (two years) Programs...... In any given year individuals are admitted to the program with a wide range of backgrounds such as Zoology, Geography, Biology, Commerce, Physical Education, English, Engineering, Psychology, Philosophy, History of Art, Theatre, Music, Photography, Industrial Design, Interior Design, Fashion, Sculpture, Painting, Graphic Design, or Urban Studies."
The UCalgary M.Arch is a four-year program if you take their 2-year architectural studies pre-professional stream. Their site is baffling to me, in that I can't figure out how long it will take to do anything if you don't have an architecture undergrad degree.
UBC: http://www.sala.ubc.ca/programs/admission-procedures/march-admissions
"Students entering the program with an undergraduate degree normally take a minimum of three and one half years to complete the requirements. However, students holding a pre-professional architectural degree [Bachelor of Environmental Design or Bachelor of Arts with a major in Architecture, for example] will typically be given advanced standing at the discretion of the School's Admissions Committee."
McGill
http://www.mcgill.ca/architecture/programs/professional/
"Applicants whose background includes a university degree in a non-related area are required to apply to the B.Sc. (Arch.) program. Admittance will most likely be to the first year, with the possibility of some advanced credits for courses which are similar to those in the B.Sc. (Arch.) program."
Dalhousie
http://architectureandplanning.dal.ca/architecture/prospective/graduate_programs.shtml
"Students who have not yet studied architecture should apply to the BEDS program. Most transfer students who have completed a four-year pre-professional architecture degree (BAS, BED, BES, BSc[Arch], BArchSci, etc.) at another university will need to complete one or more senior undergraduate courses at Dalhousie in the winter term to be eligible for admission to the MArch program."....." BEDS is a senior undergraduate program that is preceded by at least two years of university studies in other subjects. It consists of two years of required architectural courses in design, representation, humanities, technology, and professional practice, plus a four-month co-op workterm. It concludes at the end of the winter term, in April. BEDS graduates then may be admitted to the MArch program."
Waterloo:
http://www.architecture.uwaterloo.ca/nonuwapplicants.php
"Admission to our M.Arch. program requires that you have completed at least a four-year honours undergraduate program in pre-professional Architecture or equivalent. "
Carleton:
http://www.arch.carleton.ca/CSOAmain.html
"Applicants who do not possess an equivalent B.A.S. degree (see below) may be admitted to a qualifying-year program.... Completion of the Qualifying Year is not a guarantee of admission to the M.Arch.Professional or Post-Professional Program. Re-application to the M. Arch. program is required."
UToronto:
http://www.ald.utoronto.ca/files/applying_to_ald_MArch_2008.pdf
"The Master of Architecture is a three-and-one-half-year first professional degree program intended for
individuals who have completed a four-year bachelor’s degree"
(ie you can do it, but it'll still take 3.5 years)
So, to clear things up - Canadian architecture school is NOT American architecture school! It will take anywhere from 6 to 8 years of school to get a M.Arch in Canada.
Slantsix, thanks for the clarification. Yeah, it's true that there are quite a number of Canadian schools that require that you enter into an architecture undergraduate program in order to follow into their professional M.Arch program... Waterloo, McGill, Dalhousie are among those, and most schools that do accept students from other backgrounds into their professional M.Arch will give "advanced standing" to students with a prior architecture undergraduate degree.
The "advanced standing" typically means simply that you save a year to a year and a half to get the same professional degree that you would graduate with in 3.5 years.
So, yes, the quickest way to graduate with a professional degree is still to do an undergraduate degree in architecture (or related degree such as environmental design, etc,). However, my personal view is that there are benefits to having a different undergraduate degree and to take the extra time to enter a 3.5 year M.Arch. The 3.5 year M.Arch offered by the University of Toronto, UBC, Calgary, Manitoba, are similar to the M.Arch course of study at American universities. I did a Bachelor of Commerce at U of T, and applied to architecture school at U of T, UBC, Calgary and Dalhousie (which is a 2 year bachelors followed by a 2 year M.Arch, which is essentially the same length of time as a 3.5 year M.Arch when you consider the co-op work terms)... I had taken some elective architecture seminars, but nothing that qualified me for advanced standing, and I was accepted at those four schools of architecture... I ended up going to UBC for my M.Arch... In our year at UBC, we had people from all different backgrounds. There were students who had previous architecture experience from Ryerson and Carleton, as well as a couple American transfer students from the university of washington, and the university of oregon... And a few with foreign architecture degrees... They all received advanced standing so they could graduate a bit earlier... We also had a few engineering grads who typically would receive credit for the structures classes. But we also had a greater half of the students with no prior experience in architecture, from backgrounds such as art history, fine arts, music, one student who switched from a PhD in chemistry, physics, a guy who did film at Ryerson... Landscape architecture... One guy who had architecture, but had done pyschology in a previous degree...
So these 3.5 year M.Archs, like the American schools (which also require the same 4 year degree before you can apply), typically accept students from diverse backgrounds. In fact, I think the schools are very much interested in that diversity in building their student body and choosing students... It is one of the things that makes studio work interesting, the different perspectives that people bring to the table.
My personal view is that architecture is a lengthy profession, and the learning doesn't stop with school, and it's a creative profession where you never stop learning. An extra year and a half of school, if it allows you to explore other diverse fields as well, and if it gives you some flexibility, and gives you the later option of applying to most american schools or a number of very good canadian schools, is not a bad option, depending on what your goals are... The 4 year bachelors + 3.5 year M.Arch takes a long time, but I'm not sure that I would be in too great a rush to graduate from the start, since there's alot to learn, and there are alot of diverse kinds of knowledge that are involved in architectural practice later, architecture is a lenghty career path that takes a long time to develop out of school anyway...
This is just my 2 cents, and it's largely based on my own personal experience...
Oh, I absolutely agree 1000%. My undergrad isn't in architecture, either. I didn't want to give the impression that the quickest way is the best way. Not by a long shot.
I'm in my first year (of 4) at UManitoba. All of us first-years are in the same studio - next year we get to choose our studios for ourselves. My current studio consists of grads with degrees in English, fine arts, microbiology, engineering, industrial design (that's me), philosophy, human ecology, and one person with previous architecture experience who got advanced standing into second year (as transfer from Carleton). A diverse group of people who bring a lot of talent to the mix, for sure. These different backgrounds are seen as assets by the school. I've done body piercing for 8 years so some of my admissions portfolio featured photos of piercings I've done, and I was accepted. The majority of the undergrads in our school go away for M.Arch because the school doesn't seem too interested in having students with such a narrow range of experience.
So yes, I agree with you that slow and steady wins the race. I posted the information so that people would see, with their own eyes, that the Canadian M.Arch system is not the American syste, and that there may be some hurdles along the way if one applies for M.Arch without an architectural background. I wish some of this information had been a little clearer when I was applying to school - so thanks for clearing things up, as well.
one other thing to consider, if you haven't started yet, is that to get your education reciprocicatified in UK and europe you will need to have 5 years archi education...just in case you think you might want to live outside NA at some point in the future.
other than that i think undergrad in something else is quite ok.
Thanks for all replys and I have considered a lot for my study in architecture. I think the courses in UofT are flexible and interesting, however, it isn't suitable for me to get a master degree for 7-8 years because the living expenses and the tuition for an international student are too high to afford(approximately $300,000) considering I could only find an internship in my master period.
I think after I have finished 5.5 years study in McGill I can apply for a M.Arch II or MLA program in America and get a further development there. It may be much better for me compared with just staying in Canada.
Another question, which minor is good for an architect to take? I mean that the arts, humanity , math or something about environment such as environment engineer.
if you want to get a licence in nort america is useful to be aware that work experience you can count towards idp is limited. you don't really get to go to town til after you have your pro degree.
if you are taking undergrad in architecture school there is no minor to take. the system in my uni (u of manitoba) at least was that way. we took about 10 more credits than folks in other faculties and they were all archi-related. outside elective courses were quite limited...maybe dif at your 2 choices, but somehow think if you are doing archi-school the electives will be distraction more than anything...
slantsix,
I'm considering an MArch at UMan, how is the program? By that I mean, what sort of direction does it take and what sort of students are there? Also I've heard good things about the Arch Testing Building they have, have you had any time to play around in there?
Finally as a complete sidebar, how's the fixer upper market there? I plan on working on a fixer or two and flipping it whilst studying to help pay for some of the fees.
I'm loving it. The curriculum is well balanced between technical courses (building envelopes, materials and processes) and studio. The two sides even come together because an engineering consultant is required for studio work in M.Arch.
As I probably mentioned, I'm in a pre-master program, which means that none of my studio mates have any architecture experience. This 2-year program gives us the equivalent experience of an undergrad education, and in fact, as of next year, people who go through this pre-master program will be getting a Bachelor of Environmental Design. Too bad I missed out on that one! My studio mates come from various backgrounds - fine art, English, engineering, microbiology, philosophy, etc.
The head of our department brings some clout and is making some serious changes. The school used to be all about modernism and training modernist architects, but those days are long gone. Unfortunately I can't really compare the school to anywhere else because this is the only architecture school I've attended. I'm having the time of my life - and I've only pulled one all-nighter so far this year.
What I really like is how the studios are run. At the beginning of the year, students listen to a day of 'recruiting' speeches by profs. You choose whom you'd like to study under for the year, and then you interview (with porftolio) for a position in their studio. So you end up with a wide mix of students, from M.Arch II all the way down to third-year undergrad. Newer students learn from the older ones. I've made some great relationships this year, friendships that I'll probably have for the rest of my life. When you spend 12+ hours a day with six or seven other people, you learn to love them or hate them pretty quickly!
As for the CAST building, I haven't had any time to check it out too much, as I'm a first year student and it's fairly restricted in terms of who gets to work their - it's separate from the studio program. They've done some neat stuff there this year, like pour a fabric-formed Y-shape column, tested different beams, and done a rammed-earth experiment. It's a unique place, that's for sure.
And lastly, for housing - I'm not sure where you're coming from, but housing is probably less expensive here. But prices are going up very quickly! We (my gf and I) looked into buying but to get a mortgage you've gotta jump through some hoops which aren't really possible for us right now - things like having a full-time job for a certain amount of time, etc. The thing about the cheap areas is that they're cheap for a reason. The north end of this city is essentially gangland and though I've driven through there one time, I couldn't live there. But obviously some people do, and not everybody gets shot. Check MLS.ca to see what you can find.
slantsix,
Thanks for the update,
I'm actually coming from an engineering background, so I'd end up in the same program. The heavier emphasis on tech is what drew me to the program, that and the CAST (forgot its name this morning) building. I'm also looking at Dalhousie, b/c they seem to have alot more emphasis on work experience and prof practice than other schools.
It's good to see that there is a mix of backgrounds in the program, what I also wanted to know is what is the character of the student body, ie. are they the sorts of people whom only want to design and work in an office, or are they the sort that like to get their hands dirty and experiment, or do they want to get into business for themselves (I'm in the latter two)? I know that the mix will differ year to year but what sort of attitude does the school try to foster in its students, as your first impression?
I'm coming from the Toronto area, looking to buy into downtown Winnipeg, probably into one of those old brick buildings with nothing in it, if they're still around that is. I actually saw a great three storey century brick building on MLS not too long ago, it used to be a store with living space above but now it's completely gutted. I was thinking of transforming the first floor to studio/retail space, renting out the second floor and living in the top floor. However I seriously doubt that the building will be there in a couple of years.
Anyway I'm off topic, money won't be too much of a problem for me and the wife, I'll have worked for about 8 years by the time I apply, and I own two properties right now (although I'm levered in debt to my eyeballs). Borrowing money definately does depend heavily on the bank and they can be pretty tough on the whole unemployed student thing, but generally if you can bankroll half the mortgage and can provide enough proof that you will be able to pay off the rest whilst in school you should be ok, also convincing them that you plan on renting out a part of the home helps significantly.
I know the buildings you're talking about - beautiful in the little online pictures, but a nightmare in real life. The buildings on that block are all falling over on eachother because of differential settlement of the foundations. The parts of Winnipeg that aren't clay are just swamp. Also, if you buy a heritage building, the development bylaws here say something ridiculous like you have to be able to prove that you have $2 million to spend on restoration/renovation. If the building sits untouched for 2 or 5 years (I forget which) then the city claims and you're out of luck!
Re: the students.... I'd say that corporatism is generally seen as the enemy of good design around here. There are a few big firms that tend to gobble students up and they don't have great reputations from what I've heard, at least not in the long run. But I suppose that's not unique to this city, it's everywhere.
The school definitely lacks in technology. The computer lab's excellent and the woodshop/model shop is great, but that's about all there is. There's a laser cutter but no milling machines, CNC anything, etc. (Though some of these things do exist in various biosystems and engineering buildings, we generally don't have access). There's a heavy emphasis on doing things with your hands, whether it's building models or drawing. We have CAD classes but they're intros only and it's up to you to get as good as you want with that technology. So long as you know how to work a little Autocad, that's all that employers care about. I wouldn't say that there's a distrust of technology here, it's just that profs tend to see right through it if the content's not there...... and even though I know 3D modelling and Autocad, that suits me just fine. Drawing and rendering by hand is a lot more enjoyable and allows me to work through problems more intuitively than in front of a computer screen.
If you're looking for a technically-focused curriculum, you might want to look at either Dalhousie or McGill, or even Waterloo. All are excellent programs. I'd characterize the Manitoba program as balanced, swaying a little more toward theory and 'weird shit' as it's been called by some famous guests.
yeah id def agree on that end (weird shit). but in good way.
mark west, the guy who started CAST was a student of hedjuk and smart /sharp as heck. he is not one to leave much bullshit laying on the floor if thats all you got, but equally he is not what i'd call a straight traditional guy. that he is into weird shit is fair to say. but in a technical way, and very interesting. but then anyone who would think spandex would be a good material to make concrete formwork is not conventional...
u of m accepts tradition if you want to go with it, but i would say it is not a place that allows students to take anything for granted, nor one that allows people to use dogma as a rationale for design work. it is necessary to think and explain thinking.
that is probably true of any architecture school in canada however...
That's absolutely true. There's very little "getting away with it" when you're not prepared, especially if the department head is your guest crit. He called my drawings "the worst he'd ever seen" during my second architecture crit ever...... and it's not like I can't draw: I have 10 years of serious art and design school behind me. I presented drawings that weren't made for presentation, and he called me on it!
Basically, it's impossible to hide behind anything here, whether you're super-esoteric-theory-guy or a pragmatic engineer or a 3D wiz kid. It doesn't mean shit if your work isn't extremely well thought-out and presented as such.
It's too bad about those buildings, but I'm not about to get involved in foundation remediation, not enuf cash nor enuf patience for that nonsense.
I'm not too interested in being a corporate whore (I'm too selfish for that), I guess what I wanted to know is if the school/profs are willing to educate students about running an archi office or are willing to setup students with internships that emphasise the business side of architecture?
I'm glad to hear that they emphasise doing things by hand, it really does give you a better understanding of the design especially the minor details that you miss if you do it via PC (and it's always the details that screw you up and make you waste countless trips to the hardware store to find the exact part or tool...sorry I'm having a reno flashback).
The doing stuff by yourself part interests me too, I have the attention span of a fly when I'm being taught something, but once I do something myself I can go at it for hours. It's too bad about the lack of tech and CNC, how easy is it to sneak into the eng labs to use their equipment anyway?
I like hearing that they will tear you apart during crits, it's a good way to know what holes to patch up for the next time. Plus shock always works better than sugar in my opinion. When they get a bad crit, some ppl get pissed, some cry, but those that get over it and over their egos generally go back to do a much better job (spite and anger helps me alot in this case too ;-) )
"weird shit"?
I like "weird shit", the concrete formwork stuff is how I found the CAST lab in the first place. I really like mixing weird with traditional and new with old.
I'm still on the fence about arch school in general, it's either that or a business and policy degree, however I'm having a hard time accepting the $50k/yr fee for an MBA b/c I know it's just bullcrap to fleece the students, also I get along with architects better than most business ppl.
zigfromsa,
Re: professional practice training
There are certain requirements for a professional architecture degree in Canada for professional practice courses. The professional practice courses usually involve at minimum I believe at least one course in the building code, a course in contracts and the operations structure of architecture work, and something more like a small business management course where you build a business plan that sells your mock firm... I think these are probably universal for M.Archs across architecture schools, but I also think the quality of these kinds of courses can vary alot based on professors. It's tough to really tell which schools have the good profs when it comes to courses like this... A good way may be to visit the schools.
That being said, these kinds of courses are just course requirements at most architecture schools... They are what you make of them, and like all courses, structures, building technology, etc., they last only a few semesters and they give you a foundation, but not the kind of in depth specialized knowledge on the subject. For that, I think you will have to take advanced research electives which are usually more like real graduate work, working with a mentor professor on a research paper. It's almost always the students' initiative to focus on a specialized piece of knowledge, and sometimes I think people build relationships with professors in a certain field and follow up the M.Arch with a post professional research masters degree... You may also want to look at what schools offer post-professional masters programs, because these might reflect where the schools' interests lie in advanced research.
As far as professional practice education, I think that is individual initiative as well, you make your own education. Programs like Dalhousie and Waterloo that emphasize internships and work experience will probably help, give some real valuable exposure to real architecture practice... But you can get that at any school... If you are self motivated, and take initiative to make a potfolio and resume and hunt for internship jobs, I'm sure you can find one on your own, whether or not you get help from your school... Also, if you choose a school in a larger city, alot of your profs may be in professional practice, and there will probably be enough local work opportunities...
our pro practice courses were fine...i believe they were typical. which is to say they were easy and mildly retarded.
law courses were useful, the rest were pretty open to gaming cuz lets face it pretending you have an office with 100 people in it and actually having the office is totally diffrent kettle of antelopes.
more than that i think you are looking down too much on architecture as profession to ever enjoy it. you like to mix old an new, which is cool, but how do you feel about making entirely new things. you will, i guarantee you, have to do that through most of your education in archi-school. and you will have to do it with a will. sure you can try an aldo rossi approach, but then you gots to be all that too. cuz just saying the modern shit is rubbish or that i like to do things with my hands will only get you as far as..."oh yeah, and...?"
in grad school i welded i-beams, built furniture, experimented with fabric formwork, and built models of all types. i also did lots of watercolors and 3d renders...its all good stuff, nothing is a priori privileged. whatever works is totally cool for me. i'm even known to have done work on construction sites to get my designs builted...
BUT...even though i am quite happy to do the grunt work when it makes sense the frank fact of the matter is that construction experience teaches you shit all about how to be an architect. sure its useful but not in the end a big deal. what really matters is being willing to try new things as much as being willing to try old things. and then you gotta know why you decide what you are doing.
if in the end the quality of the old just rocks your socks that is entirely cool, but the disdain for everything else approach is not going to be an easy sell.
bRink,
"You make your own education", I completely agree, I'm motivated to study arhcitecture right now, but who knows how I'll be in a few years, which is one reason why I'm waiting.
jump,
I see you've been reading my other posts; I should clarify that I have nothing against 'new' and thinking about 'new', that is actually one of the reasons why I'm looking at arch, b/c it allows me to create 'new'.
The reason I like hands on work and especially construction work is b/c in order to effectively direct a group of people (tradesmen/contractors in this case) you have to understand their work, you have to know what nuances will delay work and you have to know whom is BSing you about the cost and time required to do the work.
Also I think that having an understanding for the work that contractors do will allow you to create or at least understand building solutions to new designs.
As for welding, I used to supervise welders and weld inspectors, and consequently learnt to weld and inspect welds whilst doing this work, partly out of interest for the work and partly b/c I wanted to understand the work these people do, to effectively manage them.
In the end I have to disagree with you; architects whom understand trades and construction are better architects for it.
I am basing this on my engineering experience though, wherein I found that the best engineers and engineering designers were those whom understood the work the skilled tradesmen had to do to create the design or perform the work. Also tradesmen are more inclined to perform better work for you when they know you respect them and the work they do.
fair enough zig.
the respect goes both ways though, and understanding is not the same as being able to do something. i can weld. very poorly. i get the basics. the point is that architects don't need to know how to weld. they/we really don't.
there is a part of me that likes the idea of being a master craftsman, knowing how to build anything i design. i grew up in farming family so i know how to build. like most farmers i know how to build just well enough to get by. and i can respect the folk who have had the decade or two it takes to become really good at finish carpentry or welding or whatever...but i also think the 18 years i have put into this biz so far have not been misplaced. there is a craft to design, and to the business of architecture that i think you are discounting because it isn't "hands on", whatever that means. there is a business aspect that takes years to learn, technical things to grasp that are deep beyond measure, and all kinds of things that are impossible to even know i should be worried about yet.
architecture education is about learning to deal with the unknown. how to think in the face of it, how to respond intelligently, and how to use the past when necessary. also when to disregard it.
the carpenters i work with are brilliant. they are also terrified of the unknown. the training of a craftsman is based on the known. it needs to be. so if i give my carpenters a detail they are unfamiliar with i often have to spend some time explaining what the point is and how to do it. these are men with 30 years experience, literally gods with wood. they spent 10 years learning how to make complex timber frame joinery and perfect finish carpentry (is why japanese carpenters are well paid). but a non-standard joint baffles them. so we set down and we go through dwgs and test pieces til it works...we get to where we need to go, and i respect them, but it doesn't mean i need to have their skill set in order to get the job done. what i need is an idea, and we will work from there. maybe we all learn something in process.
skepticism is essential to architecture practice, but disdain is not such a nice place to start. i could be wrong but it feels like mostly all you got for architects is disdain. which is cool. architects don't need the world to love them. but it would very likely make your experience at architecture school really frustrating.
Good points, zigfromsa, jump.
Here's my 2 cents, I'm not trying to criticize, just offer what I've learned from my own experiences in architecture school and then how the value translates in the real industry... About architectural education generally, especially the studio aspect of it. I think an essential thing which designers need, apart from knowledge and craftsmanship, is creativity and critical thinking skills. Apart from coursework, at least half of your time as an architecture student is spent in design studios...
Design studio is the place for experimentation, and where essential conceptual, critical, creative, and visual and verbal communication skills that are very important in the real industry are developed. A good trial lawyer, for example, doesn't learn their art by studying from books... Although there are often alot of egos flying around, for the most part, design studios are an ongoing humbling exercise... It's not about where you are, but where you are going, so no need to be defensive, just take things in stride, maintain an open mind and a sense of humor about your work and the whole critique process generally, and always take risks...
While no doubt after graduation, in the work environment, you will have lots of opportunities to grow and experiment in design, the design studio is the only opportunity in which you can really push the boundaries of what is possible... Push your own boundaries, expand your vision, try new things, things that you might not normally do, in order to broaden your range of thinking. In studio, you're allowed to drop the ball, whereas in real word practice, you don't really have that freedom... This means that the expectations of studio work is different. The expectation is that you push your own envelope, you are supposed to play hard with the ball, all the time... follow through with a new idea or experiment, even if the end result is not pretty...
In a studio critique, "played it safe" is not a good thing. You can't get by simply by doing the same things you always do, or working from things you already know how to do... The point is to try something new that makes you grow as a designer, not just to make a pretty building based on your existing knowledge base. This is not to say that the avenue you take has to be focused on broad stroke, very conceeptual ideas. I think it's a good idea to try this in a project once in a while to get that under your belt... Because how can you know how to think like that if you have never done it before? but you can also be very conceptually strong, critical, and innovative on a detail level, focus on really assembling something in a new way... Maybe your project is all about the details. The entire idea of the project is driven by a single detail, and a thought process about assembling something, and the whole concept came out of the idea of that detail.
But whatever you do, you have to be able to communicate that intent. That's an essential skill in the real industry. Being able to think of something, conceptualize something, and be clear about what your work is doing... This is I think what makes architecture more of a graduate level program, different from a technical college: the fact that you are required to synthesize new knowledge rather than just learn existing knowledge...
Because in the real industry, this is part of the real value that a designer brings: their creative vision, at different scales and conceptually and physically, that the architect brings and employs at the service of the client... It's one of the things that wins work, and produces good work (the other being maybe execution and craft)... So you are not just valuable as a expert consultant or a production person, you are also valuable because you have a creative mind and a critical eye that takes in new things all the time and synthesizes new things... Studios are meant to be like design boot camp. If you go in thinking you have nothing to learn, nothing new to discover, then, from my experience, you will have a very tough time getting through architecture school...
I think the point of studio education it generally isn't just to make lots of pretty, well made things, it's also to explore new ideas, develop creative and critical thinking skills... Whether this is what architecture school *should* be is debatable... Maybe there isn't enough technical education there?
Also, I think it's important to have good studio professors... A variety of different professors who have different takes on things, who are dedicated teachers, and some of which have accomplished architecture practices. (It can also be nice to take a studio for a change with a professor from a somewhat different background, say urban design, or fine art, or history/theory, or sustainable design)...
Anyway, sorry that was long winded, others may have had different experiences or takes on architecture studio...
jump,
I never meant that an architect should become an expert in a vocational skill, just that they should understand the work involved, the same applies to engineers and those tradesmen that they work with. On that point I think we can both agree.
I mean I can weld (badly) but that experience has helped me understand the interaction between the metals, the pre and post heat requirements and the amount of electrical charge required to make good welds, and even though I doubt I could create a good weld I know when to recognise one. The same applies to carpentry, I can create a table or chair, but it generally looks bad and I use a heck of a lot of fasteners, however I can recognise good wood and a good furniture product.
I don't mean to come off as disdainful of architects, I actually have a healthy respect for them. However the levels of respect vary, in my opinion every architect and engineer needs some experience in the field to broaden their horizons but many are content to just sit in a cube, my respect for the former is greater than that for the latter, simply because the former have a borader experience of their work.
Anyway I admit I have certain prejudices regarding architecture, but I am the sort of person whom is always open to new ideas. I generally never follow these new ideas rigidly but I mix and match them with my own experiences to hopefully create a better hybird (or least one that's better for me).
bRink,
If I recieve the sort of education you mentioned from an MArch. It will be cash well spent.
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.