I've recently begun working at a firm where architects and planners work together in close quarters, and have therefore been introduced to the satirical feud that exists between the professions. Here, at least, the banter is tongue-in-cheek, but how does the rest of the profession compare?
This recent article in the Irish Times illustrates my point:
Our firm has a small but thriving urban design practice alongside a larger (currently downsizing) architecture practice. In our office, the urban designers are called "planners," though most are architecturally trained, now focusing on UD. Only a very few of us have planning degrees, and even a couple of those are trained in architecture as well.
Still, we're "the planners." And yes, that mock feud is very present. It is fun, though, to talk to the "architects" about construction methods, building types, exiting and such. They look at me like "Damn. I thought you were a planner."
If architects and planners were really to fight it out, who would win? and why? Also if you're both architect and planner, which side would you pick? If the 'scapers joined in, which side would they pick?
the anti-planner conversation comes up way too often among architects around here, but it's usually along the lines of 'they won't let me do what i want' or 'they want me to do more work than i want to do'. it's more to do with the planners on the gov't side than those in private practice.
when architects are better about matching up their expectations with the public good, then i'll understand 'our' position a little better. we often forget that we have an ethical obligation to serve the public. i'm not saying we have to conform to general public tastes (goodness, no!), just that we have to be responsible.
all too often, when i hear architects moaning about what a planner at metro planning and zoning is making them do, i agree with the planner.
To clarify, "planner" can mean urban designer/master planner trained in architecture (form/space), or public planner trained in city planning (policy, social science).
I think most people are thinking of the latter when they use the term "planner."
Public planners are stuck with the difficult task of implementing often-impossible public policies made by--you guessed it--politicians. Some is well-intended and well-crafted, but much is not, as we all know. It's pretty much a thankless job from what I hear. And, to piggyback on Steven's comment above, most public planners' aim in life is not to frustrate architects, but to interpret sometimes vague policies in concrete ways.
Registered as a Land. Arch and Arch. and do tons of planning work, thenroll into doing the architecture and finally shrub it up and make it look good. Don't fight the planners learn to see it as a complete stream of work with only one client. Way easier to nurse a single client group for multiple projects than going out to get new clients.
trained as an architect working in a firm with half of us doing urban design (all trained as architects or urban designers...i think exactly one person has a planning degree) and half of us practicing traditional architecture. within the firm....not too much feuding...but us UD'ers get pretty ticked when we are credited in the press on a particular project as "planners." most of our clients hire us BECAUSE we think like architects.....
once in grad school i was in a joint planning/architecture studio. planners were a bunch of very nice, bright, responsible people....but they just couldnt think outside the box enough. a few of them could...but that seemed to be the exception. the few architects in teh studio were always insisting on why its good to pause reality for a second and think creatively....just to see what would come of it. many of the planners....couldnt understand that way of thinking.
Jul 22, 08 4:10 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Architects vs. Planners
I've recently begun working at a firm where architects and planners work together in close quarters, and have therefore been introduced to the satirical feud that exists between the professions. Here, at least, the banter is tongue-in-cheek, but how does the rest of the profession compare?
This recent article in the Irish Times illustrates my point:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/property/2008/0717/1216073182445.html
Architects draw pretty pictures. Planners just don't get it.
This is a big topic. My tiny contribution:
Our firm has a small but thriving urban design practice alongside a larger (currently downsizing) architecture practice. In our office, the urban designers are called "planners," though most are architecturally trained, now focusing on UD. Only a very few of us have planning degrees, and even a couple of those are trained in architecture as well.
Still, we're "the planners." And yes, that mock feud is very present. It is fun, though, to talk to the "architects" about construction methods, building types, exiting and such. They look at me like "Damn. I thought you were a planner."
I am a formally trained architect, but practice as a planner. Heh heh I am the reason for the feud
trained as both an arch and a 'scaper, it is easier to call tk an urban designer or planner then be labeled an architect or landscape architect
If architects and planners were really to fight it out, who would win? and why? Also if you're both architect and planner, which side would you pick? If the 'scapers joined in, which side would they pick?
the anti-planner conversation comes up way too often among architects around here, but it's usually along the lines of 'they won't let me do what i want' or 'they want me to do more work than i want to do'. it's more to do with the planners on the gov't side than those in private practice.
when architects are better about matching up their expectations with the public good, then i'll understand 'our' position a little better. we often forget that we have an ethical obligation to serve the public. i'm not saying we have to conform to general public tastes (goodness, no!), just that we have to be responsible.
all too often, when i hear architects moaning about what a planner at metro planning and zoning is making them do, i agree with the planner.
To clarify, "planner" can mean urban designer/master planner trained in architecture (form/space), or public planner trained in city planning (policy, social science).
I think most people are thinking of the latter when they use the term "planner."
Public planners are stuck with the difficult task of implementing often-impossible public policies made by--you guessed it--politicians. Some is well-intended and well-crafted, but much is not, as we all know. It's pretty much a thankless job from what I hear. And, to piggyback on Steven's comment above, most public planners' aim in life is not to frustrate architects, but to interpret sometimes vague policies in concrete ways.
not quite the right image, but the whole architect/planner thing (at school at least) reminds me of this scene:
[img}http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/Image/anchorman2.jpg[/img]
not quite the right image, but the whole architect/planner thing (at school at least) reminds me of this scene:
Registered as a Land. Arch and Arch. and do tons of planning work, thenroll into doing the architecture and finally shrub it up and make it look good. Don't fight the planners learn to see it as a complete stream of work with only one client. Way easier to nurse a single client group for multiple projects than going out to get new clients.
trained as an architect working in a firm with half of us doing urban design (all trained as architects or urban designers...i think exactly one person has a planning degree) and half of us practicing traditional architecture. within the firm....not too much feuding...but us UD'ers get pretty ticked when we are credited in the press on a particular project as "planners." most of our clients hire us BECAUSE we think like architects.....
once in grad school i was in a joint planning/architecture studio. planners were a bunch of very nice, bright, responsible people....but they just couldnt think outside the box enough. a few of them could...but that seemed to be the exception. the few architects in teh studio were always insisting on why its good to pause reality for a second and think creatively....just to see what would come of it. many of the planners....couldnt understand that way of thinking.
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.