There is a very strong emphasis at SCI-Arc for hands on/physical models, material explorations and experimentation. While I was there is was common to see structures classes actually building things and testing them, examining how they fail, etc. The wood and metal shop is large and wonderful.

I feel as though there is room to study and do whatever you'd like at SCI-Arc. Coy Howard and other instructors keep Hernan and all of the digital people in check.

There is a whole program (SCI-FI) at SCI-Arc for urban planning studies and issues. They bring in great instructors, studios and seminars for their program and you can enroll in them as a non-SCIFI student as well.

Will you be doing M.Arch I or II? I recommend visiting if you can.

Yes, which program will you be attending? Although there is room for flexibility there are some fundamental differences between M.Arch 1 and 2 and Undergrad.

Thanks for the posts!

I will be doing an M.Arch I (3 year)...
I am actually trying to head over to LA this week... I couple of people have told me that I should just go... It would be best... because I really love the description of the courses and curriculum but then most of the student work I find in Sciarc's website has this sort of post-modern / digital feeling... so as far as the work being produced, that is the only impression I have so far...

You might appreciate Eric Owen Moss' introduction to the book "Who Says What Architecture Is?" I was reading it before my tour of SCI-Arc and it specifically addresses some of the questions you ask. Primarily, it suggests SCI-Arc is not a place built on consensus or focused on a specific pedagogy, but,as he describes it, SCI-Arc is the "Penelope of Architecture."

Personally, I think its the downfall of any academy to worship style- I also believe SCI-Arc is easily identified as a place just like that- I was even questioning the same thing;however, I was happy to see that the school is interested in the continual re-invention, the re-thinking, the taking apart and putting back together of, and the questioning of concepts, ideas, and methods of how we go about making Architecture.

We will be classmates Andres! I'm from southern california, so I got to visit sci-arc plenty of times before deciding to go there for my M.Arch I this fall, and I got the feeling that you can find whatever it is you want to study at sci-arc, there aren't any rigid constraints.

I remember seeing a research project two years ago or so, that was essentially just street art around LA the student had done, accompanied by a manifesto. It was so much more interesting than the blobs that it was squeezed in between in the hall of projects.

no matter which program it is, i think it's important in the first year to keep an open mind. everyone is an amateur at this point, and the more you think you know or what you feel that you like only limits what you can learn. during my first year in 2gax, it was called the 'lobotomy'.

after the first year, some students continued to drink the kool-aid doing fancy maya work, while some resisted it, and built a mud hut in mexico or something. i never really cared what path a fellow student would take so long as they strived to be good at it, and contribute to the discourse.

after you find your legs at the school, it's really up to you, but i wouldn't have too many preconceived ideas.

and remember, pomo looks like this:




not this:



I would probably stay clear of describing much of the work at SCI-Arc as postmodern, unless you want to get beaten up behind the old barn at 3:45.

And like dot has mentioned, it's best to approach the first year with an open mind and zero preconceived notions. Just allow yourself to go along with it. After the first year is the time to be critical and decide what path you want to follow.

Oh yes, and also keep in mind the first year (or two in your case) are pretty well defined in terms of courses and studios so you don't get a lot of choice then. It won't be until you reach vertical studios in your 3rd year and then thesis that you have options to pick from.

Even at some point gehry and hadid were following the same style as chipperfield and adjaye. Maybe its Patrik Schumacher or Dennis Shelden that you’re not a big fan of, as these are the people behind the big name firms. Their exploration is the reason why schools are emphasizing towards a digital experience. But sci-arc has several space for any types but you don’t really hear too much or see much as the school doesn’t showcase those projects as much as digital ones.

Thanks all for the reps!

I think I am going to try and come over this week and see it for myself...

Sorry for Cherith for summerizing in Postmo (thanks for the visual comparison haha.. I knwo what it looks like though)... no offense intended with postmo and was not meaning to synthezise the school in a style but I had to keep my heading short haha... thats why I later expanded ... post-structuralist, deconstructivist... etc etc... I guess what I meant was more of an emphasis on formal exploration through digital means... or on the priorities set during the initial conceptual and programatic phases...

Part of the reason I ask these questions is because I went to a summer porgram at the AA and had the chance to see all the student's final projects and talk to some of them and faculty and it seemed that almost 90% of the work there was geared in the same direction... to be honest I found that although some of the projects had impacting form development and formal exploration techniques... I was not very impressed with the propositions made through those forms... I also live right next too some of Caltarva's work in Valencia... and have gone into a couple of Zaha's projects (not to imply they stand on the same stylistic or conceptual current ) but what I feel in some of their work is that there is great formal development but sometimes at the cost of the clearness of the proposition.... going and living near those projects you see that they lack connection and that the spaces become cold and empty...

So... my questions are just of someone wanting to be more informed because as someone earlier mentioned... the work that gets published and shown at sciarc at least through their websites has a very digital feel... it seems pointing into that direction so I needed to know what else is going on... what kind of support do other avenues of exploration get....etc etc

Once again.. I really appreciate your comments and help...
It is not an easy decision because there are a lot of schools with very interesting things to show and give... and so many things come into play... you classmates.. the city... the seminars outside etc etc...

How about LA... does anyone have some insight about LA??
Is there an interesting scene??
Can someone live without a car?
Is the Sciarc community tight...? Do you guys hang out? Good discussions? Intensity haha??

Thanks for the comments so far guys!

Has anyone already graduated from an M.Arch from Sciarc??
What are you working on these days??

cherith it isn't so odd to say both of those examples are post-modern. the latter is more connected to German expressionism, like zaha, but is still post-modern.

I am curious Tuna when chipperfield and zaha did work that approached each other in similarity? any projects in mind?

gehry's early work was pretty post-modern, and i think i remember some stuff that was like the new york 5 too, but can't think of anything by zaha that gets as close. am curious to know what projects you are thinking of...?

Although it is still being debated, the second example is a clear departure from the first, not only in form and style, but also in lineage. The second example is a direct descendant from Greg Lynn, who can probably be seen as the origins of all of this digital work that lines the halls of SCI-Arc, Columbia, the AA, Bartlett, etc. It would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with his early writings and work because it's going to really help you understand where all of this work is coming from. Supermodernism (if you can find it) is also another great book to help you understand the current discussions going on in architecture.

I'm just hesitant to label anything within the last 10-15 years as being any -ism, but esp. postmodernist. Like hair metal, mullets and florescent clothing, we had enough of that in the 80's and I will be happy to never see if return.