In a major adaptation to U.S. licensure rules, the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards has proposed a new option for gaining licensure -- simply through the process of an architecture education. As announced in a NCARB press release earlier today, architecture students could earn intern experience and take their licensing exam while still in school, to receive licensure upon graduation. This stands in addition to the previous paths to licensure, and is completely optional.
The details behind the plan are still hazy, as NCARB puts together a task force of top architecture organizations (including the AIA and NAAB) to design how a "licensure-at-graduation" program could work. Research and plans for implementation are said to last a couple more years, with NCARB sharing their plans with interested schools in October 2014. But at this point, at the very least, the proposal is a step towards facilitating the process of becoming a licensed architect.
From NCARB's Board of Directors:
"The Board of Directors endorses the concept of an additional, structured path to licensure that may lead to licensure upon graduation. This additional path will integrate current education, experience, and examination requirements and requires a collaborative partnership with institutions offering NAAB-accredited programs, our Member Boards, students, and firms."
Read NCARB's complete press release here: "NCARB Endorses New Path to Becoming an Architect: Architect License Upon Graduation"
88 Comments
I'm sorry, but I can train a monkey, for 8 days a week, 24 hours a day, for 364 days to pass the ARE's. Internship has zero, zilch, nada, noooooo to do with the ARE. Anyone passing along that sham of an idea, hasn't taken the test in the last 20 years.
I guess that I don't understand what this means. Students can already earn IDP hours while they are in school and take their exams right after graduation. This implies that they are planing to do away with the IDP process all together and replace it with modifications to the educational curriculum. Am I missing something?
Donna - agreed that NCARB is going to be a (key) part. NAAB (for those who haven't looked at this like you and I) was set up to mediate between all 3 organizations. NAAB *only* exists as an expression of agreed upon and shared criteria to define a professional education. So, even though NCARB is taking the lead, I'd like some assurances they aren't just evolving a separate response.
ncarb appears to be an institution focused on making a profit. as far as i can tell, naab gets money from the other collateral organizations, and exists to perform a specific function. would students have to open ncarb files just to attend one of the new ncarb schools?
Enough with all the regulations already and get back to design building...wait I mean architecture...or wait is architecture now quality control and a sink for liability? That's why I took the ARE so I could prove I am competent enough for a lawsuit. No seriously its a reading exam, if you Know how to read carefully you can call yourself an Architect apparently...because thats what architecs do is read read read and doodle...where do I apply for this NCARB Uni?
The process of becoming a license architect is ridiculous in this country. Yes, you can said that only having school it not sufficient to become a competent architect, and that is why we have to go through the IDP and exam stage. But then again, other countries are capable of getting an individual ready to practice just with school and nothing more. Which puts into question this country licensure process and the education system.
But then again, other countries are capable of getting an individual ready to practice just with school and nothing more.
Its not just school...you still need to work your ass off for years before you get any large projects. Its not like you get out of school and go on to design the new wtc building. lol
even before licensure architects became apprentices and sought out experience without anyone forcing them to. our system is designed to prevent the one in a million scenario where a wreckless grad meets some billionare at a bar and gets offered an opportunity to design a condo tower...lol never gonna happen.
TERRIBLE IDEA NCARB !!!
This is good news for those who are still in high school and seems pretty bad for everyone else who is not yet licensed.
I have 4 years of work experience, little of it under a licensed architect. I have almost no IDP hours. I can detail a building as well or better than anyone I graduated with, several of whom are licensed now.
Looks like I will be finding the least expensive accredited Master's program and going back to school to get licensed. It is easier than taking a $15k pay cut just to work somewhere I can get IDP.
This is a big mistake. Architects are already being devalued by developers. What happens when we are all assumed to be licensed without having to take the initiative to self navigate our licensure? I have a feeling that the future value of Architects is going to tank, and this may permanently damage the profession.
yeah it will be horrible like most other parts of the world. I hear the leading cause of death in Europe is architecture.
I hear that the swiss are starting to hunt architects for their meat. Without all the regulation people just cant see any other value for them so they just eat them. Its a real mess.
There is one thing most architects have trouble understanding - its called the market. Although great measures are employed to regulate the market, the market from the bottom up regulates itself without clear conscious intent. Its not a surprise the market is hard for architects to grasp, we are trained to plan and speculate from the top down, very structural (I am excluding architects who work in the world of emergence and have a 1000 plateaus by Deleuze sitting on their bookshelf).The amount of regulations that supposedly protect the public by ensuring a professional is involved often encourage illegal activity as the costs for doing it the wrong way can be far less than doing it the right way, even if the evil doer gets caught. One method for ensuring self-preservation is to have the governing agency deregulate or allow flexibility within a system. It appears historically the architecture profession has been slow to deregulate. Again this is not a surprise, architects work within regulations by many governing agencies and essentially provide regulations for the (intended) execution of a construction project. But, the education of an architect is often exclusively about thinking beyond the regulations or completely without. Many students graduate with a world view of massive creative freedom to only find a profession entrenched in regulatory formalities often well beyond comprehension. Its foolish to think of architects as lawyers or on the same level. When the problems become serious and finger pointing gets intense lawyers tend to step in. Its equally foolish to equate architects with doctors. We are not experts about the human body and therefore can not directly save lives, we can only provide intended safe environments for bodies to exist in......What NCARB is proposing is self preservation and any governing agency that would deregulate the method for project delivery for construction projects is doing the same. The avoidance to deregulate the profession has further pigeon holed the licensed architect into a project consultant who advises on zoning and building law as it is applicable to the design of a project. The design of the project is the translation of the clients program and needs as the architects advises within the governing regulations, but this design often comes from unlicensed architects and designers who think outside the regulations and who take risks with the law as they will ultimately not be liable. The client often pushes for these illegal design moves and there are often cost benefits associated, or its just better design (floating open riser stairs without railing) leaving the licensed professional in a tough position....what makes even less sense for a group of regulators is to detach themselves from means and methods of construction, making construction drawings somewhat of a joke - design intent only. This detachment, regulated clearly, removes the architect essentially from the construction phase allowing management types to take over. The law still makes the professional partially liable for executed construction. This also removes the architect from control of costs often making management types who operate like hedge fund managers appear to be heros, nevermind the building will eventually leak because a cheap detail was built and of course at that time the financier of the original development has made their profits and moved on. The contractor most likely has restructured, new company...but the architect is on the hook well into retirement until they croak.....its obvious to me that no amount of better regulating the license or the path to licensure has made this a better profession or frankly fair in social perception and economic compensation. The trend for liability - financially is becoming the burden of the owner and rightly so. This means certain projects carry such high insurance coverages for professionals and contractors that the owner - owns it. To make a license easier to obtain will put the liability back on the owner and relieve the architect of their imagined litigation skills - let the lawyers deal with it. It would be to our benefit if we as architects were equal with regard to liability and status as contractors and specialty consultants.
I agree that this is some kind of power grab for NCARB. It's just another way for the narcissists to control the market (of architects) and make them in their own out-dated old-man-club image.I'm not an architect, but I can see they are not evolving. Also, I have to say, Donna, that there IS no better forum for discussion than Archinect, no matter what subject. imo.
Osl8ing this is because "Architecture [is] filled with slightly smarter than normal mainstreamers."
The destruction of NCARB should be everyone's ultimate goal.
Nice post Chris Teeter!
This issue is not unique to architecture. In 1970 about 10% of occupations required a license now its about 33%. Licensure is big business and protectionism is as well. There are some states that actually require florists to be licensed. This is getting out of hand.
What bothers me most is the hypocrisy. Landscape architects are up in arms over landscape designers taking work yet they worship Olmsted the father of landscape architecture who himself was a landscape designer with little experience prior to Central Park. That's one of about a million examples.
Thank you jla-x. It is interesting to note you use the word "protectionism". In theory the intent of requiring licenses is to "protect" the public, presumably this was the intent of the lawmakers who are often lawyers...., if you want to talk about "protectionism" and essentially legal collusion - more laws must be good for the lawyer business. If those who are hung up on the mostly delusional importance of the license and see themselves as pseudo lawyers I do have a suggestion that would justify the license's existence as is and warrant an education for licensure only. Lobby for your state to pass a law that bans lawyers from the litigation process of the construction industry and instates Architects as the only licensed professionals who can be judge, jury, and the lawmakers - I could live with that. There is an obvious avoidance to involving lawyers in the construction industry, hence the preference for 3rd party dispute resolutions or arbitration. I sat as witness in an arbitration case once. The arbiter at $1200/hr was both a lawyer and a licensed architect. The pro liability insurance company's lawyer knew the industry forwards and backwards. The plaintiff who eventually became a defendant when the architect counter sued had hired his estate lawyer to represent him. We spent a good hour shaking our heads and explaining the construction process to this lawyer...the insurance company lawyer broke out in laughter a few times with the arbiter pausing off the record to translate construction into terms the lawyer could understand. Another instance to prove my point that masters of language can not master form and space, a criminal defense lawyer was representing his associated living board. His summaries of the engineers discoveries were mesmerizing. I thought this guy had learned the profession and construction in a month, but then in his long winded eloquent ramblings he asked a question that was as basic as 6th grade physics and given the weight of the question at the moment I knew he had no clue. If you want to fight for the license as it is supposed to appear to society based on state education laws I would fully support the legal ban on lawyers involvement in construction industry...this would surely justify the 7 year Masters route with 3 years interning and 9-10 exams totally nearly 30 hours and a $1200/hr pay...otherwise we are wasting our time here.
(Aside to Chris: I love your posts but for heaven's sake could you toss some paragraph breaks in there?!? SO densely packed...)
building regulations were created for a reason. regulating professionals so that there would be someone to take professional responsibility also happened for a good reason. left to their own devices, some rich people will kill to turn a quick profit. before we had these regulations, that happened. in some places, where these regulations are not in place, it still happens.
those regulation don't exist to make buildings that some kid thinks looks neat. they're there for a different reason. the license and regulation allow us to occasionally compel people to do the right thing when they otherwise wouldn't.
trusting the market to regulate itself is unwise. we're just coming off a recession that happened largely because derivative markets and the associated insurance industries were not regulated because greenspan said the market would self-regulate. they didn't. he didn't have the hindsight we now have, but it's pretty obvious the market does not self-regulate.
i'm all for improving the path towards licensure, but it should be done in a way to produce better architects. simply making it easier does not do that. dumbing down the profession and pushing liability onto engineers to the point where we're competing with a 6 year old that has a crayon and can criticize other architects will not make the profession better.
It does scare me a little bit to postulate on how this will change the educational landscape of architecture. I just finished the ARE / IDP process. If I had to be paying tuition to learn that "information" (and in the case of the exams, I mean that in the most sarcastic way possible), I'd just assume shoot myself in the face. Architectural education may have lost its relevancy, but remodeling a pedagogy to teach students ARE material is just about the worst idea I have ever heard.
That said, I do like Donna's suggestion quite a bit: allow this to be an opportunity to change undergrad / graduate programs. Undergraduate could potentially be centered on broad design and technical issues, and graduate school could be more specialized. I think the current model - where every architect who doesn't have a B.Arch is expected to attend graduate school - is costly, time-consuming, and just plain dumb. Trust me, some of the students I know who got their M.Arch because their 4-year degree wouldn't allow them to obtain registration is shocking. Not everyone belongs in graduate school. NCARB/NAAB has long been suspected of trying to weed out B.Arch programs in favor of the 4+2/3 model, so who knows if this will change that.
One thing that I realized post graduation from B.ARCH in the United States was how ill-prepared students were for the real world – expectation and realty collided rather than melded. Many architecture students after graduation have to completely reevaluate their goals and ideals within the profession because they did not have any real exposure during school. There was no reciprocity between real-world practice and educational / abstract theory – you need both.
My first job was an internship for a starchitect in an international office, I was the only American and the rest of the interns were from Europe or Asia. Why? Because some (many) schools in Europe REQUIRE 1 - 1.5 year of experience of internships before graduation. Thus many of these students are exposed not only to real-world work, but they are also exposed to some of the most prominent practices in the world. Thus these students are left with a plausible value system of how and where they want to practice architecture because they have seen the best of the best (or the worst of the worst).
What NCARB and U.S. architecture schools NEED to enforce is a curriculum change NOT for licensure, but for EXPERIENCE; licensure and IDP should ONLY be a by-product. Students should be required to have 1 - 2 years of experience GUARANTEED by the school BEFORE graduation. Some variations: 1 - students can take 1 year off after 3rd year, work, and then return for 1 full year of thesis. 2 - Students work for 2 years after 3rd year, and return for 1.5 years of graduate level studios (all under the same tuition 3+2) This is NOT for licensure, but to ensure that students gain the proper amount of theoretical and practical EXPERIENCE, and if they finish or gain IDP credits – great, but that should not be the concern. There are some schools that do this in the U.S. (Rice University), but they are exceptions and not the rule.
On a final note, I really believe that NCARB should change their perception and requirements of "experience." Architecture has its constraints with context, i.e. codes and requirements, but if you know how to build – you know how to build. It really irritates me that people who have had years of amazing experience abroad are capped with the amount of credits they can record because it is "international," even though the architectural profession itself is a cross cultural profession. I know many architects who have practiced abroad and returned to the States with no hopes of licensure because NCARB / AIA does not recognize their experience as valid; even though they know how to design and BUILD to a very high degree of quality. Yes, a certain amount of experience should be allotted to where you want to practice architecture, but knowing how to build should be the determining factor. It's a tragedy where you can have a title saying you're licensed but don't not know how to build, and not having a license but knowing how to build.
"What NCARB and U.S. architecture schools NEED to enforce is a curriculum change NOT for licensure, but for EXPERIENCE; licensure and IDP should ONLY be a by-product. Students should be required to have 1 - 2 years of experience GUARANTEED by the school BEFORE graduation. "
Why not educate students as if they are going to practice architecture rather than teach studio? While I like your idea, what's the guarantee every student will get a 1-2 year internship with local firms? Plus, if you where taught under real life circumstances, wouldn't that be better experience than relying on luck for the content of one's internship work? I don't understand why the theoretical side of work can't be taught along with following an actual program, as defined by local regulations and work methods, to say nothing about a client who actually want's to be listened to. Walk and chew gum at the same time, it would be great practice for young architects.
Donna I write this on my phone and for some reason paragraphs cant be created no matter how many times I hit.....Curtkram I would love to agree with you but your points are really just good conversation bits for hanging around the water cooler at work and your analogy is inaccurate - the unregulated stock markets driving force is greed, what the hell would be the unregulated driving force of deregulated architecture - good design or bad egos? ........I another equally impossible suggestion if you want to keep licensure the way it is - get rid of building departments altogether and the architect can take on all liability (this somewhat happens in nyc, and yes people abused it or did they just read the law differently? ). But we wont be removing lawyers from construction anytime soon or th e building dept. So lets het rid of licensure and see what happens.
Thayer-D
"Why not educate students as if they are going to practice architecture rather than teach studio?"
That is easier said than done. I see two issues with teaching the "practice of [real?] architecture."
First, we cannot forget that Architecture is an extremely diverse profession in all respects: cultural, economic, aesthetic, engineering, and construction. Different architects have different means and methods of creating and building – and they're all right (or wrong) depending on how you view their respective methods.
Second, which directly relates with the first point is that there will be a critical conflict of interest between choosing instructors. Some instructors have never built anything in their lives and all of their work is theoretical; some instructors have only done art installations; some instructors have only done fabrication; some instructors are from A/E firms; some may have a full portfolio of built work at all scales; some instructors are only writers. As a matter of fact, one of my instructors wrote more books than any potential buildings, another one of my instructors had a Bachelors in Literature / English and a M.ARCH and has been a full fledged Artist (with a capital A) for years – those two instructors had the greatest impact in my education as an Architect.
"While I like your idea, what's the guarantee every student will get a 1-2 year internship with local firms? "
Why do the firms have to be local? Why do the firms even have to be in the United States. Architecture to some degree is a universal language, we are suppose to understand and appreciate many different ways of practicing and articulating the built environment all around the world.
If schools in the United Kingdom (and other parts of Europe) require students to find internships before graduation, so can we. Architecture is a very small network, and depending where you live, everyone knows everyone (at least that was my case in Los Angeles). Instructors should help students find internships according to their level of "talent" and interest.
It may sound outrageous, but we need to start somewhere. And in the long-run, maybe these students who were given opportunities to work during school, will lend a hand to the next generation, and so fourth. In this highly individualized world of 2014+, mentorship is on the decline; even when I practiced in Japan, there use to be a "Senpai" (先輩) system where elders would really mentor the young and teach them their way of building and emphasizing craft – thats almost all gone. In the near future, I think the only place for the survival of mentorship is going to be in schools.
Los Angeles,
Are you saying that we can't teach architecture in all it's complexity? Or are you saying that you expect every new architect to be able to operate on all the levels you've described as part of architecture?
Yes, every architect has a different way of creating and building but that can be said of any profession. We're talking about the education, not the professional career. Take writing or painting, or even some science. All students need to know the basics of the language they will communicate with, the things that create a common understanding to then be able to make sense of one's individual expressions, when ever that might take place and however that might happen.
I'm glad you got so much out of your theoretical teachers, but again, how does that preclude having to learn how a building is put together and how it will speak to the people who use it? Architecture is formost about building for people. Theory can and does illuminate many aspects of it, but we all know how architecture is primarily experienced, and it's not theoretically.
Internships are usually local to the intern or else how do you expect them to go back and forth? And if one had the luxury of taking their internship across an ocean, does that give them a deeper understanging of the cultural underpinnings archtiecture can have when they themselves are just immersing themselves in the basics of a new culture? I can learn all about terra cotta tile construction in Italy, but that's not how they build in America.
"we are suppose to understand and appreciate many different ways of practicing and articulating the built environment all around the world. " - Agreed, but given the complexity of the work as you described, it's not realistic that a student out of high school will be able to appreciate these things before even knowing their own culture's way. Again, it's like language, you need to understand yours first before reaching out to others, or else you are just pretending to be deep, something which is all to common in schools.
"Architecture is a very small network, and depending where you live, everyone knows everyone (at least that was my case in Los Angeles). " - So you're now suggesting that doing a local internship does make sense? I agree that mentorships are a good idea and that internships during school would be useful, but you are arguing many sides of the debate.
I was pointing out the logistical difficulties in providing all students with an internship. Then you must consider the quality of that internship. As you say, there are many ways to practice architecture, one no more valid than the other. That's why schools should try to teach a curriculum that's closer to the actual practice they will encounter. And this dosen't have to be exclusive of a theoretical education. The problem with studio teachers who are purely theoretical is they won't actually be able to pass on usefull information for an aspiring architect. Maybe as teachers of a theory class, but as studio professors, you need people who know what the profession is about, and that is people and the places they inhabit.
This "exploration" by NCARB is by far the most demeaning program for the profession of architecture. Imagine if your Physician was given their license upon graduation under similar circumstances? The idea that any profession of the same caliber as architecture is reliant solely only the academic environment is ludicrous. The post-education intern experience is fundamental to any profession.
1. This type of program completely contradicts and calls into question the integrity and justification for the current BEA program from NCARB. The BEA program allows for an architect to satisfy educational deficiencies necessary for Certification after 7 years of licensed experience, which would assume the internship and exam passage.
2. This is an obvious collaboration with NAAB to provide a new income stream for architecture schools.
3. This program will allow architecture firms to exploit student labor and excuse the firms from having to provide any sort of "carrot" at the end of their proverbial employment sticks.
subgenius,
I agree. I went to school for 7 years (4+3), and the thought that I would be ready to stamp my own drawings after that is ridiculous. Let's face it - NONE of us learned enough in school to really practice architecture as a licensed professional on our own. NCARB may be trying to throw us a bone here, but as you said, I think it does more to devalue the profession than elevate it. Would you trust a straight-out-of-school doctor with your life?
Furthermore, I just plain don't understand where / when they think they'll cram all this extra material into education in order to eliminate IDP / AREs. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has once had a boss / client say something like "what? you didn't learn xxxx in school?" This always feels so depressing because school was an endless blur of all-nighters and non-stop work, and no, I did not learn flashing details during that time. Shocking. And yet, there is a crazy amount of material one needs to learn in order to pass the AREs - stuff that is appropriately NOT taught in school, (you should NOT be paying tuition to learn things like ADA codes!). So, pray tell, how does NCARB plan on stuffing this all into an architecture curriculum without keeping everyone in school for 10 years? Or do we simply re-write architectural pedagogy to ONLY learn the nuts and bolts of ARE-type material, in which case, someone please just shoot me in the fucking face.
Would you trust a straight-out-of-school doctor with your life?
You know what they call a straight out of school doctor? DOCTOR.
You do realize that lawyers can take the bar with zero work experience and become lawyers.
Do lawyers come out of school and handle terrorism cases or serial killer cases? Nope
We kinda tend to trust them as rational adults to know their capabilities and limitations.
Are architecture school grads any more reckless than law grads or med school grads?
Does treating grads like babies really elevate the profession? Most non-archs that I know don't know the difference between corbu and the remodel guy from hgtv.
Does the architecture profession in the US have more prestige than the architecture profession in the many countries that graduate architects?
Does the title architect have more prestige post idp in the us?
These are question to ask yourselves. Stop with the fox news style fear mongering..."if we legalize marijuana everyone is gonna smoke all day and live on welfare." Stop it please.
The value of any profession (in the eyes of the public) is judged upon how much they need your service and what contribution you make to better their lives not upon the exclusivity of your little boys club. No one cares. There way way more doctors and lawyers in US than architects.
Also, why do we insist on trying to conform architecture into a stiff ass suit and tie profession. Are we that desperate to make it onto the forbes top 5 profession list. Architecture is way different from law and medicine. This is a creative profession. The "value" we have is in our creativity. A contractor can design a competent building...an architects value is to elevate a building beyond that. This nonsense idea that design is 10% of architecture is why we have lost such relevance and value in society. Essentially we diminished the value of the profession by diminishing the one unique aspect of it.
All, just to mention that another contribution to this discussion has been added at the ACSA's archinect blog, by our executive director Michael Monti. Mike expands upon what this means for schools, and emphasizes that it's not a free ticket for anyone involved: http://archinect.com/ACSA/your-jurisdiction-and-you
I must say my first reaction to this news was that it's total BS and another reason to hate NCARB. They make it so damn easy. But after reflection and reading through this thread, I am starting to take an optimistic route. I agree that it's great that NCARB is finally trying to work with Architectural candidates rather than against them. I can't fully endorse this move without denying the hard work and massive sleep loss I am incurring as I study for these exams, as I am currently within the throes of taking the exams myself. I can't help but feel a bit betrayed by the system. When I graduated with my first architecture degree in 1994, IDP wasn't a requirement. You could sit for the exam after 7 years of practical experience. Upon reaching my 6 year practice mark, all of a sudden, IDP became mandatory. Thankfully, I was able to log all my experience retroactively a couple years before they established the 6 month maximum retroactive rule for logging hours. I was able to get my authorization to test. Note that I worked for 3 years before going to grad school. I received my M.Arch in 2000. It's now 2014, and I am still working through the exams.. Why? because I failed some the first time through... And at this point, I am giving it all I've got but my responsibilities have tripled (married with a toddler and a newborn). Had this "change of heart" from NCARB been thought of sooner, I would have been licensed for 20 years now. I would hope that NCARB may be able to offer some sort of credit for practical experience that differentiates people in my position from the fresh grads that will likely be licensed before me. Some of them being my past mediocre students. I am sure I am not alone in this hope. WHile I can share the sentiment of Greg Walker, I would add that it appears that NCARB has realized how prohibitive they've made the licensing process in the name of "protecting the safety and welfare" from blood-seeking architects. To repair this, they are making it easier to get licensed because I guess they've determined that architecture students in this millennial generation don't have the same desires as architecture students from my Generation X (who clearly had it as their goal, to harm or kill people through architecture). Being sarcastic, of course. But, am a bit curious how NCARB can square the logic of "protecting the safety and welfare of the general public" by granting the opportunity for kids to get licensed immediately. If they are going to take a leap of faith with the kids today, they should grant that leap of faith to the rest who aren't yet licensed.
Even so, I think it's a good line of thinking that NCARB is on and will make it easier for my daughters should they decide to pursue architecture. NCARB just need to think things through a little more thoroughly, IMO.
I agree that it's great that NCARB is finally trying to work with Architectural candidates rather than against them.
this doesn't seem a bit off? i don't think they're going to systematically uproot and redefine every level of the ncarb bureaucracy. it's more likely they are the same ncarb they've always been, but they think they'll find more suckers to pay them to keep their council records up if they hand out licenses to every bright-eyed student at graduation. lots of kids went to the trouble of paying USGBC and jumping through their hoops to get a LEED line on their resume. I'm pretty sure NCARB is just trying to take their slice.
Thayer-D (and anyone else),
Reading your previous post(s) proves how different [our] perceptions are about architecture, even though we are both from the SAME country – now magnify that to the entire architecture curriculum of the United States. Especially after reading your statement:
"I can learn all about terra cotta tile construction in Italy, but that's not how they build in America."
I will comment on that later...
"All students need to know the basics of the language they will communicate with, the things that create a common understanding to then be able to make sense of one's individual expressions, when ever that might take place and however that might happen."
I completely agree. But do not forget, we already have mandatory courses in Architecture schools that teach the "basic language" of building: "Materials and Methods of Construction" and "Structures", at least those are the courses I took at my school for 2 years. Now, the success and translation of those courses can be debated. But I am very supportive of courses and STUDIOS that allow and demand students to create projects at a 1:1 scale, whether it's material exploration, fabrication, or detail sections - absolutely necessary. Students should learn how to translate concept (and theory) to a [tested] reality.
"Internships are usually local to the intern or else how do you expect them to go back and forth? And if one had the luxury of taking their internship across an ocean, does that give them a deeper understanging (typo) of the cultural underpinnings archtiecture (typo) can have when they themselves are just immersing themselves in the basics of a new culture? .... So you're now suggesting that doing a local internship does make sense?"
What is your definition of local? What is a local firm in Los Angeles or NYC versus Omaha, Nebraska? I went to school in Los Angeles and the majority of my instructors were either project managers or principals of Morphosis, Neil Denari, Emergent, Michael Maltzan, visiting instructors from Asia, Latin America, and Europe, and then some instructors were from small firms that do great "LOCAL" work. Many students were connected with INTERNATIONAL jobs and internships by these same professors because their network extended far beyond their "locality." Most of my instructors were from prominent practices in the U.S., but the majority of their projects were INTERNATIONAL. A firm can do both local and international work? A firm can do work all over the United States, practicing in Los Angeles is surely different than practicing in NYC.
That's why schools should try to teach a curriculum that's closer to the actual practice they will encounter. And this dosen't have to be exclusive of a theoretical education.
Again, what is the "actual practice" students will encounter when the means, methods, and locations of practices vary to such a high degree ?
The problem with studio teachers who are purely theoretical is they won't actually be able to pass on usefull (typo) information for an aspiring architect.
I will pretend you did not say that...
"Agreed, but given the complexity of the work as you described, it's not realistic that a student out of high school will be able to appreciate these things before even knowing their own culture's way.....I can learn all about terra cotta tile construction in Italy, but that's not how they build in America."
Can you please explain to me the "American Culture?" America is so diverse that it's a-cultural. People come to this country to create and redefine culture, thats why architecture and its tolerance vary to such a high degree in the United States depending where you live. How one practices in Los Angeles will differ completely than someone in Orange County, or Montpelier, Vermont ; not only because of location, but because of difference of CULTURE due to location within the SAME COUNTRY.
Pierre Koenig's TEACHER (B.ARCH) thought he was a fool when Pierre proposed a steel structure house in the 40's and 50's. His teacher thought it was impossible and foolish because that wasn't how they "build in America." Pierre Koenig's case study homes 21 and 22 (Los Angeles), both made out of steel, are some of the most famous works in the WORLD.
Another Example. The Schindler House (Los Angeles) which is deemed as the first modern house in the world was completely dismissed by Philip Johnson (NYC) and MOMA in the 20s - 30s because the house looked "primitive" and NOT "refined" like the works in NYC or Chicago. Again, both in the United States, and both with completely different perspectives, just like you and I.
Final Example. When Aalto designed the Baker House, he chose a masonry company that still fired bricks with wood and were sun-dried. This was during a time where the masonry industry revolutionized its process into perfect cut bricks and into this monotonous and bland looking masonry we see today. He went against the "way they were building in America."
So I ask you, (if you dare to answer) how are things "built in America?" Unlike the written language, architecture is a VISUAL language, so even if we learn the basics of our "own [visual] language" other people from different parts of the world will still be able to visually read how we practice architecture. And I will be very frank (and some of you may disagree with me), but many people outside of the United States are not too fond with the contemporary state of "American Architecture" As a country, we have progressive thinkers but we are still quite conservative (your own definition) as a whole when it comes to the built environment. We were more progressive in the 20's- 60's, than we are today. I say this as a person who has worked both nationally and internationally.
I am all for students learning how to build. It is a necessity. As I said before, students should be pushed and REQUIRED to create a direct translation of their concepts into reality, whether its through fabrication or scaled models. As a matter of fact, I only used the laser cutter about 10 times in all of my 5 years of. B. ARCH, I preferred building large scale models. However, lets leave the "actual practice" to the actual practice.
This is my last post, I am done replying. As you can tell by our dialogue, we come from very different mindsets – and thats OK, neither of us are right or wrong – just different.
* And as a quick note, some students in other schools have never used laser cutters or 3d printers. Schools vary in resources. I am nothing special with the amount of times I used the LC.
American architecture is diverse because American ecology is very very diverse compared to European nations.
We have large cities, true deserts, sub-tropical deserts, tropics, temperate forests, alpine forests, grasslands, etc...
Legalize it already.
jla-x,
Those are some great questions. In the spirit of academic exploration, I'd love to hear the answers from our best architecture schools. Love the fear mongering question...dead on.
"This nonsense idea that design is 10% of architecture is why we have lost such relevance and value in society. "
Amen! The idea that the only problem worth solving creatively is the conceptual one is pitiful and depressing, besides belied by most all of architectural history. Solving concrete problems creatively is what architecture was known to be until relatively recently, but as jla-x rightly points out, it's the way the public still sees us, like it or not. When they approach an architect, the very few that do, it's to solve a concrete problem, however poetically or conceptually we'd like to approach it.
Los Angeles,
By how they build locally, I mean exactly that. Just like you have to learn your mother tongue in depth to be able to translate from other languages or other regions, it's about going deep and trusting that the human experience will connect us however different superficially. If all you do is skim the surface of the multi-cultural world, it will be much harder to speak on a deeper level, regardless of your local "dialect".
As for your citations of homes famous through out the world, I'd go back to jla-x's point about "Most non-archs that I know don't know the difference between corbu and the remodel guy from hgtv." You might be of the school that there's a cast system of who "gets it" and who dosen't, but, like you said, we clearly have differing view points. I've never found a direct corrolation between someone's "credentials" and their creative strength, at least as jla-x defines it. Thus such marvelous vernacular work and such mediocre work by such "masters" as Corbu.
"The Schindler House (Los Angeles) which is deemed as the first modern house in the world was completely dismissed by Philip Johnson (NYC) and MOMA in the 20s - 30s because the house looked "primitive" and NOT "refined"
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a shit about what Philip Johnson thought. And what criteria are you using for "the first modern house"? So many houses can claim that title for such a bewildering array of reasons that the whole persuit of who's first at what shows how irrelevant this kind of ranking is to the public, the actual end user, and "not upon the exclusivity of your little boys club."
"So I ask you, (if you dare to answer) how are things "built in America?"
I whouldn't dare answer such a dumb rhetorical question, but if you think that the building industry "revolutionized" the manufacturing of bricks during Alvar Alto's era, I've got a lot of 19th century brick work to show you. The "bland looking masonry we see today" has more to do with our profession's self imposed censorship and subsequent atrophy of the trades than when they started procucing "perfectly cut bricks."
Wether you made 1 to 1 models or used a laser cutter matters not when it comes to practicing solving a myriad of problems creatively and directly. For that you need practice and lot's of it. The more you master the mundane the deeper you can go, and school is the place to practice.
Ultimatley, your right about our differing perspectives and wether either one is valid or not. It's a highly select set of clients that will allow that kind of "exploration", so if you find clients willing to pay for your personal vision, so much the better. My understanding of a good architect was one that could solve problems and speak on many levels simultaneously. That's all the more reason to start practicing in school. It takes many years to play an instrument masterfully.
While we're at it...legalize it. As a society, I think we can handle that also.
Los Angeles,
while you were busy pursuing theoretical discourse about the role and responsibilities of Architecture, a general contractor took your job, your clients, and your role in the project.
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.