Deborah Berke, a practicing architect with a firm of over 60 employees and former adjunct Yale professor, has replaced the inimitable Robert "Bob" A.M. Stern as the dean of the Yale School of Architecture. Berke has ideas about how to shape the future of the school's pedagogy. In an interview with the CTPost, she lays out her vision, which is centered on advancing the "history of pluralism":
In terms of curriculum, her definition of pluralism will expand to include more emphasis on how architecture can respond to the impact of climate change and globalization, both of which she emphasizes as “rapid.” For the student body, which is already about 50 percent female, and faculty, pluralism translates to broader diversity.
“Let’s put it this way,” she says, “the profession of architecture does not look like the population at large and I am going to work hard toward having the architects we train and the architects who teach be more reflective of the population at large.”
More on Deborah Berke:
29 Comments
Kudos and good luck, but I do hope that includes engaging the local community...
I applaud the effort, but there is zero chance that the demographic issues in architecture are going to be solved at Yale.
If one wants to improve diversity of the profession, start with the AIA ... they do more to make the profession elites only than anybody (though I appreciate their recent vanity diversify efforts).
LiMX, how is that? They control neither licensure, nor accreditation nor education. From my perspective, the largest barrier to diversity in architecture is the high cost of education and low return on investment compared to other professions.
I hope that includes stylistic pluralism. I wish her all the best.
LiMX, disagree.
The AIA reflects the state of educational biases and costs. If the pool is narrow it's largely due to those who were admitted into schools. This of course is when we all shrug our shoulders and say "it's all the cost of education," implying that reforming architectural education is not the role of architects, but others. It also dismisses the fact that the problem of underrepresented designers also stems from active discouragement when "they" can afford it (I don't understand why your won't go into "professional career x," you'll make more money and do better for your representative group).
The real issue with architectural education isn't that there aren't enough minorities but that they don't teach the skills that are required for the work place. If she's able to do that rather than experiment on the kids backs with status grabbing 'research', that would be wonderful. Somehow, with her call to address globalization and climate change, I doubt it. Not that I don't support all efforts to mitigate the worst aspects of those problems, but it's far outside our purview as architects no less than students learning to draw sections intelligently.
The real problem with diversity in architecture has to do with the fact that architecture by and large is consumed by wealthy people. It is not produced in a vacuum it requires a client typically. Clients are typically "wealthy" in the private sector which more often than not means they are white and typically would only feel comfortable with people from their shared socioeconomic background considering the cost and risk associated with construction. It's not that much different in the private sector. Architecture is a by product of wealth and power access to wealth and power is sometimes predetermined by your race at birth. The reason why there are not many minority architects is because those communities do not have the level of wealth by and large to patronize architecture. Architecture is for wealthy people, wealth and access to wealth is constrained to exclude minorities in many cases. As an aside go over to NCARB the national board that oversees architecture licenses, take a look at the managing board. It is completely white shockingly so.
^ Agree
Don’t think puffing up the smoke makes a student’s view of reality any clearer.
This suggests...
1- that rich clients determine admissions and tuition rates (this I can almost agree with but only almost).
2- that disadvantaged groups should also avoid medicine, engineering, law and real estate because those are disciplines that also demand or attract capital
3- that women are to be dismissed in the discussion regardless of economic background because... (Yes, no one is saying that but the conversation has been narrowed to economically depressed areas)
Good thought, but this will take a long time to achieve:
- Architecture is still a White Man's profession (White + Man)
- Architecture is a dying profession, so why bother
Thayer, please believe me when I say a well-drawn section drawing gives me a thrill of pure physical and intellectual pleasure, but...a computer program can make a section cut pretty well, too. Yes we need to teach students skills that make them employable (or, better, that make them able to employ themselves), but aren't the skills different now, and aren't those critical thinking and creative solution skills more important in the future of the profession, and the public we serve? Globalization and climate change are issues of human habitation, and isn't that what we as architects are charged with improving?
um yeah after the failed queer sons of wealthy industrialist decided this was their profession I believe the signs were on the wall. the rich white boys had decided being professional was pointless when you could be an investor - a developer. If there was any honor to architecure with a space for massive ego your rich pappy would have respected - Donald Trump would have become an architect........Sameolddoctor is right, this is a dieing profession, no one of power sees any importance......i guess we are hoping the common man will get really good common architecture? now that an employee at Wal-mart could make more than an architect. i am a stupid poor white boy, thats why they let me become an architect.
Donna,
I believe you, I just don't agree that one learns to manipulate space as well if they don't learn to draw it by hand first, much like we retain more when reading physical books. My guess is the spatial aspect of manipulating a drawing by hand and being able to see the micro and macro details at once have something to do with it, plus there's a whole lot of research that backs this up, but we can agree to disagree on this as a priority.
I was thinking about the fact that architects deal with people, white black, rich or poor, much more than global warming, at least at the end of an interns mouse. Meaning, if we taught architects how to understand and work with all types of people (temperamentally, not racially), they might better be equipped for the market place and be less disillusioned with how far off reality is from their schooling.
We are charged with improving peoples lives on a level that's tangible for people, and if that sounds too humble, so be it. But with patience, one can work up to those loftier goals as their life trajectories take them. In the mean time, give architects a solid grounding in solving day to day problems for real human beings in real contexts and I think they will be better equipped to take on bigger challenges while still being able to offer a useful skill that the market requires. Don't let some developer peg you for being a pie in the sky type simply because no one recognizes your genius. Learn to be humble and observe people.
Be white. Wear black. How hard is that?
The black makes them look even whiter.
Thayer, I don't disagree with anything you've written above. I hear you. I do think we mostly agree on architectural education.
The architecture system, including media, education, practice, has all led to a very elitist system where only the richest (I.e. White) can make it through the hoops, some necessary and some not. It wasn't like this in the 1930s when the cities were being built. Now you need a 100k education, 10 years of service, media cronies, a tenured teaching position, and a leadership role at a organization to design a hotel lobby. Meanwhile, foreign architects pop in and do all the big work, shoddy construction and get all the media coverage. Funny how that works.
BTW, GO HILLARY!!!!!
This is very exciting. I'm thrilled that Berke is highlighting this issue.
I worked with Deborah Berke on a project once and got the impression that she viewed the world through a very specific lens... the insulated glass bubble of New England wealth. She'll fit in just fine at Yale.
Lack of diversity is not a problem that can be solved by top-down methods, in architecture or other professions. And in architecture specifically, lack of diversity is not the reason that the profession is in crisis. Restocking the faculty with women and men of non-European descent will not change the fundamental market dynamics that make architects less relevant and less employable with each passing year.
But her pluralist agenda will allow the new Dean to pat herself on the back, give a TED talk, sell more books, and accumulate more wealth with which to insulate herself. Her firm will crank out more vacation homes in the Hamptons for the very people who are most responsible for climate change and globalization. And the Yale faculty will sit around at meetings and look at each other and go, look how diverse we are, united in our goal of training kids for a profession that barely exists.
1. if the profession as we know it today is "dying" or changing, how do we reposition ourselves to be part of the change? what do we need to do differently? this is a business question, not demographic question.
2. if more women and POC are included in the profession, won't that devalue the ability to charge competitive fees? women and POC are paid less already.
3. speaking directly of pluralism it seems that at least in america, we are in a state of total disaster. racism, sexism, ableism, gender discrimination, trans-phobia, homo-phobia, micro-aggressions, unchecked privilege(s), triggers. can architecture take these on one by one to create some type of ideal world?
4. maybe architecture isn't about making places better for people?
^ “Business”? You’re talking about a group of people who think taking a tax deduction is a capital offence.
The profession is a dichotomy…it can only exist serving the privileged yet it has distain for the privileged….a profession that talks amongst themselves about serving humanity but has no power, influence or money to do anything about it. A profession of introverts living in an extrovert world…largely 90% order-takers who criticize the 10% who are leaders….you’d need a mass lobotomy to fix what’s wrong with this profession.
+++avega
So the implicit suggestion is that because architecture requires capital which is something underrepresented designers don't have access to, they cannot design projects that require intensive amounts of capital- so we should not bother with diversifying.
^ Diversifying is the answer Marc, but most architects would rather die than diversify and criticize those that do. You can, but don’t spend time pondering a movement and this thing about needing capital is a myth or moreover an excuse.
A movement? Not following...
And that was exactly my point about capital.
^ Re: “Movement”, thought that was what the OP/some comments were about….all about changing the path of the profession to be more responsive to the needs of those not currently served, maybe I missed something.
I'd say "correction" might be a little more accurate and still has some edge to raise eyebrows.
Architecture only takes a laptop to open up shop. How you get business and for how long is a different story. So you don't need much capital at all.
That's the easy part.
Still not hearing about how this is a dying profession.
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.