Nearly a week and a half has passed since the March 25 Basecamp panel at SCI-Arc that sent shockwaves across the school's community and the architecture industry. Since my initial reporting on the incidents and controversies happening at the institution, discourse regarding academia and labor practices has sparked further conversations around the systemic issues highlighted at SCI-Arc.
With news rapidly spreading across the internet, a wave of responses and comments from the community has surfaced, indicating that this wasn't an issue found solely within this particular school but across the profession. As I stated previously, "Discussions surrounding work and studio culture within the architecture community are nothing new. It would be foolish to say that those working within the industry at both the professional practice and academic levels are unaware of the highly problematic issues of labor and equitable working conditions."
As our editorial team continued to follow the events unfolding, we have gathered a series of updates that emerged thus far.
On the ground, students, alumni, and faculty have pushed for much-needed change and reform as a second petition, shared on April 2, surfaced. An excerpt below illustrates the need for further actions and accountability to address "labor exploitation in every form" as well as a need for implementing appropriate "checks and balances" within the school's administration as a whole. Below is an excerpt from the petition.
Dear SCI-Arc Community,
As you may know, a letter distributed on March 29 petitioned for the removal of two SCI-Arc faculty members in light of their abuses of power as both professors and practitioners. As a result, SCI-Arc Director/CEO Hernán Díaz Alonso has since announced the placement of those two faculty members on administrative leave pending the results of an external investigation and an internal review of SCI-Arc's "studio culture and internship policies and practices." However, as SCI-Arc alumni, we feel these actions cannot alone remedy the unjust conditions known to be endemic to the institution.
Beyond our general disapproval of labor exploitation in every form it may take, many of us empathized with the treatment of current students reflected in the previous letter because we had endured similar abuses under various faculty that remain to be held accountable. The expectations of unpaid or underpaid labor cannot be isolated to any faculty or staff member and are systemic and long-standing in manners that have only perpetuated inequities. These practices are, of course, not only enabled by the leadership at SCI-Arc but by many other institutions and universities [...]
In the past, the institution has silenced attempts by students and alumni to challenge the existing structure. Today, a significant shift is in order, the SCI-Arc students are speaking out louder than ever, and the alumni are standing in solidarity with them. In addition to the independent investigation of Tom Wiscombe and Marikka Trotter, additional investigations should be undertaken regarding any incidents of misconduct as reported by students*. This investigation should lead to the development of effective policies for checking and balancing labor issues between faculty and students in the future, ensuring safety for all involved. To read the full petition click here.
Since the petition began circulating, it has now garnered 651 signatures as of the morning of Thursday, April 7.
It's 2022, and "news-breaking" information spreads quickly. While updates can be shared in an instant, a growing concern is how social media discourse can play a role in understanding important discussions like the ones that stemmed from the incidents at SCI-Arc. Does social media discourse fuel the fire or provide clarity? I think it's a fair assessment to say that it achieves both. Within the last 13 days, an influx of discussions across social media posts has echoed the movement that students, alumni, and faculty have been pushing at the school. One most noteworthy social post was shared by Tom Wiscombe on behalf of himself and partner Marikka Trotter since their very public callout from students and alumni. On Sunday, April 3, a multiple-slide apology post was shared on Instagram expressing "their" thoughts and reflections on the matter.
Since that posting, responses to Wiscombe's thoughts were met with both support, opposition, and much criticism. The post originally allowed for comments, however, since recently, the comment feature appears to have been disabled by Wiscombe. The ever-popular provocateur of architectural social media discourse, @dank.lloyd.wright posted a guide to "how to spot a non-apology" that quickly spread across platforms. The multi-slide post didn't mince words when it came to criticizing Wiscombe's apology and intentions.
Again, depending on who you follow and your predominant social media platform, staying organized with what's happening can be confusing without some form of a chronological timeline. While not all social media posts are created equal, one thing is clear: The community wants to talk about this. Discourse has erupted into an even deeper investigation and self-reflection from students, graduates, practitioners, and firm leaders watching the events at SCI-Arc unfold each day.
Those active on Twitter, following the #HowNotToBeInAnOffice, can provide an insight into what's been discussed over the last week. Here is a selection of posts that may help paint a picture in terms of understanding "the pulse" of the community regarding the situation at hand.
Coming up for air after a pretty shitty week only to get punched in the gut again playing catch-up on @sciarc drama.
WTF. TGIF. Looking forward to the weekend.
sending ❤️ to the students
So much more work to do. Be better humans.#HowNotToBeInAnOffice
— Evelyn Lee, FAIA, NOMA (@evelynmlee) April 1, 2022
Serious question: my #architecture community, what do we have to lose if we take Tom Wiscombe’s apology as sincere, then hold him to it?
— Donna Sink, Architect (@DonnaSinkArch) April 4, 2022
What gets me about #HowNotToBeInAnOffice is how all the things said in that video about what is needed to have a successful creative studio are actually practices that are counter to everything we know about how the creative mind works.
— Shane Burger (@shaneburger) April 4, 2022
Since our initial reporting, Archinect continued to watch and connect with the community. On Monday, April 4, we published an important essay thanks to the nuanced and insightful writing of contributing writer Sean Joyner. His latest feature, "Debunking Architecture's Mythological Work Culture," further elucidates the ongoing problems that have perpetuated the "conservative view of architecture work culture."
This is one example of the many editorial features Archinect has covered discussing work culture and professional practice with more updates from SCI-Arc continuing to follow.
Following a story so closely has its pros and cons. While it's easy to get "consumed by the details," one thing that's become more clear is that while this fight for academic and labor reform is taking place, students and supporting faculty at SCI-Arc are still undergoing classes. Many are preparing their thesis and final projects. The institution also shared it has postponed its 50th-anniversary celebration on April 30th and explained: "it will be rescheduled at a later time." This begs to question, what will happen between now and then?
Last week, SCI-Arc Director and CEO Hernán Díaz Alonso announced that Tom Wiscombe and Marrikka Trotter had "been placed on administrative leave until the investigation has been completed." On Wednesday, April 6, a series of emails sent to the SCI-Arc community announced William Virgil and Darin Johnstone would be appointed as Acting Undergraduate Co-Chairs along with the appointment of Marcelyn Gow, Erik Ghenoui, and John Cooper as Acting History + Theory Co-Coordinators. Both newly appointed positions were stated to be effective immediately. This also included a follow-up email sent from Kevin Ratner, Chairman of the Board of Trustees at SCI-Arc.
Ratner's email addresses issues that have been "raised that don’t align with SCI-Arc’s values. In order to address these issues, the Board has begun an investigation into allegations brought by some students and alumni. I’d like to provide you an update as to this process." The email includes the creation of an Ad Hoc Committee which is "composed of a broad cross section of Trustees to oversee and interact with the investigative team, create an independent means for people to provide information regarding the issues being reviewed, review the conduct of individual members of faculty and leadership, review the findings of the independent investigator, and recommend to the Board potential reforms of SCI-Arc rules or policies. The Committee is also authorized to direct and expand the scope of the investigation, if necessary."
This email made it clear that the newly appointed committee includes faculty representatives to the Board in addition to student and alumni representatives to the board.
Since our ongoing editorial investigation started, several students, faculty, and alumni have reached out to share their thoughts and perspectives. One individual (who asked to remain anonymous) shared with me:
It is blatantly obvious that many within academic circles are completely unaware of the severity of this. What I mean by that is the students and alumni are extremely upset, and the 'band-aid' approaches that the institution tries to mend the situation inflames them more. Whenever a member of the institution brings up an issue, whether from the board to the leadership to the faculty to the ATs, no one knows the full scope. Many are still trying to 'form an opinion on that initial blow-up, let alone what is happening now.
To me, this demonstrates a huge issue not only within SCI-Arc but ALL of our institutions and bureaucracy. I think what many are calling for is not only a robust response to this incident but immense structural changes within the profession.
On a side note, everyone who has been organizing is exhausted. Emotionally and physically drained by all of this. We need more help and people standing in solidarity or else it will fizzle out as all of us are running on fumes.
The situation at hand does not offer a 'quick and easy' fix. What is clear, however, is that decades of transgressions within the architecture industry have ignited a movement. What's also more apparent than ever before is the organizational power of students as well as alumni. It would be a misstep for institutions across all of architecture academia to take for granted the amount of mobility today's generation of students brings.
Change is being fought for, now. The community is slowly waking up from these outdated modes of practice. While it's easy to only highlight transgressors, what Archinect is also interested in are the firms, leaders, and practitioners that are doing things right. Share with us stories of success and fair practices. We don't want to simply focus on those who need to improve but rather on those who have been doing the work improving professional practice.
As news continues to unfold, what have you, the Archinect community, and the architecture community at large, learned?
To conclude this reporting on a positive note, here's a recent tweet shared by Daveed Kapoor highlighting the work of architecture critic, curator, and SCI-Arc faculty Mimi Zeiger during her class.
Inspired by last weeks student revolution @sciarc
Hope it leads to a wider movement in architectural academia & practice towards greater worker power
Sci-arc is an incredible school
So glad they have radical faculty like @loudpaper that invited LA @Arch_Lobby in to their classes https://t.co/EbPfVTVWm2
— daveedkapoor (@daveedkapoor) April 7, 2022
Stay tuned for Archinect's continued coverage of issues regarding professional practice and academia. Have something you'd like to share? Comment below, sound off in the Archinect forum, or send us a message to connect@archinect.com.
11 Comments
Suffice it to say that the imparting of general and specific knowledge unique to architecture combined with the encouragement, use and the measurement of a pupil's creative skills, is uniquely akin to architecture and design. Unlike in writing and medicine, where the same general issues are in play, architecture strives to create a physical edifice, congruent with the laws of physics but necessarily achieving an acceptable physical beauty which must meet or exceed the client's needs, secure room for future growth and meet but not exceed an acceptable budget overage.
To achieve success in both the teaching and learning cohorts, a foundation across many spectra must be absorbed and be able to be regurgitated when required by teachers and clients alike. To accomplish the requisite milestones in these learning cohorts on time while bringing every member of the class along at similar relative rates of measured achievement, open and both rigid and relaxed pathways must exist between students and teachers.
Currently, at SCI-arc, these pathways are broken and new modes of communication and interaction must be forged utilizing the input of all the stakeholders involved in the continued viability of the school: alumni, those fiscally responsible, those in leadership positions at every level and those pedagogically engaged, both students and teachers.
A single, but changeable, due to varying conditions at different hierarchical levels, integrated operational plan can and should be agreed to and implemented across the board. But, unless all are included in its formulation and follow through, this attempt is doomed to failure. With an approved process working towards predetermined approved goals, the chances of success are increased.
SCI-arc has too great a reputation with concomitant deep academic achievemnts not to try.
It is kind of ironic how students are made believe that they learn relevant skills in practices that are mostly academic and have not yet figured out how to run as profitable businesses or earn wider success through their designs outside of the walls of the institutions they are so dependent on. It’s a terrible system that speaks to the disconnect in the US between the practice of architecture and architecture academia which is a problem for both.
This observation was posted in response to the Archinect report on the recent faculty contretemps at Sci-Arc.
It could have been written 50 or 70 years ago.
Nothing has changed and I ought to know. I graduated with my Bachelor of Architecture degree from Carnegie Mellon (‘Carnegie Tech’) in 1966 and, with a Master’s in Architecture from U.C. Berkeley, in 1967. Architectural education has always had a fragile relationship to Architectural practice.
I taught design at U.C. Colorado through the late ‘60’s, then returned to California and Los Angeles in 1974. I started my own practice in 1977 and taught ‘Office and Practice Management’ at Sci-Arc through the ‘80’s and 90’s.
At Carnegie, the head of the Architecture Department was Paul Schweikher, a contemporary and friend of Lou Kahn, who was a visiting critic to my sophomore class and even stronger friend of Walter Gropius and the group of practitioners who fled Nazi Germany, some of whom wound up at Carnegie after WWII.
Schweikher had one piece of advice for us in his Senior class seminar:
Architecture is a serious business.
Our profession is based on contracts. The California Architectural Practices Act requires that a contract be the basis for the delivery of services. It must contain the legal name of the client, the legal description of the property where the project is to be located and the compensation for the specific tasks or deliverables to be provided by the Architect. The responsibilities of the client are equally spelled out. The A.I.A, General Conditions of the Contract is an excruciatingly complex and detailed document that ties all of these responsibilities to those of the Contractor who is selected to build what the Architect has designed and what the client is willing to pay for. Failure to understand this document is at the root of the majority of lawsuits against architects.
Schweikher had another bit of wisdom. His stated mission was to
have a program that trained the competition, not the help.
The point is understanding what skills are needed to be the competition.
And, beyond that, who has the ability to teach those skills?
In that respect, the ills at Sci-Arc are no different than most all the current schools of Architecture.
That the business of Architecture is beyond the understanding of administration and faculty, from top to bottom at Sci-Arc and most educators in Architecture is no surprise. To understand the central importance of contracts an emphasis on business law is needed. The contracts stipulate specific services for defined payments.
Knowledge of accounting procedures focused on pricing services, relating the distribution of fees for each of the A.I.A. Basic Services to the cost of labor, and managing fees set aside the consultants is essential to understanding Architecture as a for profit business
Call it understanding ‘Source of Funds and Use of Funds’.
Instruction in the business of Architecture must have equal status to the design studio for any school to bridge the yawning gap between academia and the ‘office’.
The lesson of the Sci-Arc debacle, to me, at least, was the total inability of the faculty to understand the skills needed to prosper in a for profit business Like most Architectural faculty they tried to cover their lack of business and office management skills and outright hostility to the fundamental fact that Architecture is A Serious Business by retreating behind discussions of office cultural values.
I took a deep dive into the website of the two suspended faculty members.
Putting aside questions of constructability, the impressive amount of modelling, and graphics on the website suggested an enormous number of hours was needed to create the imagery.
The amount of labor needed for the excess of eye candy in the exhibits could not possibly have been covered by the fee available. That is, if there were fees, or contracts in place meeting the standards of the Architectural Practices Act, A,I.A. standard agreements or, any reasonable standard, in the first place.
The website demonstrated the characteristics and values of an art studio under the guise of an architectural firm.
It takes an endless supply of cheap labor to fuel and document the paths of an art studio.
The only way to fund cheap to zero cost labor is through a system of indentured servitude. Unpaid interns or co-opted students are easy prey. Ignoring the fact that it is illegal, indentured servitude was justified by the head of the art studio incredulous statement about Architecture being a ‘noble’ calling.
The website reveals an un-serious business run by people with neither the skills nor interest in training the competition.
Sci-arc with the complicity of the board and director provided a platform for aspirations of leaders of an art studio.
The art studio has no interest in engaging students with the skills needed to run a profitable business in a highly competitive world market for architectural services.
The 2 faculty leaders of their art studio were suspended for ‘misconduct.
Using the equivalent of slave labor a to fuel atheir enterprise is bad enough.
But the real misconduct starts with the Board of Directors and goes through members of the faculty who have little interest in basing the education of Architects on the serious business that it is, and their lack of understanding, let alone the ability to teach the skills needed to run ‘a profitable business’ or ‘earn wider success outside the walls of academia’, as expressed in the initial post.
A routine Monday night discussion on what to expect when graduating from the institution
was characterized as exploring the: ‘highly problematic issues of labor and equitable working conditions. It was far more ‘problematic’ than that.
Paul Sehnert was the facilities director at the University of Pennsylvania until his untimely death, a few years ago. He would walk me through the renovations to Lou Kahn’s Richards Medical Center and dissect the contracts the University used to engage very talented Architectural firms.
The extraordinary buildings on campus are his legacy. Paul was constantly astonished, though, that, without exception firms signed Architectural services contracts that were intentionally biased towards the University. He said he would never sign them.
Paul tried his best to be a serious proponent of the business of architecture by teaching a class on contracts and client relations at the Wharton School of Management at Penn.
While pursuing a master’s in architecture at Penn, my son Todd, took Paul’s class along with offerings in business law and accounting that earned him a certificate in real estate development along with a Masters. To Todd, they were obviously essentially, and, not being your typical math challenged architectural student, the courses were a piece of cake.
So much so, that Paul let me know that local practitioners, looking for talent, heard about Todd and were offering well paying positions to the ‘gentleman from L.A.’ I offered him more money and you can contact Todd at todd@albertgroup.la.
Architects who treat the business seriously and, who, are in the competitive arena knew the value of real talent.
Since they have limited chances of being the competition, much of the faculty at Sci-Arc has no business teaching the competition.
Paul Schweikher and Paul Sehnert could come back from the dead to lead Sci-Arc and just about every other misbegotten school of Architecture out of the wilderness.
OR:
The current Director and some faculty, could get busy, and learn some new skills.
Since both these options have roughly equal chances of happening, students can and will figure it out. UCLA, USC and SMCC have excellent schools of management and real estate development offering business law, management, and accounting. Reduce the time spent in the studio on theory.
Tell the studio head the same thing the Ukranian soldier told the Russian warship threatening to bombard the little Ukranian island.
The following statement by the replacements to the disgraced duo does NOT offer much hope for change, though:
“Our appointment allows for a moment of experimentation in a time of transformation: to test received hierarchies of organization by working together through shared consensus, and afford extra openness to student involvement in shaping what ‘history’ and ‘theory’ include. The practice of architecture is stratified both by glaring inequalities of power, and by radical acts of creativity that bring completely new kinds of collective life into existence. So now is a good time to work together to rethink what History + Theory can do at SCI-Arc—and to do this collectively.”
“We would like to acknowledge the appointment process and thank the students and faculty for trusting us to collaborate with them during this time of reflection and transformation. SCI-Arc, as an institution, has the power to shape a new generation of bright minds capable of changing a culture that for decades often valued quantity of work versus quality of life,”
Still misguided. The practice of architecture is stratified both by glaring inequalities of power, and by radical acts of creativity that bring completely new kinds of collective life into existence.
To me, stratified is a coded justification for the art studio as having a place as a legitimate business model. It most assuredly does not.
The school should replace much of the studio/theory faculty with grizzly practitioners possessing a decent portfolio of built work of significant scale, experience with institutional and private clients backed by A.I.A. contracts. Who rely on a staff of full-time licensed employees, have 40 hour work week, meet a payroll twice a month and make a healthy profit. In other words, worthy role models.
The two suspended faculty should meet their fates at the hands of the California Architectural Registration Board and the State Attorney General’s office so that medieval work weeks and indentured servitude are no longer acceptable business models.
Meanwhile, the current graduating class can get out there and dazzle befuddled practitioners with their intimate knowledge of the A.I.A. General Conditions.
I know, to a certainty, that there are plenty of Architectural firms that do great design work, are run like a serious business, and relish the competition.
You will fit right in, be fairly paid, earn retirement benefits, work a standard 40 hours a week. And, every day will be a great day to be an Architect.
The articles and comments are encouraging. Thank you for the efforts to report and participate in the conversation.
My architectural education was not worth the cost; it probably could have been condensed into a third of the time. What took three years easily could have been taught in one. Sadly the Professor's spent way too much time relishing in a Socratic method, pretending we students sat in awe at their feet listening to their philosophy. Generally speaking, there was a strong dogma of impressing by bringing Greek roots of words to the studio. I really have not used any of these arcane words in life and or work since. After years of experience in design and construction, my reflections remain that this was a waste of my time and money when I was in school. By the way, the school I received a degree from had a large department, is in a great rural town in the mountains on the East Coast and seems to usually rank quite high in whatever magazine publishes yearly school rankings.
One important fact that a Professor imparted to me, on one of my last days in studio, is that there are roughly 10,000 architecture students graduating for 4,000 architectural related job openings each year (paraphrased). Hopefully this has changed as the timing of my degree completion coincided with the Great Recession. If not, the basic economic theory of supply and demand will continue to allow for the types of exploitation in the work environment that is being described in the comments and articles. The fact is that roughly 1 out of 2 students do not have a chance to get a fulltime architecture job coming out of the gate. There simply is not enough positions to go around.
The schools know this, but the architectural departments are huge. They bring a lot of students who spend a lot of money to get a degree. As long as the students keep coming why will they change?
And perhaps: too many architects in the US = decreasing fees = low pay. Especially these days when everybody is encouraged to start a firm and everything else is considered uncool.
Oversupply is the nub of the problem.
Tom Wiscombe Architects
This name is an unlicensed entity in California according to CAB.
It is registered with the Secretary of State of California. It's a General Stock Corporation.
https://www.cab.ca.gov/docs/pu...
"Business Entity Report Form: The California Architects Board does not license businesses, but each person holding a license to practice architecture in California must report to the Board the name and address of any entity through which he or she provides architectural services. The form and a detailed informational bulletin can be found on the Board’s website. See Business and Professions Code section 5558."
It is not clear if the firm had reported to the Board the name and address of any entity through which he or she provides architectural services. If there is question, an inquiry to the board's investigator to check and if there is an issue, they can proceed accordingly to the laws/rules but if they are in fact compliant then that would be fine.
Tom Wiscombe Architecture, Inc. - (Secretary of State, California): 3628759
https://search.dca.ca.gov/details/600/C/34382/a0b8df24ba5e0ed91b49a62214b67027
There may be an out of compliance issue but it's likely to be something petty for pursuing some formal complaint regarding such a technical out of compliance matter since CAB doesn't actually license a firm nor is it quite like a firm registration like they do in Oregon. In any case, if someone wants to file a complaint to CAB, so be it. I am not spending the time at this moment as I have other things to be more concerned about than that.
And, how he has an AIA title is another thing.
Fuck AIA too for tolerating this shit. https://tomwiscombe.com/about
My initial search was faulty with the CAB website and I take it back. And publicly apologize from Tom Wiscombe and AIA.
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.