One of the coolest creative-class careers has cratered with the economy. Where does architecture go from here? — salon.com
The most honest - and painful - report of what's happening in our profession that I've yet read. Including lots of quotes from Guy Horton, too!
9 Comments
There are some surprising quotes in this article - One successful architect feels “Very much like an immigrant worker,” and another says, "We are making less than a cleaning lady.” This seems a little over the top.
Someone should tell Tim , that his ART IN CRISES blog, has the same title as a notorious Anti-Modernist polemic by the Viennese art-critic and Nazi sympathizer Hans Sedlmayr. And same red flag color.
So beware and choose your titles well.
eric chavkin
A bit LA-centric but the theme is spot on. It's startling having this feeling of helplessness put into print and realizing that so many others are having it too. Years from now we'll look back on this time and realize we were in the middle of a giant paradigm shift. How do we come out on the other end of it?
a lot of that is familiar to me even in tokyo.
the comments about trust-fund babies and the comparisons to immigrants and cleaning staff makes the architects come off a bit wack-a-doodle-ish, and shows off their feelings of entitlement ( just because you don't have a job does not mean it went to someone with a trust fund ).
it would be nice if there was a real paradigm shift after all this. based on what happened the last time around we will just do the same old stuff and nothing will change and we'll all be complaining about the same stuff 10 years from now - is it that architects can't/don't learn or the market that keeps us in our place...?
It's good, in a way, that the level of general media reporting on the state of our profession seems to be getting louder. We knew this for a while, but it seems like it's becoming more prominent now.
However, I don't think things will change without a massive overhaul. The entire process of creating an architect tends to weed out the technical-minded, business-minded, and basically anything-other-than-art-minded people - the sort of people who might bring a different perspective to things somewhere down the line. The modern demand things like 'sustainability experts' and 'environmental designers' reaches into a deeper knowledge of technical issues, and the lack of our ability to adapt to, monetize and fully expand on these opportunities seems to stem from a lack of business sense or a more expansive idea of what it is an architect does (beyond just 'designing things').
For anyone with this kind of perspective left after this weeding-out process, the practice of architecture is fairly rigidly defined, so that people who go off and do other things are considered 'leaving the profession'. While we have definitely been dealt a horrible hand here, I think we have to point the finger at ourselves at least a little when wondering why we are doing so badly.
(This comes from someone who was dissatisfied enough with his architectural education and 'the way things are done' that he felt the need to earn a whole other degree, so YMMV.)
Mixmaster, just curious what your second degree is, and did it relate to architecture/design at all?
I have a good friend who is running an urban design- and transit-based community non-profit. People ask if he feels sad not to be "doing" architecture, and his reply is always that he IS doing it. I agree with him.
Donna,
My other degree was in architectural acoustics - and I would agree, I still feel like I am 'doing architecture', even though it's not specifically the whole practice of architecture, and doesn't even always deal with buildings or even physical objects. I'm an AAIA member for the time being (also a fairly recent MArch graduate), and still consider that a very important part of my experience and outlook. However, for most purposes, I would not be counted as an architect - I'm not even technically an architect, given that I'm still going through the licensure process.
I feel like I still use a design outlook, but with a more thorough understanding of the processes that we are designing with.I feel that the way I work now is a better match to the way I think and operate, although this is still an evolving thing - and it's still architecture, but architecture in a way that I have had to understand for myself, as opposed to the way I was taught.
How does this relate to the article?
My experience has been that people are often pushed out of architecture at many phases until you are left with a class of people whose primary outlook is to make things look at least somewhat cool and hopefully not leak, fail the program, or go over budget - a sort of a 'style consultant' who makes sure things meet code. I feel architects should be more like technical designers with a fundamental understanding and questioning of the issues at hand, who can express the inner 'looking-cool' aspects of whatever the design question is. Architects see themselves this way, too, and I think the profession is continually re-establishing itself in this way in the face of increasing complexity.
However, there are roadblocks. Architecture school tends to frustrate and weed out people who want to design from a rigorous understanding of physical reality, as opposed to just making stuff look cool. Practitioners who develop a specialty often wind up becoming consultants who are removed from the day-to-day aspect of design to focus on one thing. It's an incredibly rare architect who looks at his or her skillset and thinks of ways to make new business that goes beyond strictly selling building design services for a fee. There is room in architecture for all these kinds of perspectives, but it's currently an uphill struggle.
Where are the entrepreneurial people who are inventing new construction methods that can be scaled up, alternate products and procedures for building things, software that can emulate things, new building systems, etc? There are firms out there that do this sort of thing and are still classified as architects, but by and large these things are done by non-architects. I think architects are capable of doing these things, with some extra education and perspective, and with the right outlook.
...so I have some edit-gnarl. The last two sentences should be:
'There are firms out there that do this sort of thing and are still classified as architects, but by and large these things are done by people who are not classified as architects and may not even have an architectural education. I think architects are capable of folding these things into their possibly-traditional practices, with some extra education and the right perspective and outlook. Otherwise, we'll wind up continuing to face the problem of a profession that shrinks in the face of expanding possibilities.
University of Minnesota, College of Design Dean Tom Fisher has responded to this article in Metropolis Magazine with Architecture for the Other 99%. Check it out!
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.