Earlier this month, the Graduate Architecture, Landscape, and Design Student Union (GALDSU), released the results of its first mental health survey conducted in the month of December 2013. The survey asked students to reflect on their experience at the John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design at the University of Toronto, with questions ranging from sleeping habits to issues of physical and mental comfort. The survey forms part of GALDSU’s Mental Health Initiative and was developed in collaboration with a doctoral candidate of the Department of Psychology of the University of Toronto.
Architecture schools have a long standing reputation as pressure cookers, where constant deadlines and a drive for innovation have created an environment where all-nighters are glorified and isolation from the outside world is prevalent. The report, now available online, reaffirms that many aspects of this reputation are well deserved. A majority of students reported irregular sleep schedules, often pulling all-nighters to finish projects, regularly skipping meals, and rarely engaging in physical activity. Many students also reported feeling the faculty was not doing enough to address issues of mental health and over 50% of them had considered quitting the program.
While underlining many problems, the report also highlighted stress factors that could be mitigated in order to improve mental health among students. Among these we can include improving interactions between faculty members and students, earlier announcements of important deadlines and events, and better coordination of deadlines among faculty members. Physical infrastructure improvements also scored high as a way of improving overall mental health, with students requesting an increase in quiet spaces and cleaner working environments. While many of these improvements will hopefully happen once the new building at 1 Spadina Crescent is completed, some of these issues can be addressed while the faculty remains at 230 College St.
After presenting the results to both the Registrar and Dean of the Faculty, as well as distributing it to all members of the Union, GALDSU has now entered discussions on how to improve many of the problems highlighted by students. Initiatives like the therapy dog brought in by the Registrar’s Office last month are only a small part of a larger re-evaluation of the culture within the faculty. GALDSU looks forward to working with the Registrar’s Office, the Dean, and the student body to continue the conversation on mental health and provide solutions to mitigate many of the stress factors in our environment.
19 Comments
Only one reasonable solution: lawsuit.
Not to mention physical effects and long term brain damage. Maybe there is a connection to dysfunction in the profession?
The truth is this is not a problem in only one school, it is a problem endemic to all architecture schools. We need to seriously sit down and discuss what the future of architecture schools should look like.
How about getting over the neurosis over decoration, style, history, and beauty for starters? Everybody has to bust a nut now and then, but when your doing it in an environment where black is white and even the most basic human urges get stifled, then you get a little kookoo.
As a UofT student, I'm happy to see this getting exposure and hopefully changes will be made at the faculty soon.
thayer, i don't think i've ever seen anyone with more of a 'decoration, style, history' neurosis than you.
curtkram, weren't you the one who got tripped up on what a soul is?
"i'm saying the 'soul' shouldn't be in conversations about architecture, due to the generally ambiguous and often inconsistent use of that word in trying to explain things."
"when trying to design a building, or even develop some sort of manifesto that an architect could follow, using ambiguous terms like that is not helpful."
I'm starting to see why you have such a hard time with these kinds of concepts. They're hard to measure, and that's troubling to some people. You need a "manifesto" to help you design and your Kansas neighbors need a bible to navigate the vagaries of life. To each their own.
do you really feel bad because i don't accept you as some sort of divine designer that can breathe life into inanimate objects? you're not exactly advertising the work you do here, so i don't see why you would think anyone would assume you could do such a thing.
all i'm saying is, you've shown an inability to step outside of your own "design, style, history, and beauty" dogma. this has been seen whenever you get upset with architecture professors who teach something other than what you, as a student, tell them to. kind of the pot calling the kettle black. architecture professors shouldn't have to do what you tell them. they shouldn't have to teach 'historicism' because that's your dogma. that's all i'm saying. no reason to get upset with the unfortunate fact that you're unable to give life to building materials.
You keep trying to stick words in my mouth, while all I have to do is quote you. Enjoy your manifestos and keep up the good fight!
I don't know what it's like in school today, but I remember pulling only one all-nighter myself, while many other students made it a habit. The difference was I developed a workable concept pretty early on and stuck with it, while others kept changing their minds and their designs. At that time it didn't have so much to do with faculty demands, which seem to be somewhat more intense today. And sometimes last minute, which really is unfair.
i don't need a manifesto. i listen to my clients and try to give them what they need. i don't tell them what the 'public' likes and try to force some sort of "modern v. historic" argument. in the context of the manifesto quote you are referring to, i was hoping it would narrow those ramblings into something concrete, but the closets you've come tends to be equivalent to 'i like stuff that i like.' there is a lot of talk about 'cerebral' and 'souls' floating around your 'i like what i like' definitions, but it's still typically vague.
i would like to have clients assume from the start that they are hiring an architect to listen to them and represent their interests throughout the design and construction process. if that were the case, we as a profession would be able to actually add value to the process. a lot of people who regularly work with architects don't believe that. they think an architect is there to drive up costs and more or less sabotage the process. i think it's because of a lot of architects try to push their view on what 'style' is right instead of listening to what their client wants and needs. we let our egos get the better of us, and try to force our opinions on them.
i'm certainly not going to say that i'm not forceful. that's probably a personal flaw i could work on improving. however, i think i'm fairly consistent in saying architects should listen to their clients, even if their clients are developers or involved in real estate or have budgets to keep in mind. your posts, especially in that very long "Why won't you design what we (the public) want?" thread, tend to force your view of 'traditional' as superior to 'modern.'
i tend to disagree with the focus you put on 'style.' if a person wanted to be an architect (as in the person actually working with clients to design buildings that get built, not the various other artistic forms of 'architect' we've been trying to expand the title to include) i think it's important for them to put their clients needs ahead of their own stylistic prejudice. it doesn't matter to me if you're designing from a manifesto or a history book.
i hope this long-winded explanation clarifies why i think you're use of the term 'soul' in architecture is not helpful. put your client before your dogma or your prejudice, and your views on "traditional v. modern" or "cerebral v. (whatever you said was not-cerebral)" become much less important.
furthermore, it is not a stylistic bias that is causing students to spend too much time in studio. the assumption that "decoration, style, history, and beauty" is what causes mental health issues is just your preconceived bias coming through. i'll admit that some professors have stylistic favorites and tend to draw students in that direction, but i doubt you'll find in the report anything that suggests these problems come from being asked to design in a traditional style, or in a non-traditional style. i'm pretty sure most of the professors at the University of Toronto are trying to teach their students architecture, not how to imitate vitruvius or palladio or rem koolhaas, or any other other traditional or non-traditional 'style.'
now, i did not quote you in this long-winded post, but if i characterized your previous positions incorrectly, please just state below "i think non-traditional and traditional styles of architecture are equally valid, and an architect's responsibility is primarily to listen to their client (not their perception of 'what the public wants') and do their best to provide what the client wants and needs." then i think we would find much common ground in our beliefs.
Your saying the client knows best? What good is the architect then? To simply make their flawed idea work. To make the upside down pyramid that they request not topple. An engineer can do that. I think the architect needs to educate the client. Forcing style is different. Style is irrelevant. So your argument is that the architect should be a draftsman? I'm confused. What if the client is doing something that is bad for society? Do what they want because they are the client? Pass them to a less caring architect? That's quite capitalist for such a socialist.
I think non-traditional and traditional styles of architecture are equally valid, and an architect's responsibility is primarily to listen to their client and do their best to provide what the client wants and needs.
I fully agree with that, so it looks like we do have more in common than not. I will qualify that statement to say there's nothing wrong with an architect pushing their style or what they think is appropriate, and even to do it forcefully as you say. It's buyer beware afterall, and as you'd admit, many people buy for status rather for need and/or preference. Untangling those issues is completely unnecessary, but worth pointing out as it is a reality.
My issue is with schools restricting the teaching of traditional work as if it was irrelevant. Teach all of it, on an equal footing, even though one might have their prejudices or favorite styles. If Ms.Smith likes traditional and Ms. Jones likes modernist, then by all means satisfy both if you are so inclined. But if you're job is to teach young architects, then teach them as if they might work for both Ms. Smith and Ms. Jones, regardless of ones personal preferences and without condesention. Teach theory all you like, but don't neglect design as understood by the human senses rather than the intellect. Teach both.
@jla-x,
I think all he's saying is listen to your client. Don't be a short order cook, but don't treat them as if they are spacially and aesthetically ignorant. Some might be, but then again, so are many architects. If you think you know better than your client, then don't show it by being pedantic, show it by satisfying their desires, even if it evolves into something they never imagined.
here's the thing. i think it's hard to do a good job designing a building. it's like, when you make a decisions to do something, there are all sorts of sub-systems that are affected by that decisions.
if the client wants classical detailing, perhaps because that's part of their branding, then i think it's great to include classical detailing. but maybe what they have in mind doesn't fit within a footprint their required to work within, or something that seemed like a good idea on one wall will screw up the wall around the corner. stuff like that. of course, i'm expected to know the life-safety and other building regulations that the client might not be familiar with. also, maybe they won't have enough room for mechanical equipment if they go a certain direction, or lighting will somehow become inadequate, or wall cavities will attract condensation and mold. it's not uncommon for a client to sketch a floor plan with 1' wide doors, or sometimes corner offices with no open wall to put a door in. i help the client think through the decisions they make, and the ramification of those decisions, and help them to make better, more informed decisions.
all of those things happen whether you're 'traditional' or not. in my opinion, my job is to listen to my client first, and help them achieve their dreams. it is not to force my will on them so i can achieve my dreams. it's their building after all. if i feel the need to force my stylistic preferences on them, i believe i've failed as an architect. saying you listen to your clients, then feel the need to force your style on them, is contradictory. you're still putting your style ahead of your client, and being a bit disingenuous when you say you try to do your best to provide your client with what they need. when someone hires me, i work for them; i'm not telling them what to do. my clients don't have to beware who they're hiring. when they hire me, they have someone advocating for them, not fighting against them.
what was useful from studio was learning how to design. it was getting that basis in understanding the complexity of the decisions you make, and thinking through what consequences tend to follow those decisions. again, whether you're following someone's manifesto or someone's history book is irrelevant to those ends. you will never be able to take enough studios to learn common detailing of every architectural style every potential client might like. limiting it to half your education spent learning about rem koolhaas and the other half to vitruvius would be a complete waste of an education. learning about how to design, as a thing that encompasses both styles, is what studio does. if you spent your time in studio only learning about decon or pomo or whatever the latest craze was rather than learning about big open v. small tight spaces and things like that, then i'm sorry. you got screwed, and i don't think that's typical.
Ya but the clients decisions also affect the society at large. How do you handle a client that is doing something that is destructive to the context. For a Sfr its all fine and dandy that the client builds their dream but when we are talking about a developer that is primarily concerned with dollars then I think the architect needs to act as a representative of the larger society. While style may be arbitrary, the lack of social/cultural relevance is not. A building that lacks any "soul" basically sucks value away from the community it's in. The architect is responsible for that if the architect knows better which they should. Patrick Schumacher is in the camp that says we have no responsibility to the context that our duty is to serve the dreams of the clients. Schumacher is an opportunist as Tammuz said. He designs with a loyalty to the client and to his formalist object oriented approach to design. My argument is that the clients will should be curbed by the architect when it starts to encroach upon the life and quality of the city. When something is bad for the city or the planet we should inject our knowledge, resistance, etc. we need to agitate and instigate change. We can't be politically/ideologically neutral as ps says. The problem with the client first service model of architecture is that the will of the client is forced on the public and this will is typically motivated by greed.
And the architect is motivated by a desire to make something great. I don't think that's ego. It's a desire to do something great and to be great at something. That's no more ego than an athlete that wants to win a game. You keep reducing architecture and art to ego trips. It's not the case for most people. If you have the opportunity to do something great and you listen to the clients misguided ideas which results in something mediocre then you didn't do them any service.
When the single family res is 15k sq.ft., or even considerably less, it has a huge effect on society at large.
jla, i think those are good questions. fwiw, i've never worked in residential of any sort. i know it's a lot different from what i do.
regarding ego, i think an architect should want to do great things. i'd like to have projects on the cover of a magazine too. i think where it becomes a problem is when an architect expects other people to do what they tell them, because they have too high of an opinion of themselves.
i think it's important to understand the architect-developer relationship as a starting point if you're going to try to save the world and all that. developers often times aren't bad people. they're members of their community and want to do a good job and all that. they just see the process from a different perspective than we do.
if you want to talk to your developer client about building bike paths or more green space, i'm sure they will listen. i believe the architects also have a bit of latitude in the direction of design, though a rectangular building is going to be a lot cheaper to build and lease that some odd shape thing with bits sticking out all over the place. if they think their potential lessees are going to be less likely to take their property because the bike path or green area makes it harder to get to the building when it's raining, they're probably right. it's their job to know what sells. you're fixating on unproven ideologies. that's what we as architects do. we think about stuff; they have numbers people that look at what sells. sometimes developers have opinions too. maybe they saw a similar building type they like, or just have a predisposition towards non-traditional design.
so here is where i think the problem lies. the architect has done a lot of thinking and has a real high opinion of themselves. so they go tell the developer what to do. the developer is the decisions maker, and the architect has no method of compelling them to do anything. then the architect makes it harder for the developer to do their job. keep in mind, this developer is probably working with a construction team, a finance team, a real-estate team, probably some sort of government body, and god knows who else. all these other people are on board doing their job to get this building built. and here is the architect fighting with the developer on who gets to pick the direction of the project.
the developer is going to win. they have the money, they're running the team, they get to make the decisions. all you're doing, as an architect, is making it hard for them by arguing or trying to manipulate them or doing whatever it is you think you're going to do to disrupt their (let's call it 'decent to mediocrity'). that developer is going to find someone else next time, and it's likely they're going to carry that baggage with, so now this developer thinks architects are a government required bureaucrat that does nothing but stick in their side like a thorn, so they're going to distance that architect as far from the project as they can.
i believe if your going to try to fix that decent to mediocrity, you're going to have to be part of that team that gets the building built. you're going to have to have an idea of what all of those people do, and why they do it. you're going to have to develop a solution where everyone wins. to do that, most importantly, you're going to need their trust. if they've been working with architects that have been fighting with them, or arguing, or trying to manipulate them, it's going to be very hard to earn that trust back. assuming you know better than them is not going to help you.
otherwise, you can get the local government to pass new zoning ordinances requiring the green space and bike paths you want. but then that's pretty much the opposite of the market solution you're looking for. if we deregulate architects to the point where a stamp isn't required, i guarantee any developer who has had an architect make it more difficult for them to get their projects completed will bypass those services altogether.
curtkram, I agree with almost everything you've said regarding the relationships architect sshould foster for good work. You won't always get your way, but that's the nature of the beast. I work primarily in residential though so my perspective will be a bit different. One thing I run accross is the desire for beauty. Regardless of style, the notion of beauty is conspicuously absent from most education, yet is consistently comes through in my dealings with people to some degree or another. I'm expected to know the code and watch out for coordination pitfalls and a miriad of legal and functional concerns.
What sets many architects apart from their competition though, and the reason many developers will favor one architect over another, is their ability to produce beauty while accomplishing those things you spoke about. This is something that I think confuses many a student while they're working on a concept thier studio teacher "recommended". I expect to work hard at whatever I do, but it's just so much easier to crucify yourself if you actually love what your doing. This is the component I see lacking in many schools, this lack of passion.
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.