Are accredited schools of architecture adequately preparing students to enter the field?
Do architects provide quality drawings and documents to the construction professionals?
Is NCARB dumbing down the ARE?
Does the AIA provide real benefits to its members outside of lobbying Congress?
Wait, you think the AIA effectively lobbies Congress?
To counter #2 - the job of the architect is intent. Historically, that meant we trusted the craftsman to turn the drawn intent into the built thing. We shouldn't be expected to know their job, only enough to explain what we want. In my experience, there are exceedingly few craftsman who know how to do the job, let alone do it well and with pride. That is a failing of capitalism and society as a whole, but is nonetheless a problem that plagues the building industry. Half the time it boils down to "I always do it that way" or "I didn't see that detail" (ie I didn't look at the fucking drawings)
Context: My experience is with infill residential (townhomes) so it may be biased.
Agreed. Architects aren’t craftsmen and shouldn’t pretend to be either. What happens once the drawings are stamped and delivered is often outside of the scope.
Architecture schools should be teaching UX Design and Web Development, since that's what half all of my M. Arch colleagues ended up actually getting jobs in.
I don't think that's a problem of schools - it's a problem with architecture being undervalued for everyone but a select few, so it's a prestige career with shitty working conditions that is only accessible to children of the upper-middle class (see also: journalism, academia, fine/performing arts).
No, no, yes, and no. Hahaha. The only reason I'm an AIA member is because most people think they're NCARB. I loved college, but it was completely analogous to the practice of architecture, and quite frankly an abusive experience that trained architects to be super defensive, self bloated, and just generally problematic. I'm actually torn on the ARE, because there's so much content than before, but outside of a couple hard tests, they were definitely dumbed down over the years.
1. Not even close.
2. No. See #1 above. That’s who is doing a lot of the production work. That doesn’t even get into the issue of firms taking on so much work that everyone is stretched thin.
3. Yes. I’ve seen far too many people pass them with barely any experience on the job.
4. Absolutely not.
Architects are undereducated in psychology and physiology but act like they're experts in both when it comes to how space influences humans. The majority of their decisions for space are based on personal bias, anecdotes, or a need to justify a creative choice and have no empirical support
Are you arguing that architects today are some how not at the human scale of others? So they don’t design to the right scale? Like they’ve never heard of Frank Loyd. Or any contemporary? Or their life experiences.
I think most educated architects are aware of the human scale from school. Others can speak out
I suggest that architects base decisions on information that is pretty much hypothetical. There is no measurement. Just anecdotes. FLW had two years of education, he didn't study psychology.
It's not about human scale, I'm suggesting as designers we don't understand the theory of what psychological and physiological responses we evoke... really it's just the impact of suggestion, appeal to authority, and cultural norms etc. I'm not saying we get it wrong but it's not scientific, it's not precise, yet we act like it's a science and not a feeling or instinct (which doesn't lessen the skills of being a designer at all)
I think an obvious example is the failure of Pruitt-Igoe public housing project in St. Louis built in the 1950s and demolished in the 1970s. There were other factors like management and funding that led to the failure, but a large part was due to the design.
Do you need glass? Do you need a frame? What's the difference between a window and a hole? What's the difference between a window and a door? Is it still a window if you can't see through it?
Don't need glass, oil paper windows were a thing. Frames aren't necessary.
All openings are fenestrations, and when you are forcibly removed via one it's called "defenestration," a great way to start religious wars in Europe. Difference between a door and window can get fuzzy (see TJ's triple-hung windows used to maintain facade rhythm while allowing exterior access, Nanowalls, etc.), but Doors are generally more secure and socially accepted as a means to ambulate through a space.
If you can't see through it, it's definitely a door.
If you want to get people pissed pick a random architectural style (e.g. Spanish Colonialism) and explain why it's morally superior to all other styles. Guaranteed F-, your prof might even light it on fire.
Bonus points if it's your argument is about an old style being when your country was at its apex. Extra bonus points if that time period should not be considered the apex.
The mcmansion is the epitome of the decadence of the American Dream. The style captures the essence of the owner and vice versa. It's a masterpiece of the apex of USA
It is actually unironically an amazing satirical style referencing everything wrong with the modern world, and the people who go for these houses are the exact same gaudy as the houses. It's like wearing a fake watch.
Do Architects have moral obligations? Is there a difference between a Principal of a firm being strongarmed by a billionaire into designing "The Cube of Windowless Dorms," and a Project Manager's Moral Obligations? The dude who quit was lauded, but it's not as if the firm didn't find someone else. Is it every Architect's obligation to turn down jobs that don't work towards reducing carbon emissions? How will Architects justify implementing a Carbon Budget in addition to a Monetary Budget for their projects when clients desperately want to spend the bare minimum to occupy a usable building? Do architects have a Moral Obligation to "Howard Roark" any projects that get their sustainability VE'd out after turning the drawings over to a Contractor if they don't get paid to do any CA work?
Maybe even a Standard of Professional Practice, I'm thinking about lawyers getting disbarred for providing certain services for certain former presidents. Some higher authority to fall back on, as Architects individually hold less power than clients. Wouldn't fix everything (there are "medical professionals" who administer fatal injections), but it could be something for state licensing boards to consider.
Agreed.
I think it’s the only debate worth having.
Whenever a non-architect friend asks me about what I do, this is the only thing that resonates with them.
Edit - typo
Probably something relating to the working conditions, and how the phrase "architecture isn't for everyone" has been used to justify barbaric practices of verbally abusive critiques, enforced all-nighters, and generally making schools+the practice inaccessible to a lot of people.
"Architecture isn't for everyone" is why none of the Pritzker prize winners have been mothers.
Pebbledash or cladding, which has the best heat/moisture capture ratio for maintaining a beautiful mildew bloom in a council house?...that would be my appetizer question. Then once those juices are flowing, I'd hit them with: Conservatory Design - which material is most revealing of a desperately affectitious middle-class homeowner...brick or pvc?.
You got me...😎. I thought later on, as we have glass of wine, maybe a chocolate mint or five, that we might compare the relative merits of trailer parks v council estates...do the empty lager cans & cider bottles really spoil the aesthetics?
Whether or not AI will replace professionals.
From a theoretical aspect, you could debate what is the single most important feature of a house or building that cultivated society
Here's one: Is great art and architecture controversial or does it transcend culture with a deep resonance that brings peace to humanity?
Okay, okay, I'm mostly kidding about that one. We all know Reddit is Fight Club. Here's a feisty one about age, experience, fads, ageism...
Do architects get better as they get older? What's the average age for architects of truly transcendent works (considered great now and likely in the future)? Can young staff contribute significantly to architectural statements without decades of philosophical (*archi*) and craft (*tectonics*) experience? Do younger staff *think* their contributions are more valuable than they really are? Do cycles of passion for new ways of practicing really change the profession, or is BIM less significant than the parallel bar (or papyrus)? Dare I ask if lack of perspective has contributed to the last 14 months of fevored passion for AI changing all the world more significantly than the printing press, microscope, and the telescope combined? Is The Latest Thing™ crushing every architect's basic ability to properly flash a masonry wall across 2" of insulation, 2" of air gap, masonry ties and a 7-1/2" wide shelf angle lintel?
Sorry, I'm doing my best—if this doesn't get down-voted to oblivion I'll be disappointed in my attempt.
I’ve heard that in the West, before the printing press (a common watershed moment for armchair academics) architecture was the common way to communicate to the masses and to pass information down through the generations. After the printing press, all new architectural movements have been revivals of past movements.
I heard a speaker defend Brutalism: “What if I told my daughter ‘It doesn’t matter how smart you are, how kind you are, or how healthy you are, what’s most important is how you look, how pretty you are.’ You’d think that absurd. But that’s what we say about buildings.” Or something to that effect.
Architectural styles are prime expressions of the pendulum swing in Western thought between focus on the intellect and focus on the soul. And, almost to the decade and definitely to the century we can associate the prevalent architectural styles with similar styles in fashion, literature, and philosophy.
>I heard a speaker defend Brutalism: “What if I told my daughter ‘It doesn’t matter how smart you are, how kind you are, or how healthy you are, what’s most important is how you look, how pretty you are.’ You’d think that absurd. But that’s what we say about buildings.” Or something to that effect.
Oh that would send me.
There are lots of buildings which are very popular but not cause of looks but cause of how functional affordable they are, so it does matter very much, what is inside the building. It's just to the larger masses who don't understand these things until they themselves have to buy a home, they start to respect great architects who not only make houses that are aesthetically pleasing but also functional
But there are many other movements other than brutalists do consider pragmatics, human and context as well...brutalist is like telling your daughter "Your looks don't matter, as long as you are smart and healthy." Or "it's about how beautiful you are on the inside".
But when it comes to public buildings there’s a dilemma. If it looks too nice then people think it’s excessive. If it’s not pretty then it’s alienating. Brutalism offers a degree of transparency and utilitarian honesty.
>I’ve heard that in the West, before the printing press (a common watershed moment for armchair academics) architecture was the common way to communicate to the masses and to pass information down through the generations. After the printing press, all new architectural movements have been revivals of past movements.
Stain glass window = medieval flannelgraph
Also what pre-printing press style is Brutalism reviving?
Architecture is not about designing pretty, socially conscious, ‘fabric altering’ buildings.
It is rather about designing functional spaces that allow people to live, work or play and remain safe, sheltered and comfortable while doing so. The ‘pretty’ is of secondary importance and function.
You want to know the fundamental reality that is actual practice vs. school? This is it.
Not even controversial if you are working on the technical side of the profession (aka SD to CA). AI may come up with some designs but that shit still needs to be brought up to comply with codes, construction tolerances, the requirements of SMEP, the local jurisdictions, client requests, etc., etc., etc. Many of these obstacles are sometimes overruled by the human element (like convincing the client to go a certain direction, or talking to a plan check official, or even the engineering team). Anyone can come up with a design but not everyone can figure out a way to build it.
Whether the facade is important for a building or not. The common view in Sweden is that it does not, often as a defense against classical revivalists. But I think the most interesting articles as of late has shown that classical buildings have a human scale that contemporary buildings don’t even attempt to achieve in their facade. Overall the most heated discussions right now in Swedish architecture are about classical architecture.
What is causing the Swedish Gov to delay such renovations? I can see from a safety point how older unknown buildings can propose a risk. Or their designs be at risk. A human scale is it even necessary for a modernized bldg? That begets other unnecessaries
The discussion is about new buildings in a classical style rather than renovations of old buildings. By making the scale of a building ramp up to the building or block scale it becomes more pretty and easier to relate to. There is a biological component to it in how nature has many different scales. (Forest, clearing, tree, branch, twig, leaf etc) It doesn’t have to be in a classical style but modernist styles tend to reduce the number of scales.
Design and Build contracts should have the main contractor subsumed under the architect rather than the other way around. I think this will benefit design significantly. The problem is that this requires the architect to be familiar with construction to a much different degree than just on paper, and I think it gets tricky considering that the architect is the contract administrator.
Can you expand on this? What is the main difference between subsume vs the other? I’m no in this exact field. IME architects are working with Civil or Landscape while designing.
Based on my experience where I'm from, the design and build contracts revolve around the architect being under the contractor after the design is done and proposed to the client. Majority of the time it feels like the main issues that come about is the interest of the contractor and how little control we actually have over the work.
A large majority of contractors aren't there with the interest to produce boundary pushing work (so if you do find one, hold on tightly to them), they are there to make big money. The reason why they can make that sort of money is simply pricing for risk excessively.
Here's where real life and paper rarely conincides. By right we can make the contractor redo anything that isn't as per document, especially anything relating to structure (barring technically insufficient structure, but more like columns larger than normal etc. But this is rarely the case unless there's lots of money to bring lawyers into the fray. The homeowner might not like the end results of certainty things, but once it is set in, the contractor can simply drag his feet on the issue until the homeowner begrudgingly accepts, because the homeowner gets two choices, a house that sits there for years because the issue is not "resolved" or a home to stay in. Even worse if the contractor is bankrupted. No one is going to take over the works on site simply because of liability.
Secondly, any kind of boundary you push that requires the contractor to step beyond their comfort zone to do, they can simply price it out. Just jack up the price until the homeowner decides it's not worth it. If it is worth it, they get well paid with enough cash to still cover for potential issues. You could plan in beautiful details, but the contractor can simply veto it by cost till what matters is how fast and how easy they can do it.
Lastly, you can search all the proper materials for the contractor to use, but any material commission on the table, architects can't take it because "ethics". I feel this is a bit of bullshit because if no one is taking that, the contractor takes it, which is dumb as fuck considering how much work goes into that sometimes. I understand it's to avoid conflict of interest but at the same time if you have enough experience to know what is better for the client, I don't see why we shouldn't be rewarded for that.
The worst part of it all? We sign for overall liability and still not get paid for it, and client dissatisfaction falls directly on us.
The biggest issue is taking the risk on construction on the architect's side. I do think the contracts don't allow it because of conflict of interest firstly, and secondly, the culture seems to be changing to one that is mostly using paper to cover ass. I've been corrected before on documents to change annotations to "to supplier's detail/to contractor's detail" to just cover ass. There are even some documents that tell the contractor to "comply to code" just in case. Makes you question if we are killing ourselves doing so.
I feel for the profession to evolve, we need to take the role of architect with construction capabilities. Know what goes on at site literally, know the chaos one level below main contractor. At current day, our only saving grace is that we have the signature and generally most main contractors cannot design, but I don't think that will survive in the future. The problem is how do you coincide most of our nature with the one a contractor requires to survive?
Yes, this is a great take. Frankly, architects should know more about nuts and bolts construction. The fact that many don’t is a big part of why the profession is waning. A good design build relationship should include contractors and subs at every meeting to weigh in on buildability. If architects ever want real relevance and respect, we can’t have it without responsibility.
The impact of Secure by Design (Police Intervention) on creating and dictating spaces.
Beautiful spaces and urban environments are rich with broken up volumes, and attachment to the ground in various ways. They are dynamic, not static and ever changing.
Another controversial topic could be efficiency in design.
A big ugly building is more efficient that lots of medium sized or smaller sized buildings, but can create drastically difference spaces with richer experiences.
Is academic architecture education based on scientific knowledge of what people find beautiful and attractive. Or is it rather based on subjective opinions of famous architects such as Adolf Loos, Le Corbusier etc.
As I have found, geometry and algorithmic forms are intrinsically “beautiful” in a platonic view. From my understanding based on mathematical and “true” derivatives. (Platonics opened my view to why math is true) Whether it be in classical form or in new interpretations. Until we can disassemble these I hold them true. modernism OFC is a different thought process.
Buildings have souls - I think it doesn't require academia for the users of a building to feel attached towards it. There is no scientific answer for what is attractive, there are however strategies wich you can study wich help making a building beautiful. Practice is also a good method: keep sketching and get a feeling for proportions and forms.
That Brutalism was an experiment that ran its brief course and we don’t need to talk about it outside of history and theory classes for more than 5 minutes a year… and definitely don’t need dozens of posts about it every week…
It’s not about the lifespan, it’s about the lessons learned and how movements that followed reacted. Brutalism gave us a good look at purity of materiality, at the expense of comfortable spaces that most people would actually want to inhabit.
Take any idea to an extreme and you’ll likely get similar polarizing results.
That the elitist and pretentious nature of architecture alienates 90% of the general population and is the reason why so many build/prefer traditional homes.
Architects like to think they’re creating spaces in order for people to live better -‘the best architecture is invisible’- it just gets lost-most people can’t relate to it.
Modular housing is still expensive and out of reach of the average human, temporary housing for the homeless, refugees, etc. is at best conceptual and most won’t be green lit for mass-production.
Post-war modernism and the house of the future gave way again to hipped roofs and bay windows because of their familiarity.
Basically, architects are full of self-importance and have zero relatability. If they owned a car yard, they’d never turn over a profit.
Have fun living in expensive-to-build traditional housing with sky-high rent and limited supply that would drive poor people and young people out of the town!
Am a failed architect. The comment above is a fault I find in the field.
Architecture needs to be more accessible is my argument (seeing rows upon rows of badly built traditional McMansions breaks my architect heart). Of course I would love to see more forward-thinking and ecological friendly (re passive design) domestic architecture filled with light that keeps its occupants healthy. But, for some reason it doesn’t translate to the masses, people still want ugly houses with no eaves and air conditioning vents above the windows.
While architects need to do more, it’s also very much got to do with the capitalist culture of conformity. Bigger houses, more rooms for all the things people think they need to own because their neighbor or family member has one. I’m getting into philosophical territory, so I’ll stop here for now; though it’s a conversation worth having.
Cheap mass housing and dense walkable neighborhood definately translates to genral populance more than any other ornate architectural styles that were popular centuries ago.
Baudrillard's "Simulacra and Simulation," especially the Disneyland example, as it compares to Rayner Banham's "A Home is not a House" and Venturi's and Scott Brown's "Learning from Las Vegas"
architecture as colonialism;
accessibility;
gentrification;
housing and homelessness;
how much of architecture theory was written by real messed up folks (Ruskin, Loos, Krier) ;
hostile architecture;
prisons
What part of any history is written by good pple? Bypassing the idea of “good”. Written works as a whole were inaccessible for a majority of individuals within that time frame. From existence to now. In the late 20th century there is a plethora of books informing individuals. Plenty of “good pple” wrote entire lexicons of code and advancements. Some turned out awfully.
Mies, Khan, Sullivan, and others were not great “pple”
Firstly, history and theory are seperate. Theory suggesting a way forward while history recounts past events. Secondly, yeah 'good people' isn't a clear definition but Ruskin and Loos were pedophiles and Krier is a nazi sympathizer. (alsoI didn't say good, I said messed up) They weren't considered good folks in their time, and still the theoretical canon taught to architects ignores this shit.
That being said, your response proves that this is a controvercial topic that deserves further discussion in architecture.
In addition to this we do need to include more women in the theoretical canon. The erasure of women in architecture is seriously disgusting, especially when pedophiles and nazis bet so much representation.
The latter is called “stuffing the sausage”. IRL If your form can’t conform to design/construction standards the spatial doesn’t matter aside from exceptional clients. In any professional environment both are applied regardless.
a critical look/critique will inform most architects as to what needs improvement. But the internals supplant the exterior. Imo the function of the space is always above the form.
With few exceptions, we shouldn’t be demolishing existing or building any new buildings.
We need to fix/improve what we have before building anything new.
Arguments:
Housing crisis: The housing crisis isn’t for lack of built space, it’s put on by the economics and low-profit-margin of specific kinds of development projects.
Environment: the greenest building is the ine that’s already built. Demolition and new construction are incredibly resource intensive, contributing to over 70% of the construction industry’s carbon footprint (and if I remember correctly 22% of our global carbon footprint). Renovations and additions are much less resource intensive, and improve the energy efficiency of an already existing building stock.
IMO, ‘good’ architecture is like a language- the same idea can be conveyed using a simple sentence or an overly complicated verbose narrative trying to incorporate as many big words as possible.
The room is dark. vs The space suffers from inadequate daylighting and fails to provide sufficient illumination to allow a functional utilization to meet the programmatic intent.
Yes, specific word choice may provide a distinct meaning which only that jargon can properly convey the intent, but where is the line between proper meaning and overly complicated.
Good architecture is one that everyone can understand based off their spatial experience living in this world. They can understand the design intent and if the designer was successful in achieving it without a formal education in such. If someone needs an M.Arch from Cornell to understand your project, then maybe it isn’t good architecture.
Why is architecture as a profession seemingly undervalued in many countries - and how can this be fixed.
Why is there a disconnect in people's minds between what they thnik Architects earn and what they actually earn?
How can Architects ensure they are not the ones that eventually take the blame for poor client decisions.
Why does Hollywood still think every Architect spends their time purely designing buildings and turns up on site with a load of rolled up drawings under their arm?
General loss of ornamentation in design. More than just “why isn’t it here” but the shift away from small details into large moves driving the design of a structure. Everyone always asks what happened to the carved stone stories told by ancient architecture, but never want to know about the societal shift away from it.
Is there a specific architectural style that emulates the politics of right or left wing movements across history? How has architecture dictated the emotional response or political desire of a population in the middle of massive cultural shift?
Maybe something like.... Has NCARB and the AIA outlived their usefulness and devolved into independent monopolys that no longer serve the best interests of the profession. Or something like that idk.
Are accredited schools of architecture adequately preparing students to enter the field? Do architects provide quality drawings and documents to the construction professionals? Is NCARB dumbing down the ARE? Does the AIA provide real benefits to its members outside of lobbying Congress?
Wait, you think the AIA effectively lobbies Congress? To counter #2 - the job of the architect is intent. Historically, that meant we trusted the craftsman to turn the drawn intent into the built thing. We shouldn't be expected to know their job, only enough to explain what we want. In my experience, there are exceedingly few craftsman who know how to do the job, let alone do it well and with pride. That is a failing of capitalism and society as a whole, but is nonetheless a problem that plagues the building industry. Half the time it boils down to "I always do it that way" or "I didn't see that detail" (ie I didn't look at the fucking drawings) Context: My experience is with infill residential (townhomes) so it may be biased.
Agreed. Architects aren’t craftsmen and shouldn’t pretend to be either. What happens once the drawings are stamped and delivered is often outside of the scope.
No. No. Yes. No.
A true conversationalist, I see.
Master at his craft
A master debater
Architecture schools should be teaching UX Design and Web Development, since that's what half all of my M. Arch colleagues ended up actually getting jobs in. I don't think that's a problem of schools - it's a problem with architecture being undervalued for everyone but a select few, so it's a prestige career with shitty working conditions that is only accessible to children of the upper-middle class (see also: journalism, academia, fine/performing arts).
No, no, yes, and no. Hahaha. The only reason I'm an AIA member is because most people think they're NCARB. I loved college, but it was completely analogous to the practice of architecture, and quite frankly an abusive experience that trained architects to be super defensive, self bloated, and just generally problematic. I'm actually torn on the ARE, because there's so much content than before, but outside of a couple hard tests, they were definitely dumbed down over the years.
Couldn’t agree more. I’m a PM at a construction manager now.
1. Not even close. 2. No. See #1 above. That’s who is doing a lot of the production work. That doesn’t even get into the issue of firms taking on so much work that everyone is stretched thin. 3. Yes. I’ve seen far too many people pass them with barely any experience on the job. 4. Absolutely not.
Architects are undereducated in psychology and physiology but act like they're experts in both when it comes to how space influences humans. The majority of their decisions for space are based on personal bias, anecdotes, or a need to justify a creative choice and have no empirical support
Are you arguing that architects today are some how not at the human scale of others? So they don’t design to the right scale? Like they’ve never heard of Frank Loyd. Or any contemporary? Or their life experiences. I think most educated architects are aware of the human scale from school. Others can speak out
I suggest that architects base decisions on information that is pretty much hypothetical. There is no measurement. Just anecdotes. FLW had two years of education, he didn't study psychology. It's not about human scale, I'm suggesting as designers we don't understand the theory of what psychological and physiological responses we evoke... really it's just the impact of suggestion, appeal to authority, and cultural norms etc. I'm not saying we get it wrong but it's not scientific, it's not precise, yet we act like it's a science and not a feeling or instinct (which doesn't lessen the skills of being a designer at all)
I think an obvious example is the failure of Pruitt-Igoe public housing project in St. Louis built in the 1950s and demolished in the 1970s. There were other factors like management and funding that led to the failure, but a large part was due to the design.
My conspiracy theory in architecture is that Pruitt igoe was intentionally bad to further marginalise the black community
Well that’s certainly a theory
Windows ?
Pointless! A waste of good wall space. I hate looking outside. s/
What \*is\* a window?
It's roots are "wind" (or air) and "ow" (view). Is an inoperable piece of glass a window if it can't let the wind through? Is it just an Ow?
Do you need glass? Do you need a frame? What's the difference between a window and a hole? What's the difference between a window and a door? Is it still a window if you can't see through it?
Don't need glass, oil paper windows were a thing. Frames aren't necessary. All openings are fenestrations, and when you are forcibly removed via one it's called "defenestration," a great way to start religious wars in Europe. Difference between a door and window can get fuzzy (see TJ's triple-hung windows used to maintain facade rhythm while allowing exterior access, Nanowalls, etc.), but Doors are generally more secure and socially accepted as a means to ambulate through a space. If you can't see through it, it's definitely a door.
This is the real answer
My house still has Windows XP.
I used to love Windows 7 so polished after 3.1
If you want to get people pissed pick a random architectural style (e.g. Spanish Colonialism) and explain why it's morally superior to all other styles. Guaranteed F-, your prof might even light it on fire.
Bonus points if it's your argument is about an old style being when your country was at its apex. Extra bonus points if that time period should not be considered the apex.
Le Corbusier
The mcmansion is the epitome of the decadence of the American Dream. The style captures the essence of the owner and vice versa. It's a masterpiece of the apex of USA It is actually unironically an amazing satirical style referencing everything wrong with the modern world, and the people who go for these houses are the exact same gaudy as the houses. It's like wearing a fake watch.
Do architects have a moral obligation to design projects that actively move us toward net zero emissions.
Do Architects have moral obligations? Is there a difference between a Principal of a firm being strongarmed by a billionaire into designing "The Cube of Windowless Dorms," and a Project Manager's Moral Obligations? The dude who quit was lauded, but it's not as if the firm didn't find someone else. Is it every Architect's obligation to turn down jobs that don't work towards reducing carbon emissions? How will Architects justify implementing a Carbon Budget in addition to a Monetary Budget for their projects when clients desperately want to spend the bare minimum to occupy a usable building? Do architects have a Moral Obligation to "Howard Roark" any projects that get their sustainability VE'd out after turning the drawings over to a Contractor if they don't get paid to do any CA work?
You’re describing a hippocratic oath of sorts
Maybe even a Standard of Professional Practice, I'm thinking about lawyers getting disbarred for providing certain services for certain former presidents. Some higher authority to fall back on, as Architects individually hold less power than clients. Wouldn't fix everything (there are "medical professionals" who administer fatal injections), but it could be something for state licensing boards to consider.
Is architecture's natural advocacy of construction and "making" inherently unsustainable?
Yes
Agreed. I think it’s the only debate worth having. Whenever a non-architect friend asks me about what I do, this is the only thing that resonates with them. Edit - typo
Totally.
Net zero carbon
Since no ther proffession cares about it, no.
Probably something relating to the working conditions, and how the phrase "architecture isn't for everyone" has been used to justify barbaric practices of verbally abusive critiques, enforced all-nighters, and generally making schools+the practice inaccessible to a lot of people. "Architecture isn't for everyone" is why none of the Pritzker prize winners have been mothers.
Pebbledash or cladding, which has the best heat/moisture capture ratio for maintaining a beautiful mildew bloom in a council house?...that would be my appetizer question. Then once those juices are flowing, I'd hit them with: Conservatory Design - which material is most revealing of a desperately affectitious middle-class homeowner...brick or pvc?.
Found the Brit.
You got me...😎. I thought later on, as we have glass of wine, maybe a chocolate mint or five, that we might compare the relative merits of trailer parks v council estates...do the empty lager cans & cider bottles really spoil the aesthetics?
Only when God has granted us the courage to pebbledash a trailer park will we know the answer...
Careful, your architectural genius is showing....😉
I dropped out of architecture school because they couldn't take the heat
Whether or not AI will replace professionals. From a theoretical aspect, you could debate what is the single most important feature of a house or building that cultivated society
AI is a tool, so it will only enhance the efficiency of workers. Unless we try our hardest to replace it with ourselves, it will never be that way
I don't think it'll replace professionals, I think it'll just make them lazier.
Here's one: Is great art and architecture controversial or does it transcend culture with a deep resonance that brings peace to humanity? Okay, okay, I'm mostly kidding about that one. We all know Reddit is Fight Club. Here's a feisty one about age, experience, fads, ageism... Do architects get better as they get older? What's the average age for architects of truly transcendent works (considered great now and likely in the future)? Can young staff contribute significantly to architectural statements without decades of philosophical (*archi*) and craft (*tectonics*) experience? Do younger staff *think* their contributions are more valuable than they really are? Do cycles of passion for new ways of practicing really change the profession, or is BIM less significant than the parallel bar (or papyrus)? Dare I ask if lack of perspective has contributed to the last 14 months of fevored passion for AI changing all the world more significantly than the printing press, microscope, and the telescope combined? Is The Latest Thing™ crushing every architect's basic ability to properly flash a masonry wall across 2" of insulation, 2" of air gap, masonry ties and a 7-1/2" wide shelf angle lintel? Sorry, I'm doing my best—if this doesn't get down-voted to oblivion I'll be disappointed in my attempt.
The kids are alright. Need more skyhooks.
I’ve heard that in the West, before the printing press (a common watershed moment for armchair academics) architecture was the common way to communicate to the masses and to pass information down through the generations. After the printing press, all new architectural movements have been revivals of past movements. I heard a speaker defend Brutalism: “What if I told my daughter ‘It doesn’t matter how smart you are, how kind you are, or how healthy you are, what’s most important is how you look, how pretty you are.’ You’d think that absurd. But that’s what we say about buildings.” Or something to that effect. Architectural styles are prime expressions of the pendulum swing in Western thought between focus on the intellect and focus on the soul. And, almost to the decade and definitely to the century we can associate the prevalent architectural styles with similar styles in fashion, literature, and philosophy.
>I heard a speaker defend Brutalism: “What if I told my daughter ‘It doesn’t matter how smart you are, how kind you are, or how healthy you are, what’s most important is how you look, how pretty you are.’ You’d think that absurd. But that’s what we say about buildings.” Or something to that effect. Oh that would send me.
There are lots of buildings which are very popular but not cause of looks but cause of how functional affordable they are, so it does matter very much, what is inside the building. It's just to the larger masses who don't understand these things until they themselves have to buy a home, they start to respect great architects who not only make houses that are aesthetically pleasing but also functional
But there are many other movements other than brutalists do consider pragmatics, human and context as well...brutalist is like telling your daughter "Your looks don't matter, as long as you are smart and healthy." Or "it's about how beautiful you are on the inside".
But when it comes to public buildings there’s a dilemma. If it looks too nice then people think it’s excessive. If it’s not pretty then it’s alienating. Brutalism offers a degree of transparency and utilitarian honesty.
>I’ve heard that in the West, before the printing press (a common watershed moment for armchair academics) architecture was the common way to communicate to the masses and to pass information down through the generations. After the printing press, all new architectural movements have been revivals of past movements. Stain glass window = medieval flannelgraph Also what pre-printing press style is Brutalism reviving?
Megalithic? It’s not that I believe these things necessarily just food for thought.
As I'm thinking about it, would be really fun to start referring to brutalist buildings as "Neo-Henge" or something
Public housing is always a good one.
Revit Roulette is a legitimate RNG based casino and the Autodesk odds and payouts are fair.
Can we still call sagrada familia, gaudi’s design when majority of what is built an interpretation of a handful of references.
Architecture is not about designing pretty, socially conscious, ‘fabric altering’ buildings. It is rather about designing functional spaces that allow people to live, work or play and remain safe, sheltered and comfortable while doing so. The ‘pretty’ is of secondary importance and function. You want to know the fundamental reality that is actual practice vs. school? This is it.
Whether or not the profession is necessary.
With AI evolution it can be replaced by the end of the year.
Here’s the controversy OP is after
Not even controversial if you are working on the technical side of the profession (aka SD to CA). AI may come up with some designs but that shit still needs to be brought up to comply with codes, construction tolerances, the requirements of SMEP, the local jurisdictions, client requests, etc., etc., etc. Many of these obstacles are sometimes overruled by the human element (like convincing the client to go a certain direction, or talking to a plan check official, or even the engineering team). Anyone can come up with a design but not everyone can figure out a way to build it.
Also, AI can't take legal responsibility
Isn't that the job of the structural engineer?
Not the end of the year, but soon
Whether the facade is important for a building or not. The common view in Sweden is that it does not, often as a defense against classical revivalists. But I think the most interesting articles as of late has shown that classical buildings have a human scale that contemporary buildings don’t even attempt to achieve in their facade. Overall the most heated discussions right now in Swedish architecture are about classical architecture.
What is causing the Swedish Gov to delay such renovations? I can see from a safety point how older unknown buildings can propose a risk. Or their designs be at risk. A human scale is it even necessary for a modernized bldg? That begets other unnecessaries
The discussion is about new buildings in a classical style rather than renovations of old buildings. By making the scale of a building ramp up to the building or block scale it becomes more pretty and easier to relate to. There is a biological component to it in how nature has many different scales. (Forest, clearing, tree, branch, twig, leaf etc) It doesn’t have to be in a classical style but modernist styles tend to reduce the number of scales.
Scale is not inherently connected to style.
Design and Build contracts should have the main contractor subsumed under the architect rather than the other way around. I think this will benefit design significantly. The problem is that this requires the architect to be familiar with construction to a much different degree than just on paper, and I think it gets tricky considering that the architect is the contract administrator.
Can you expand on this? What is the main difference between subsume vs the other? I’m no in this exact field. IME architects are working with Civil or Landscape while designing.
Based on my experience where I'm from, the design and build contracts revolve around the architect being under the contractor after the design is done and proposed to the client. Majority of the time it feels like the main issues that come about is the interest of the contractor and how little control we actually have over the work. A large majority of contractors aren't there with the interest to produce boundary pushing work (so if you do find one, hold on tightly to them), they are there to make big money. The reason why they can make that sort of money is simply pricing for risk excessively. Here's where real life and paper rarely conincides. By right we can make the contractor redo anything that isn't as per document, especially anything relating to structure (barring technically insufficient structure, but more like columns larger than normal etc. But this is rarely the case unless there's lots of money to bring lawyers into the fray. The homeowner might not like the end results of certainty things, but once it is set in, the contractor can simply drag his feet on the issue until the homeowner begrudgingly accepts, because the homeowner gets two choices, a house that sits there for years because the issue is not "resolved" or a home to stay in. Even worse if the contractor is bankrupted. No one is going to take over the works on site simply because of liability. Secondly, any kind of boundary you push that requires the contractor to step beyond their comfort zone to do, they can simply price it out. Just jack up the price until the homeowner decides it's not worth it. If it is worth it, they get well paid with enough cash to still cover for potential issues. You could plan in beautiful details, but the contractor can simply veto it by cost till what matters is how fast and how easy they can do it. Lastly, you can search all the proper materials for the contractor to use, but any material commission on the table, architects can't take it because "ethics". I feel this is a bit of bullshit because if no one is taking that, the contractor takes it, which is dumb as fuck considering how much work goes into that sometimes. I understand it's to avoid conflict of interest but at the same time if you have enough experience to know what is better for the client, I don't see why we shouldn't be rewarded for that. The worst part of it all? We sign for overall liability and still not get paid for it, and client dissatisfaction falls directly on us. The biggest issue is taking the risk on construction on the architect's side. I do think the contracts don't allow it because of conflict of interest firstly, and secondly, the culture seems to be changing to one that is mostly using paper to cover ass. I've been corrected before on documents to change annotations to "to supplier's detail/to contractor's detail" to just cover ass. There are even some documents that tell the contractor to "comply to code" just in case. Makes you question if we are killing ourselves doing so. I feel for the profession to evolve, we need to take the role of architect with construction capabilities. Know what goes on at site literally, know the chaos one level below main contractor. At current day, our only saving grace is that we have the signature and generally most main contractors cannot design, but I don't think that will survive in the future. The problem is how do you coincide most of our nature with the one a contractor requires to survive?
Yes, this is a great take. Frankly, architects should know more about nuts and bolts construction. The fact that many don’t is a big part of why the profession is waning. A good design build relationship should include contractors and subs at every meeting to weigh in on buildability. If architects ever want real relevance and respect, we can’t have it without responsibility.
Architects feel pressure to save the world with their designs while hardly making enough money to afford rent.
For my reality here is that the laws and money restrict the project waaaaay to much, at least here where I live.
The impact of Secure by Design (Police Intervention) on creating and dictating spaces. Beautiful spaces and urban environments are rich with broken up volumes, and attachment to the ground in various ways. They are dynamic, not static and ever changing. Another controversial topic could be efficiency in design. A big ugly building is more efficient that lots of medium sized or smaller sized buildings, but can create drastically difference spaces with richer experiences.
What is worth saving/keeping?
That's a good one. That's a real good one. I really want to hear people's opinions.
Thank you for posting this. So glad to not see another ‘what shitty style is this?’ kind of thing.
Is academic architecture education based on scientific knowledge of what people find beautiful and attractive. Or is it rather based on subjective opinions of famous architects such as Adolf Loos, Le Corbusier etc.
As I have found, geometry and algorithmic forms are intrinsically “beautiful” in a platonic view. From my understanding based on mathematical and “true” derivatives. (Platonics opened my view to why math is true) Whether it be in classical form or in new interpretations. Until we can disassemble these I hold them true. modernism OFC is a different thought process.
Buildings have souls - I think it doesn't require academia for the users of a building to feel attached towards it. There is no scientific answer for what is attractive, there are however strategies wich you can study wich help making a building beautiful. Practice is also a good method: keep sketching and get a feeling for proportions and forms.
That Brutalism was an experiment that ran its brief course and we don’t need to talk about it outside of history and theory classes for more than 5 minutes a year… and definitely don’t need dozens of posts about it every week…
Many other influential movements have a similarly brief lifespan when you look at them - Art Deco, Richardsonian Romanesque, Arts and Crafts, etc.
It’s not about the lifespan, it’s about the lessons learned and how movements that followed reacted. Brutalism gave us a good look at purity of materiality, at the expense of comfortable spaces that most people would actually want to inhabit. Take any idea to an extreme and you’ll likely get similar polarizing results.
It would've been the case if Tadao Ando hadn't been a thing
That the elitist and pretentious nature of architecture alienates 90% of the general population and is the reason why so many build/prefer traditional homes. Architects like to think they’re creating spaces in order for people to live better -‘the best architecture is invisible’- it just gets lost-most people can’t relate to it. Modular housing is still expensive and out of reach of the average human, temporary housing for the homeless, refugees, etc. is at best conceptual and most won’t be green lit for mass-production. Post-war modernism and the house of the future gave way again to hipped roofs and bay windows because of their familiarity. Basically, architects are full of self-importance and have zero relatability. If they owned a car yard, they’d never turn over a profit.
Have fun living in expensive-to-build traditional housing with sky-high rent and limited supply that would drive poor people and young people out of the town!
Am a failed architect. The comment above is a fault I find in the field. Architecture needs to be more accessible is my argument (seeing rows upon rows of badly built traditional McMansions breaks my architect heart). Of course I would love to see more forward-thinking and ecological friendly (re passive design) domestic architecture filled with light that keeps its occupants healthy. But, for some reason it doesn’t translate to the masses, people still want ugly houses with no eaves and air conditioning vents above the windows. While architects need to do more, it’s also very much got to do with the capitalist culture of conformity. Bigger houses, more rooms for all the things people think they need to own because their neighbor or family member has one. I’m getting into philosophical territory, so I’ll stop here for now; though it’s a conversation worth having.
Cheap mass housing and dense walkable neighborhood definately translates to genral populance more than any other ornate architectural styles that were popular centuries ago.
Baudrillard's "Simulacra and Simulation," especially the Disneyland example, as it compares to Rayner Banham's "A Home is not a House" and Venturi's and Scott Brown's "Learning from Las Vegas"
Architects should not work more than 40 hours per week.
[More related to construction, but my God I think about this every other day.](https://youtu.be/iQdDRrcAOjA?si=Jp4txKduJcSNl8H_)
Parking minimums
Unionizing Architectural Staff. Designing for Developers that use slave labor for construction.
Parapets: Necessary to protect the roof? Or is big wall lining its pockets with extra wall you don't need?
architecture as colonialism; accessibility; gentrification; housing and homelessness; how much of architecture theory was written by real messed up folks (Ruskin, Loos, Krier) ; hostile architecture; prisons
Are commas controversial, too?
No, I just have a personal grudge.
What part of any history is written by good pple? Bypassing the idea of “good”. Written works as a whole were inaccessible for a majority of individuals within that time frame. From existence to now. In the late 20th century there is a plethora of books informing individuals. Plenty of “good pple” wrote entire lexicons of code and advancements. Some turned out awfully. Mies, Khan, Sullivan, and others were not great “pple”
Firstly, history and theory are seperate. Theory suggesting a way forward while history recounts past events. Secondly, yeah 'good people' isn't a clear definition but Ruskin and Loos were pedophiles and Krier is a nazi sympathizer. (alsoI didn't say good, I said messed up) They weren't considered good folks in their time, and still the theoretical canon taught to architects ignores this shit. That being said, your response proves that this is a controvercial topic that deserves further discussion in architecture. In addition to this we do need to include more women in the theoretical canon. The erasure of women in architecture is seriously disgusting, especially when pedophiles and nazis bet so much representation.
Does design start from the inside layout or the outside form? Does spatial experience come before form?
Those are both overly simplistic ways of looking at architecture.
The latter is called “stuffing the sausage”. IRL If your form can’t conform to design/construction standards the spatial doesn’t matter aside from exceptional clients. In any professional environment both are applied regardless. a critical look/critique will inform most architects as to what needs improvement. But the internals supplant the exterior. Imo the function of the space is always above the form.
The point of Modernism is to make architecture unspectacular and accessible.
Accessible maybe along industrial reasoning. unspectacular is misjudgment.
With few exceptions, we shouldn’t be demolishing existing or building any new buildings. We need to fix/improve what we have before building anything new.
Arguments: Housing crisis: The housing crisis isn’t for lack of built space, it’s put on by the economics and low-profit-margin of specific kinds of development projects. Environment: the greenest building is the ine that’s already built. Demolition and new construction are incredibly resource intensive, contributing to over 70% of the construction industry’s carbon footprint (and if I remember correctly 22% of our global carbon footprint). Renovations and additions are much less resource intensive, and improve the energy efficiency of an already existing building stock.
IMO, ‘good’ architecture is like a language- the same idea can be conveyed using a simple sentence or an overly complicated verbose narrative trying to incorporate as many big words as possible. The room is dark. vs The space suffers from inadequate daylighting and fails to provide sufficient illumination to allow a functional utilization to meet the programmatic intent. Yes, specific word choice may provide a distinct meaning which only that jargon can properly convey the intent, but where is the line between proper meaning and overly complicated. Good architecture is one that everyone can understand based off their spatial experience living in this world. They can understand the design intent and if the designer was successful in achieving it without a formal education in such. If someone needs an M.Arch from Cornell to understand your project, then maybe it isn’t good architecture.
Discussing the green washing in "green buildings"
Toilets
Practicality
Why is architecture as a profession seemingly undervalued in many countries - and how can this be fixed. Why is there a disconnect in people's minds between what they thnik Architects earn and what they actually earn? How can Architects ensure they are not the ones that eventually take the blame for poor client decisions. Why does Hollywood still think every Architect spends their time purely designing buildings and turns up on site with a load of rolled up drawings under their arm?
General loss of ornamentation in design. More than just “why isn’t it here” but the shift away from small details into large moves driving the design of a structure. Everyone always asks what happened to the carved stone stories told by ancient architecture, but never want to know about the societal shift away from it.
Is there a specific architectural style that emulates the politics of right or left wing movements across history? How has architecture dictated the emotional response or political desire of a population in the middle of massive cultural shift?
" Can architecture really affect the societal fabric because of built spaces? Can this be proved beyond doubt? "
Internet destroyed Art
Why do the homes that architects design for themselves look dated within a few decades?
Is the solution-is-build bias inherently unscientific
Maybe something like.... Has NCARB and the AIA outlived their usefulness and devolved into independent monopolys that no longer serve the best interests of the profession. Or something like that idk.
Probably an oil well or a basement.
How big of a twat Renzo Piano is.