Discussion // Complexity & Contradiction

(This will an evolving post, so don't be alarmed by the length. I will continue to update it as I notice further relationships.)

The rhetoric over theory vs. practice in architecture is tired and worn out, and if you've ever worked in an office you don't need to be told the differences. But for my generation, there are some new wrinkles in this complicated - and often criticized - relationship that are starting to affect the discipline as a whole. In the traditional model of architectural education and practice, the conflict could be modeled simply as a push and pull between design (form, art, sculpture, independence) and reality (economy, gravity, dependence).

Design < >  Reality

[Sant Elia - Futurist, but still with pen, paper, and straight edge. The forms are recognizable as buildings.]

Now I believe there is a third element to this conflict: technology. More specifically, computers and visualization software. For centuries, since the days when Brunelleschi doodled the famous structure of the dome, the methods of architectural representation remained relatively constant: drawing tool, straight edge, and paper. The use of such devices limited our ability to conceive of form beyond what was structurally possible or referential to some previous typology. Computers, on the other hand, have allowed our imaginative powers to far outrun our ability to practically create, because they not only translate what we think but also generate based on complicated sets of parameters or algorithms. As a result, a new style, or field of research (I don't really know what to call it) of "virtual architecture" has emerged, championed by the likes of Zaha Hadid / Patrik Schumacher, Roland Snooks and others, whose bearing on real architecture has yet to be fully explored or even explained clearly by those who profess it.
 

[Diaz Alonso - what in the world is this without context? How was it made?]

What all this leads to, at least with me since I feel like I'm not brilliant enough to decipher it all, is an incredible confusion as to what architecture - especially in this country - actually is and where I should focus myself in school. Should I look into parametric design simply because it's new and innovative, to broaden my horizons? Should I avoid it if I think it's irrelevant to my own interests? Should I even bother looking at history if the tools of the trade have evolved so much? These are questions I have to deal with even as I'm forced to struggle to catch up with learning new software (I've found out so far I'm very much behind). So now the conflicts in architecture look like this:

Design (Practical) < > Design (Virtual) < > Technology < > Reality < > Generational

Sometimes it's all a bit too much to handle, I'll admit. Now with the conflicts mapped out, I'm going to start keeping a list of contradictions in architectural practice vs. education, the purpose of which is not to completely discount what I learn, but simply to refer it to my ultimate goal of becoming an architect who builds buildings. Sure it's been done before many times, but I think it's healthy for every student of architecture to develop his or her own. I'll start off with a few, feel free to add, contribute, suggest, refute, etc.

1. The Role of the Architect in the Realization of Projects

This one is obvious. In school, you are taught ways of making cities better one building or project at a time, as if you are the spontaneous generator of the need.
"Don't build projects that detract from the place/context!" Easy - or difficult? - enough if, say, once a year, someone said, go build a project wherever you want with unlimited funds in whatever form you imagine and we'll pay you a generous year's salary. But in practice, developers create the need and architects provide the service. With the economy the way it is, not many architects are turning away offers even the locations and programs are dubious and possibly destructive to the environment. A more accurate suggestion would be "Make each project an opportunity!" Even if that opportunity is making a crappy strip mall in any-town USA on a shoestring budget for which you're not being paid enough.

[Who chose to do it like this?]

2. The Role of the Architect in Society

Many people think of the architect as the consummate creative type with artistic talent, skills, and sophistication. Now I'm not one to argue (haha), but no matter how true that is, architects are overworked and undervalued, which might not be so bad if they weren't also egregiously underpaid (see: lawyers). Every designer in practice knows this, has experienced it and hates it, even if he/she doesn't say so. Unfortunately, school instills an attitude that makes one think too highly of himself, that only he/she is capable of making good decisions and his/her talent is the only means through which a project can be successful. If one ever hopes to practice, they better knock that attitude out immediately. Unless your name is Richard Meier or something.

3. Where Does Architecture Come From?

Architecture comes from a need and must respond to that need, whether it pertains to use, budget, infrastructural demands, or something else. Architecture, generally, does not come from the desire to create, nor does it spawn from the architect himself, but from a tangible void of community service that an enterprising developer identifies. There have been, however, "exhibition architects" for quite some time (Zaha, Hernan Diaz Alonso, Greg Lynn to an extent) who create the need to create much as an artist would, an interesting notion in education & research circles but not practical for architecture practice unless people can be convinced such artist exercises can be applied practically. Frank Gehry and Enric Miralles
(though in Europe the conditions are far different, which is why I don't address the issues of European architecture often on this blog) are two examples that have, consistently, responded to a need for buildings that are themselves art, but in each case they also fulfill broad-reaching practical goals. In school, it's not stated explicitly but, as mentioned above, we put ourselves in the position of creating the need and creating the project, which leads to more self-serving results. More on this later...

[I admit, I LOVE Enric Miralles / Benedetta Taglibue. Building in the Spanish muralist tradition.]

4. The Gap in Communication Between Architects and Clients and Other Architects

In school, you present your projects, skills and techniques only to, with rare exception, other architects. Not everyone, not even some developers, understand the lofty design concepts you begin to formulate through your education. So you have to learn techniques of simplification and compromise. It explains why some architects, who have mastered the art of communication, are more successful than others, or advance more quickly in the field, no matter how great the designs might be (See: Bjarke Ingels. More on him later). Now, with the new technological conflict, there are even gaps in communication amongst architects; an older member of the profession who studied more traditional methods would not even know how to critique blobchitecture swarm parametricism. That's not a slight on him/her, but a reality of the times. That language gap will be difficult to bridge for some time to come.

5. Architectural Identity: Is it Art, a Science, a Research Discipline, or a Business?

The answer is all, but prioritized. It's exceptionally difficult to be all four and successful, so many practices encompass two, sometimes three of the above subgroupings. What they don't teach you in school is that business must ALWAYS be one of your priorities. We all know that economic realities drive the architectural profession, but in school you're on the inside looking out. What do I care, I'm designing! That's why for many it's dangerous territory to delve too much into architectural research (i.e. parametrics) unless you're sure you can make it in teaching or one of the very few firms that practice within that subgrouping. The existence of Sci-Arc proves, though, that there is at least a very limited market for experimentalism. Roland Snooks, for example, one of the most well-known architectural researchers, has to teach at USC on Friday nights and Saturdays (while teaching at UPenn and Columbia and practicing during the week) to make it all work. I can only make assumptions as to why but I would assume it's to perpetuate his research and practice (which doesn't make real buildings) economically. Maybe I'll ask him.

6. Designing for Real Programmatic Constraints & "The Worst Case Scenario"

Parking...code...egress...loading docks...security...ADA...these are not constraints that students want to deal with when designing, but you encounter each with regularity in the real world. They tend to make the design process drag and infringe on the aesthetic - bad news for the whimsical artist. Sometimes these are addressed in studios, often not, it depends on the instructor. Budget, perhaps THE most important issue of practical design, is almost NEVER addressed in school, especially as it pertains to current economic conditions; though I think if we designed buildings in school for the worst-case scenario of economic armageddon, no one would ever sign up. And some people in practice now wish they hadn't.

7. Celebrity Architects, Celebrity Teachers

Celebrity architects love to associate themselves with schools, and they engender a curiosity that draws students from around the world to study under their brilliant/insightful/enlightening tutelage. Only the students are disappointed when they realize the "professor" only shows up once every three weeks, maybe on an odd day, offers a few snippets of wisdom here and here, suggests they buy his/her book and then leaves again for practice. The relationship between Starchitects and the educational community is a curious one, because rarely do they have enough time to provide really valuable instruction, but the schools need their presence to attract the best and brightest. I've found the best professors are well-known locally, and perhaps on the fringe of fame but not quite there, and young enough to give energetic advice about the material. Michael Maltzan is an example; if you don't know his work, check it out. These top professors should be practicing professionals with real-world experience but whose priority is education and teaching new generations.

8. Scale, the Diagram Architect and the Master Craftsman

Rem Koolhaas is the greatest architect in the world. I did not know this. At least, that's who most professors and even students reference as the model for design process - simple forms, even more simple diagrams, clear ideas. An easy attitude towards program. Bjarke Ingels will be the greatest architect in the world in ten years. The name of his firm says it: "BIG" Big ideas, big plans. It's somewhat disappointing to me that most schools (save for the more art-centric programs) still confine themselves to the top-down urbanist methodology: large projects that influence the city. While the proper understanding of these projects is no-doubt critical to the success of architecture, design occurs at a far more diverse range of scales than most schools address. For example, how does one design a small coffee shop on a corner lot with no room for formal gesturing? Architects that practice architecture from the point of view of the craftsman - Miller Hull, Kieran Timberlake, Tom Kundig, even early Morphosis (though their focus has shifted) are a few examples I can think of - are tragically marginalized in education. I, for one, am far more interested in how projects are put together rather than planned. Planning is a short and relatively constrictive process. Making is involved and offers the architect more opportunity for creative expression, and occurs on both the INTERIOR and EXTERIOR (a fact that is almost completely ignored in design studios). What is the reason for all this? Simple: diagrams can be communicated easily, especially to students with no practical experience. Design details cannot. People will buy diagrams. 

[Rem: Easy to understand, easy to purchase. Is the building any good? Who knows.]

[Bjarke: A Chinese Letter Building. How the HELL does someone get to the top?]

9. Attitudes Towards the Environment

This is a tough subject for architects, because as builders we all know that no matter how deferential we try to be towards the environment, we are still using valuable resources and chewing up real estate. If I had to try to summarize the differences in attitudes between practice and education, though, I'd start by defining the individual approaches. Education = "Ecology", Practice = "Sustainability." The ecological approach suggest that urban networks function like ecosystems, that individual parts are symbiotically related to others and that we should work to maintain this delicate balance without disrupting the natural flow. We, as architects and planners, have an obligation to think about our projects as "living machines," that we are part of a "green complex" and that our buildings should reflect this interconnectedness. Change is inevitable but we should account for it as natural growth and evolution. Through this process of balance we achieve ecological harmony, as opposed to previous generations (i.e. Modernists) who threw our world into disharmony through practices disruptive to the greater whole.

[Corbusier: Woops.]

The practical attitude towards "sustainability" is inherent in the term - the ability to sustain. Sustain what? The environment? No, it would be more accurate to say, we are sustaining our "way of life," of which environmental health is only a part. Other parts include....the job at hand...our career...contractors' and developers' careers...the careers of all the people that make "green" materials...the careers of environmentalists and government organizations...our stores of resources (use of recycled / renewable materials, etc.)...available land & density...structure of society...education...Clearly, environmental health is not the dominant priority, because if it was we simply wouldn't build anything new in the first place. There is an argument going on these days about the effect the economy has had on "green" buildings - not enough money for green projects? Well there is another type of green project: the one that doesn't occur. Or, the one that occurs within something that is already built.Architects who have accepted their role as walking environmental hazards can only simply strive to do the best they can AND better than what we used to do

- that is the essence of sustainability.

10. Designing For Human Equality

Coming Soon...

11. Teaching European, Practicing American

Coming Soon...