Great question! In general, architecture school teaches two things.
1. How to 'think'.
2. How to produce architectural drawings.
The notion of 'thinking' like an architect is a bit strange, but this essentially means: how to look at the world around you, see potential for architectural intervention, and how to go about designing such intervention. Often, we are encouraged to think about this in a 'problem solving' mindset.
I really feel like architecture school teaches students to think about architecture as means to first solve societal problems, and second, to make the world a more beautiful place. There are some schools that completely reject the second goal. There are exceptions to this rule, but I am speaking collectively about architectural academia as I understand it.
Good read, David. The quest for beauty has been somewhat relegated in favor of functionality, client demands, and environmental concerns, as reflected in the mission statements of the top firms you analyzed. Yet, this shift needn't be viewed solely as a loss- it could be seen as an evolution in response to the newer complexities of the world.
As someone who appreciates both the aesthetic wonder of old architecture and the innovative practicality of the new, I think there's a rich discussion to be had about finding balance—could there be a way for the market to give due credit to aesthetic considerations without compromising on other essential values, like sustainability and social impact? Eden project? Tate Modern? It would be fascinating to explore whether there is a way to re-incorporate beauty into the core values of modern architecture firms, without it seeming like a step backwards. I think most of the criticism is that, if we revert back to older practices it feels like we're GOING backwards, adding to the hesitation??
That’s an interesting way to look at it David. I’m convinced by your argument that values have changed. Has your research suggested that labor has anything to do with it as well?
yes, 100% correct Alec, there are many other factors including labor costs, and the commoditization of property which has affected market forces in architecture. I chose to only discuss aesthetics because if the value of aesthetics is gone, then there is no need to discuss labor? I think?? Like, If labor was magically cheap, our firms would just make better versions of what is produced now, maybe the aesthetics wouldn't change because that isn't important. Again, I am not sure though :)
Thank you for this interesting post. I see your point!
Hi David, very thought provoking. In what ways do you think or have you seen architecture school and education play a part in this?
Great question! In general, architecture school teaches two things.
1. How to 'think'.
2. How to produce architectural drawings.
The notion of 'thinking' like an architect is a bit strange, but this essentially means: how to look at the world around you, see potential for architectural intervention, and how to go about designing such intervention. Often, we are encouraged to think about this in a 'problem solving' mindset.
I really feel like architecture school teaches students to think about architecture as means to first solve societal problems, and second, to make the world a more beautiful place. There are some schools that completely reject the second goal. There are exceptions to this rule, but I am speaking collectively about architectural academia as I understand it.
Good read, David. The quest for beauty has been somewhat relegated in favor of functionality, client demands, and environmental concerns, as reflected in the mission statements of the top firms you analyzed. Yet, this shift needn't be viewed solely as a loss- it could be seen as an evolution in response to the newer complexities of the world.
As someone who appreciates both the aesthetic wonder of old architecture and the innovative practicality of the new, I think there's a rich discussion to be had about finding balance—could there be a way for the market to give due credit to aesthetic considerations without compromising on other essential values, like sustainability and social impact? Eden project? Tate Modern? It would be fascinating to explore whether there is a way to re-incorporate beauty into the core values of modern architecture firms, without it seeming like a step backwards. I think most of the criticism is that, if we revert back to older practices it feels like we're GOING backwards, adding to the hesitation??
Yes, would be great it we could look back and re-integrate what was lost in architecture as opposed to regressing! A very Venturi-ish suggestion :)
That’s an interesting way to look at it David. I’m convinced by your argument that values have changed. Has your research suggested that labor has anything to do with it as well?
yes, 100% correct Alec, there are many other factors including labor costs, and the commoditization of property which has affected market forces in architecture. I chose to only discuss aesthetics because if the value of aesthetics is gone, then there is no need to discuss labor? I think?? Like, If labor was magically cheap, our firms would just make better versions of what is produced now, maybe the aesthetics wouldn't change because that isn't important. Again, I am not sure though :)