Technology in Architectural Practice

Prof. Ryan Smith recently posted a thoughtful article on architectural education and integration (http://network.aia.org/CenterforIntegratedPractice/Home/OnEducation/ ) He writes, "[i]n order to prepare students and service the profession in the new integrated paradigm educators and administrators in schools and colleges of design need to revamp the traditional studio model that focuses on one-on-one formal manipulation." He goes on to advocate a greater focus on collaboration, especially interdisciplinary work with students in engineering and construction management programs. I'd like to say a few words in defense of traditional architectural education, centered on the design studio with coursework that emphasizes architectural thought and history.

The aim of architecture school has never been to simulate practice or even, strange as it may seem, to specifically prepare students for the world of practice. The primary goal of architectural education has traditionally been to inculcate the values of architecture in students. These derive from the unique place architects hold in the building industry. There are values that society wants taken into account in our built environment that have no natural advocates in a market-driven design-construction process. As is the case with all liberal professions, architecture exists to bring these social values to its domain. This is what makes architects unique among the members of a project team. This is the defining quality of architecture.

The time students can spend in school is limited compared with the knowledge they should ideally possess when they graduate. A curriculum must make hard choices. School is where they learn to be architects, as distinct from more specialized designers, engineers, contractors and owners. The essential content of an architectural education is ideological. An architecture school has five or six years to ingrain in its students the notion that they must be the advocates of social and humanistic values in building. The collaborative interdisciplinary work recommended by Prof. Smith may help them learn how this might be done in a team environment- a useful exercise to be sure. However, before they can do this, they must believe that doing it is essential and have a well-formed idea of what values they wish to bring to their work. That must be the primary emphasis of architectural education. In other words, the "what" must precede the "how".

Before architects become collaborators they must know in their own minds what they want to see happen and, to the extent possible, why. Architects must bring the the central ideas to the design process- no one else can or will. Doing this well requires a great deal of practical knowledge of construction and skill in working collaboratively with other people. But first it requires having ideas worth realizing. Prof. Smith's vision of the architect as  " the key collaborator or facilitator of a building process that oscillates between stakeholders" may be an accurate description of our daily work, but it is not why we are there. We are there to give voice and potency to ideas that create a built environment that does more than reflect economic, technical and organizational constraints. We are there to bring ideas and values to the creation of a built environment that reflects our societies' deeper needs and place in history.

This will seem like idealistic nonsense to some. Precisely.

Prof. Ryan Smith recently posted a thoughtful article on architectural education and integration (http://network.aia.org/CenterforIntegratedPractice/Home/OnEducation/ ) He writes, "[i]n order to prepare students and service the profession in the new integrated paradigm educators and administrators in schools and colleges of design need to revamp the traditional studio model that focuses on one-on-one formal manipulation." He goes on to advocate a greater focus on collaboration, especially interdisciplinary work with students in engineering and construction management programs. I'd like to say a few words in defense of traditional architectural education, centered on the design studio with coursework that emphasizes architectural thought and history.

The aim of architecture school has never been to simulate practice or even, strange as it may seem, to specifically prepare students for the world of practice. The primary goal of architectural education has traditionally been to inculcate the values of architecture in students. These derive from the unique place architects hold in the building industry. There are values that society wants taken into account in our built environment that have no natural advocates in a market-driven design-construction process. As is the case with all liberal professions, architecture exists to bring these social values to its domain. This is what makes architects unique among the members of a project team. This is the defining quality of architecture.

The time students can spend in school is limited compared with the knowledge they should ideally possess when they graduate. A curriculum must make hard choices. School is where they learn to be architects, as distinct from more specialized designers, engineers, contractors and owners. The essential content of an architectural education is ideological. An architecture school has five or six years to ingrain in its students the notion that they must be the advocates of social and humanistic values in building. The collaborative interdisciplinary work recommended by Prof. Smith may help them learn how this might be done in a team environment- a useful exercise to be sure. However, before they can do this, they must believe that doing it is essential and have a well-formed idea of what values they wish to bring to their work. That must be the primary emphasis of architectural education. In other words, the "what" must precede the "how".

Before architects become collaborators they must know in their own minds what they want to see happen and, to the extent possible, why. Architects must bring the the central ideas to the design process- no one else can or will. Doing this well requires a great deal of practical knowledge of construction and skill in working collaboratively with other people. But first it requires having ideas worth realizing. Prof. Smith's vision of the architect as  " the key collaborator or facilitator of a building process that oscillates between stakeholders" may be an accurate description of our daily work, but it is not why we are there. We are there to give voice and potency to ideas that create a built environment that does more than reflect economic, technical and organizational constraints. We are there to bring ideas and values to the creation of a built environment that reflects our societies' deeper needs and place in history.

This will seem like idealistic nonsense to some. Precisely.

The aim of architecture school has never been to simulate practice or even, strange as it may seem, to specifically prepare students for the world of practice. "

The problem with software that does-it-all is that it removes the thinking-it-through process.  When standard details require little time for the designer to slap on the sheet, there is little ownership of what the detail is, how it works, and how it affects other aspects of the design.  This is especially bad for interns that are learning how a building goes together.  This video-gaming of the architecture process is removing many lessons interns should be getting at this stage in their career. 

I'm not arguing against drawing standards or software that streamlines the process.   On the contrary, the quality control and streamlining aspect they offer is tremendous.  I am simply suggesting that the lessons that were removed by the automation process should be replaced.  Perhaps the in-office QC process needs to introduce a presentation where the intern explains the workings of how the details selected work and why they were selected.  Just a thought.

The problem with software that does-it-all is that it removes the thinking-it-through process.  When standard details require little time for the designer to slap on the sheet, there is little ownership of what the detail is, how it works, and how it affects other aspects of the design.  This is especially bad for interns that are learning how a building goes together.  This video-gaming of the architecture process is removing many lessons interns should be getting at this stage in their career. 

I'm not arguing against drawing standards or software that streamlines the process.   On the contrary, the quality control and streamlining aspect they offer is tremendous.  I am simply suggesting that the lessons that were removed by the automation process should be replaced.  Perhaps the in-office QC process needs to introduce a presentation where the intern explains the workings of how the details selected work and why they were selected.  Just a thought.