This previously appeared as "Reflections" but has been substantially edited.
The
following are comments I’ve recently received. Comments always make me ponder
and I hope the following responses are useful. I am attempting to grapple with
the puzzle we call architecture because I believe it must contribute to the
invention of symbiotic cities within a limited Built Domain that protects our
quality and source of life. If it accepts this goal it may not only contribute,
but lead the effort since coordination is a skill it takes for granted. This
skill is now applied to tactical objectives, but leadership is a skill that is
a function of the goal.
(We need) Ideas that
can help architects find more productive, and rewarding, alternatives.
If I
understand this comment, it means that our education and knowledge must become more
valuable to a larger market. Shelter is an essential need that is developing
into a sprawling threat to survival. This is a public threat and there is no
larger market. Addressing this problem with a symbiotic goal and strategic
research will make the contributions of architecture a public imperative. This
can only be accomplished with an agenda that correlates the skills and
knowledge of many related professions.
Medici quote: “We are
not good enough. We must build like the Greeks and the Romans!”
A quote
from another time when population growth was not an issue and appearance was
mistaken for Greek and Roman knowledge. It discounted the artistic
accomplishments and structural advances made during the Middle Ages, in my
opinion. Leadership always requires a focus and the Medici’s provided one.
Increasing awareness changes the focus and we borrow the term “adaptation” to
describe the process.
Today the schools of
architecture are ascendant, forwarding an increasingly irrelevant version of
architecture.
I don’t
think they are in ascendance beyond the internal policy levels of the profession.
Enrollment has to be in decline (an assumption) because I think a growing
percentage of the population is beginning to understand the poor return on an
increasingly large investment. I don’t think they realize, however, that one
reason for decline is the inconsistent and unfocused education provided.
Another is a lack of research that adds relevant knowledge of increasing value
to an expanding market area.
If we make
environments and buildings that support human life and the specific goals of
each project, and if we emphasize that as our primary goal, without downgrading
in the least our aesthetic concerns, we will become much more important, and
valued.
Built environments
and buildings support human life but they sprawl to consume their source of
life. A building is a tactical objective. Architecture needs a strategic goal to
serve the public beyond its current client base, in my opinion.
There is no
sustainability if the people and the built environment do not complement each
other. It is time for architects to take back the mantle of built environmental
sustainability based on our expertise about how people and buildings interact.
We need to return the engineers to their rightful roles as supporters of this,
the main mission.
I don’t
think we ever donned the mantle of built environment sustainability. (Energy
conservation is not a solution. It is a delaying tactic.) I also don’t believe
we have a strategic goal and agenda at the present time.
People and
buildings combine to produce levels of intensity and/or sprawl. The word
“intensity” has not had a decent definition in my opinion, let alone research
that would produce “expertise”. “Sprawl” occurs from annexation we do not
recognize as another “Ponzi” scheme using the Natural Domain as its victim.
Engineers
are not the enemy. I think at least a majority would agree with the need to
achieve a symbiotic future, and they have the natural inclination to pursue the
scientific research needed. We can lead by mobilizing opinion and coordinating
the efforts of many related professions. This will require a symbiotic goal with
a global perspective.
We are the experts at
how people and architecture interact. That is why we should lead the team and
that is what our schools need to teach.
We have not
built the knowledge to become experts. We use intuition and expect opinion to
be considered expertise. We are the leaders of a process that includes experts,
and cost estimation is our Achilles’ heel. We have focused on talent that
reflects opinion, but must improve our ability to support opinion with fact and
logic. This means we must decide what we need to know based on a goal we wish
to achieve. When we do, the goal may elevate tactical leadership to strategic
leadership and education must support the goal.
We need to teach our
students the “facts of architecture” and how to ferret out the client’s and
community’s needs.
The neglect
of “programming” in architectural education has been a great disservice where
it has occurred since it involves the leadership question, “What do we need to
know?”
A lifetime
is too short for one person to learn all of the “facts” involved. That is why
strategic leaders coordinate. Tactical leaders specialize.
Education must
understand the difference between tactical skill and strategic leadership. It
has not emphasized tactical skill or recognized the components of strategic
leadership, in my opinion. The result has been haphazard, independent
interpretation at each school of architecture, in my opinion.
Building
and zoning codes are an essential part of architectural education. They are
actually “friends” that can be used to defend decisions. They should not be
ignored.
Leadership
involves an evaluation of options and attributes, not a calculation of
technical engineering detail. An architect is not an engineer. He must be
trained for a purpose that is clearly understood within the profession and the
population.
Everything for a
reason, artfully done
Everything
for a symbiotic reason – eventually. Appearance will follow and some will be
considered fine art.
