Let's Get Real!

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1212 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2010 - 07:30 am:    100818 LET’S GET “REAL”! by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT, Cincinnati, OH Is anything in the design and construction of building projects getting easier? (Only it is much easier and faster to spend your pay check.) But in the work, more and more effort is required; more knowledge applied; more skill in manipulating elements; more needed to deal with added complexity and proper solutions; more imagination and creativity in design; more products and systems; more regulations and requirements; more and more. Then, tell me, why are there moves to reduce the requirements to become an architect in the first place? No degree required???? Train, but practice without a registration [too costly and long in taking]. Acquiescence to the mere “sensitivity” of each person who worked so hard and faces yet IDP and then registration-- so what? There is no stated "right" to become an architect! Most all of us worked through the academic sequence and are, I am positive, the better for it. Why---WHY do “they” chose to reduce basic requirements when the work to be done is exponentially increasing in difficulty and need for “unthought-of of’" solutions? What should be happening is that all of the registration-related organizations [NCARB, ACSA, NAAB, etc.] should be meeting [on-going, in a locked room!] in earnest to develop and establish a uniform, basic architectural curriculum, to forestall the continued fragmented and ill-advised synopsis now producing variegated architectural graduates. There should be strong talk [not the wimpy NAAB attributes] of what schools should teach; setting out of distinct goals, and types and levels of instruction to be achieved; and overall breadth from programming and design through POE. There needs to be vigor and balance, with no element overwhelmingly dominating inappropriately. Electives can be accommodated; minors established, but a strong fundamental core curriculum is a pre-requisite. After all, conditions may change in different locations, but approach to design and construction do not; methods, materials and equipment may change, but their use must be undergirded by skilled understanding of construction methods, motifs and expertise. No one is suggesting that we, in any way, stifle creativity or discard opportunities to explore design in every direction, but the final analysis of what we have today is a profession that designs but which, for the most part, must seek others to facilitate the documentation and construction. How in the name of heaven can we claim a “profession of architecture” when in fact we train a “profession of design”, ignoring the science, engineering and technology; the need to detail and put buildings together are absolutely MUST skills for young professionals? If missing, owners and constructors will deal with them AND DESIGN as they alone see fit. That’s no threat-- that’s reality! Properly and comprehensively trained, an architect has no parallel in expertise and is a most valuable partner and asset in every project, bringing a unique and insightful person to the table whose perspective transcends and bridges between many others. BUT that comes with training and not the illusionary cure-all of rhetorical theory and superior design. All the gimmicks and software programs in the world do not obviate or cast aside the human skill of the architect and innovation and creativity involved. BUT that great design skill needs to be translated into usable information, instruction and direction for the actual construction of each project-- if missing, the design will either never be built or will be diluted in many ways. Let’s face it-- what appears out on the streets as the “architect’s work” [unfortunately called ‘artist sketch’ in the papers] may be eye catching, startling, stunning, revolutionary and far from understood. But the truth is, it is not the volume of articulate rhetorical gibberish, the discussion and attempted explanation of the fundamental design principles used, the cross discussion in the office over the minutia of the design concepts, or those other things-- like flour, sugar, milk, salt and baking powder in a cake—IT IS the reality of the construction. Those things that you can touch, use, walk into, see, and at times, wonder about. Like it or not, THAT is the real architecture-- the constructed project! How we get there and the manipulations we use, the wondrous ideas and concepts that come to light are there, perhaps, but translated into brick, mortar, steel, doors, glass, steps, landscaping, concrete, etc. Remote to design concept perhaps, BUT a very necessary part of understanding what architecture is about and what it can produce. [To our non-registered and non-architect friends, we don’t seek to convert you, but we hope you understand that the better we can make our young professionals, the better work and people of knowledge you should have to work with in the future! Not guaranteed! But at least we can [must-will-should] do far better than we are now. And by the way, you’re important to any process we implement along this way-- it will be most appreciated and most valuable to all-- but mostly the students! Join us!] J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 442 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2010 - 10:34 am:    This will not happen until there is broad consensus in the profession and in the academy about the "domain of professional expertise". Just as there are architects (and architectural practices) which are more like artists' studios and architects (and architectural practices) which are more like engineering practices, architectural programs that are emphasize one area over another depending on their history, their leadership, and direction from the community or alumnae. The accrediting bodies (NAAB, NCARB, AIA, AIAS, and ACSA) long ago took the position to tolearate a certain amount of diversity. There are criteria for accreditation which look very good on paper, but are difficult to appropriately and consistently enforce. (This is compounded by an inherent certain lack of consistent academic experience which may vary widely over a 10 year period depending on quality of students, faculty, and administration.) I would argue that this is a reflection of the vision of the AIA itself about what it really means to be an architect. To really effect changes in the academy, work at the AIA to provide a more consistent vision of architectural practice. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1213 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2010 - 10:59 am:    Well, Mr. Jordan, I've spit in their ocean many times and saw few ripples, that quick dispersed. I think a tidal wave is needed [have some small hunchesand one that has high creditability behind it. To me this has to come out of real world grass roots and not top-down [they're happy, fat and "busy" with something]