We all know we're supposed to.  And for many things in our lives, we already do.  We make time for family, make time for learning, make time for our hobbies and friends, if we're lucky (and smart) we make time for taking care of ourselves, and for nurturing our closest relationships.  But rarely (as stated by many of us) do we make time for design.  In the rush to "the thing" (the building) we zip right past the part where we first ask "why" and "how". 

This week we learned we also rarely (if ever) make time for consideration of the greater-whole affected by what we do;  the interwoven biological and social patterns and processes of the world in which we are active participants - not outside consultant caretakers.  We were given the task to just sit, listen, smell, and BE in a place. To essentially 'meet' it for the first time and come to an understanding of how it really works, not just as an exemplary piece of a master-plan or as an assemblage of structures, pathways and places for activity, but as a living breathing place where life occurs that has its own unique rhythms and  patterns, and that is connected to every adjacent place on out into infinity.  Like physical exercise, I would argue this mental exercise, if practiced and repeated over time, would equip us to be conscious of these things more readily, and allow for an ease of assimilation of this train of thought into how we each approach design.   (hint: John's 15 min. in 1 square meter assignment isn't a one-time gig)

This giant magnet has been posted at eye-level on all of my refrigerators for almost 2 decades.  And yesterday I was made painfully aware that though I pass it every day (multiple times), I can't tell you the last time I actually locked eyes on it and read it, or even noticed it.   Merely posting a reminder, no matter how visible or how bold, doesn't really equip you to DO it, nor does it necessarily gather within you the WILL to make it happen.  The sentence needs to be completed - and I would guess mom's intention was to have it be inside our heads, to bring out the burning issue-of-the-day that we're not paying attention to:  ...to find the pattern  ...to ask the question  ...to learn more ...to __ 

After listening to and conversing with John for the last two days, what will you now make time for?

Do We Really Need NAAB Accreditation?

Do we really need National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) Accreditation? Is it to ensure that the thousands of Dollars we spend every year to get an education is really worth it? If so OK, but really its not what it is for, most states require a NAAB accredited degree for application for licensure (as mentioned on NAAB website), but why. As a profession and society, we have determined that the minimum requirement for becoming a licensed architect is to pass the Architectural Registration Exam (ARE). Does graduating from a NAAB accredited program make you better suited to become an architect than someone who did not, I do not believe so on multiple points. First, if as a profession and society we determine the minimum requirement is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public, which is determined through the ARE than why is any education accreditation required?

Secondly, any seasoned architect will tell you that experience is worth way more than anything that you will ever learn in school. There are individuals that have worked in the profession for twenty plus years, but are not able to become licensed architects because they have not graduated from a NAAB accredited program, however a young student who recently graduated, with very little experience can become licensed. Who is better to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, most would argue the person who has been working in the profession rather than a new student directly out of school.

Third, is a program that is not accredited, much different from a program that is? The NAAB website specifically states that "The... societies creating this accrediting board here record their intent not to create conditions nor to have conditions create that will tend toward standardization of education philosophies or practices but rather to create and maintain conditions that encourage the development of practices suited to the conditions which are special to the individual school." Since NAAB is not setting a standard of education but rather encourages development of practices suited for the conditions, then really every architectural program could become accredited if the program chose to go through the process. However, NAAB accreditation cost thousands of dollars and man hours to become accredited, so for schools who what to control cost accreditation is not a focal point, even though it could become accredited. So at that point, is NAAB only about Money? What if a school who was accredited, but because of cost chose not to renew or drop their accreditation, (similar to my situation) nothing in their program has changed, only that they did not spend the thousands of dollars or man hours to go through the accreditation process. Is that school any different than it was before or from the other accredited schools?

Since, we already have a minimum requirement to become a licensed architect the ARE, experience is worth way more than education, and the accreditation is not standardized; I pose the question again, do we really need the National Architectural Accrediting Board Accreditation?

"If you don't engage in social issues you're just comparing shapes"

Though this article was focused on a panel of who's who in NY architectural criticism, and the role of their work in a changing world, there were several points that jumped out at me in light of yesterday's discussion.



Gehry to Playboy Jan 2012



"Julie Iovine, executive editor of The Architect’s Newspaper and moderator of the panel, spoke of a “sea change,” the move away from starchitects to a focus on affordability, sustainability and context."

Unfortunately for us, the writer did not delve into his seemingly throw-away statement,

"But while New York sees no end of the trophy -- Christian de Portzamparc’s One57 will soon be the tallest new example -- the rest of the world has seemingly moved on.

Moved on, indeed. Please tell me more!

 

How about something we can work with (in considering what we want our voice to say) ....

The following statement by the author hits home our point about the "other 90%" who don't necessarily consider Architecture at all: 

"And while typical readers of New York magazine may not know the difference between Art Deco and Postmodern, they notice absences and new arrivals."

Individual realities are shaped and informed by past experience.  Until we can provide a clear experience of architecture, it's history and impact, those who do not have the educational or experiential background of an architect will never see the world as we do.  And I don't think they necessarily should - we make awful clients the same way doctors are the worst patients.  

I think our challenge is to clearly and concisely demonstrate that humans are indeed affected by their environments and vice versa - without relying on our beloved archi-speak which only serves to further set us apart.

On a side note, while we're speaking of context.... 

Has Starchitecture Lost its Luster?

Be sure to peruse the first dozen reader responses.  I especially like the chime-in from the real estate agent who can't sell the brand new starchitect condos because the kitchens are pathetic and the "master" bedrooms can't even accommodate a queen-size bid!  It's gotta work, people!  

The Death of Starchitecture? Critics Move to the Small Scale

Oh the many hats we can wear. Who knew? Maybe we should tell someone...

How do we advocate our profession to include more than just bricks and sticks and giving someone walls and a roof? Architects are inherently extremely intelligent individuals. We are naturally very good problem solvers. How else can we help our world? Think outside the box. I encourage everyone to brainstorm about all the hats and roles that architects can play other than the "Michael Brady" role. I love the quotes that Jeff revisited in his previous post. Below are the quotes that explain why we really need to do something about the current state and perception of our profession, or should I say calling. I found these quotes while reading another architect's blog. While I certainly chuckled when reading some of them, it is disturbing that much of what the say is true. Something needs to change:

Architecture (noun): the act of artfully placing complex forms in remote locations to be photographed for magazine covers.

Architecture (noun): the memory of that which could have been, that is invoked by the residual form remaining after extensive value engineering.

Architecture (noun): Public disinterest derived from a combination of self importance and greed.

Architecture (noun): The compromise arrived at by the client and the designers after the president of the firm and the client played golf yesterday.

Architecture (noun): The hard metallic outer shell surrounding confused school children pointing at the large early period Calder mobile hanging from the ceiling.

Architecture (noun): The space between 4 or more glass walls, wherein wealthy people shower.
Architecture (noun): Profession wherein ones salary is amusing to the majority of other professionals.
Architecture (noun): The homes that hipsters admire.

Architecture (noun): Structure approved by banks.

Architecture (noun): The touch, the feel of titanium. The fabric of our lives.
 
Architecture (noun): creativity plus financing minus creativity

Architecture (noun): The solid form of angst

A New Message for Architecture?

Architecture has long been perceived by the general public as a profession best represented by widely publicized, high-ego architects (starchitects). Media attention, industry celebration, employee practices, and education all seem to be generally influenced by a very select few over the course of several decades. While alot of this design is certainly visually “interesting” does it
actually represent what the majority of architects do on a day to day basis? Is this how we want our entire industry to be understood and/or driven? Has this influence led our industry to operate within a business model that does not actually represent us? Do we want a different understanding of the architectural industry in the future?

I would like to revisit the lively conversation we had in our last session. We discussed the value of architects, public perception of the same, a few hot-button issues – recall the question “why does much of the general public object to paying architectural fees to actually CREATE the entire idea of the building but will think nothing of paying a realtor/broker’s fees to SELL that same building?” --- and other topics such as the Architect’s role in contributing to the community, educating the community as to what we can offer, non-traditional roles for architects, creating a new vision for the public understanding of architecture, etc.

That conversation covered a lot – and quickly. There was some definite passion shown at times during this discussion, (e.g. Zoe’s statement regarding contributing to the community: “there is NEVER a good time, so just do it!), and we have had a few blog post hitting this question in various ways.

At some point during this February session we discussed the idea of using a portion of this group’s time and intellect to create OUR vision of what we think the profession should be communicating to the public. Personally, I am energized by the idea of this group coming together to explore a “new understanding” of what the architect can bring to our community, on a local level, and perhaps, broader level. This seems daunting to be sure (has been a long-running issue), but I think this is a very worthwhile exercise. You have to start somewhere, why not here?

Think about it this way – we have had multiple firms’ CEOs, a national editor, the Ohio AIA president, and a national AIA lobbyist speak to us so far….and a lot of our own questions and debate. We have heard a lot of good perspective so far --- what are we going to do with it? Here are some of my notes that apply to the general topic of “Understanding / Communicating /Reinterpreting(?) the Value of the Architect”.

In March, let’s see if we can narrow this down. Why is there a lack of understanding or buy-in to the value of architecture? Is this a question of industry focus? Of willingness to accept risk? A general shift by the industry tied to societal trends overall? If the industry needs a “rebranding effort” what does that core message need to be?

Questions, notes & quotes from various Vision sessions so far.

“the public views architects as credible / problem-solvers / creative out-of-box / facilitators” This is a good place for overall perception, but how does this translate into “perceived value” when deciding to use architects?
· we are able to take the skills of architecture and apply them to the vague issues of society”
· Current AIA Ohio program: STAR Architecure = Speaking up to be Trusted Advisor Resource
· Brand Perception is not what you think it is, but it is what they think it is…Key Question – what should drive public’s understanding of architecture? Which one have we focused on as an industry: signature architecture” used by high$$ projects OR “value” needed by the majority of
clients?
· “sales is 90% listening (their needs) + 10% talking (yourself)” --- how does this apply to the BRAND of architecture?
· “Architecture is an economic driver…architects lead community programs that drive change.”
· “architects can build alliance around an issue”
· “architecture is a business, not a practice” We have to run a business to make a profit –
do not apologize for it.
· At a macro-level, the architects innate desire to create is in conflict with good business”
· “We need to lose big rather than win small” --- the individual’s short-term focused decisions affect the long-term health of the industry.
· focus of architecture for a healthier industry –“solution to current problems is not to go broader, but to go deeper”
· “clients want market-out advice (knowledge) after honest listening”
· Clients want architects to take responsibility –
can we do this in an effective way vs “just take the risk”?
· Is the current “business-focus” a 1st step on the path to long-term health (industry is committed to this change) or will this change back when the economy rebounds?
· How do we treat our own? True incentives vs running modern-day sweat shops?
· “architecture is the surplus beyond the traditional value of a building”
· “architecture is the path for people to have a better life in the space”
· “imagination is more valuable than knowledge”
· “architects need to be able to truly estimate cost, or we will never be able to take back the profession from contractors”
· “architecture is currently an undervalued career – we have not learned to leverage our skills yet”
· “we have to SELL what we do to succeed” (vs traditional “view” of marketing in architecture industry)
· Innovation drives advancement – need to truly understand the architectural clients’ needs in order to innovate

Principles of a GREAT BRAND: (do we need a new “brand” for architecture?)
· Has to be an engaging, compelling narrative
· Knows its customer
· Anticipates its customers desires
· Differentiate with great focus & clarity

And two quotes from Bob Gramann, stated within the first 10 minutes of the opening
session for the 2012 VISION classs. I think these apply.
· “behold the turtle…he only makes progress when he sticks his neck out”
· “vision without action = hallucination”

So let’s get moving on an issue that affects our industry. See you in a couple of weeks.

Practice and Philanthropy: Opportunities for Serving the Global Community.

During our January keynote presentation, I was struck by Ned Cramer’s discussion of current trends in Architecture, specifically the trend in education where students are looking toward humanitarian and philanthropic projects for inspiration and examples to be emulated. I couldn’t find any hard statistics on this, so let’s assume for the sake of this blog that this is the case.

So what’s driving this? One thought is this a rejection of the “anything goes” parametric form making in favor of a more grassroots approach to design. Now that’s a pretty shallow reason to dedicate your lift to a particular facet of architectural ideology, and I’d like to give Gen Y more credit than that. In discussion with a friend on this topic, she thought this is a result of educators being critical of the architectural movement of the past 20 years; buildings are not integrated into the urban fabric (contextualized), were poorly constructed, and inefficient. In short, they represent consumption. Or is this truly selflessness and a desire to have a greater impact on the environment and global society as a whole?

Given that July’s Vision session will be dedicated to social responsibility, I feel compelled to bring this discussion back to the topic of this month’s program:” Business Philosophy and the Economy.” How can we as practitioners support the efforts of these individuals or perhaps even participate?

Some firms are being called upon to assist with technical backup – an opportunity for partnering and mentorship. These firms offer stability and experience to temper energy and enthusiasm. Take for example emersion Design’s collaboration with University of Cincinnati’s Roche Health Center project in Tanzania (http://www.ncarb.org/en/Studying-Architecture/Educators/NCARB-Prize-Program/2011-Prize-Winner/PrizeWinner1.aspx) “The partnering architecture firm emersion Design led workshops and reviews, and the engineering firm Arup helped with the design of earthquake-resistant construction techniques, ensuring that construction and design conditions met the requirements on the ground.” (Direct Connection, Vol 14, issue 2)

Is this a niche to be filled in the architectural industry? Consider a firm that specialized in indigenous construction materials and techniques of remote areas throughout the world. They know the ins-and-outs of working with foreign government agencies and could facilitate volunteer groups or NGO’s traveling to areas in need and providing assistance through funding and project coordination.

How do these philosophies fold themselves into the average architectural firm? I submit Muller Hull as an example: two guys who served in the Peace Corps in Brazil and Afghanistan during the late 1960’s. After establishing the practice in the 1980’s they focused heavily on environmentally and contextually sensitive projects, winning awards for passive solar housing, contemporary cabins the Pacific Northwest, and an environmental laboratory. They have recently completed designs for a NetZero border crossing facility in San Ysadro, California. These men applied their innate sense of environmentalism and social awareness to create a successful, established, and recognized architectural firm.

What I truly hope is that this is not a trend, but rather a segment of the architectural population that has always existed, but now finds itself in the spotlight. Some questions to get the ball rolling: Is this something that we need to incorporate into our current business philosophy? What aspects of this “trend” can we apply to how we work with our current clients?

Establishing Value

We all seem to agree that the percieved value of architectural services is crucial to our success.  (i.e.  We know we bring essential skills to a project, but we lament that not everyone else has the same understanding.)  How do you (or your firm) market and advocate for the value of your services?  Do specialization and/or technology come into play?  How much of your energy is spent on expounding your own firms’ value as opposed to the value of architectural design in general?