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?
As with most things, there's never ONE single impetus that moves people to change. I believe the backlash in attitude towards the 80's-90's "gimme-gimme, I don't care what the cost, impact, aesthetics or long-term reality is" attitude is giving way to a "selflessness and a desire to have a greater impact on the environment and global society as a whole", as Jason put it.
ReplyDeleteBut I also believe there's more to it. The environmental movement (tied to social consciousness, etc.) has been around since the late 50's. I read an article a while ago (still searching and will post if I find it) that talked about "what happened to the hippies?" The article laid out farily squarely why the initial movement fizzled: the perceived leaders refused to enter the mainstream either politically or aesthetically (long hair, wierd music, camping out in communes, patchouli...), and 'play the game' by working their way into existing municipal, community, and government leadership positions. Their methods and move ot "natural living" was percived as a step backward, away from the comforts our excesses and technology of the day afforded us. So they were essentially ignored and/or belittled by mainstream media and society at large as a result. But this is no longer the case with today's socially conscious. The exhuberence of college asperations to want to 'change the world' are made real with the ease with which everyone can now put their own 2 cents in at any time, from any place, and seamlessly search for others with similar vision. Construction and building technologies have advanced to the point that being 'green' AND comfortably modern are not mutually exclusive.
While it appears fractured and un-defined in a neat soundbite, the general consensus seems to be 'stewardship of the environment and doing the right thing for everyone is good' and 'polluting, selling poisonous products, and cheating people for the sake of making a buck (or Euro) is bad.'
I believe architects (and their clientele) are reacting to this, and taking the opportunity to make real the dreams most of us had before entering the 'real world'.
I wonder how long this alleged trend among architecture students has been going on. I'm technically a Millennial but when I was in school starchitects like Gehry were still the dominant source of inspiration - vs. entities such as Architecture for Humanity. Jobs at for-profit architecture firms weren't scarce at that time either. Does the fact that Architecture is currently the worst degree for college graduates looking for a job have anything to do with this current trend?
ReplyDeleteAfter posting my comment above, I read an interesting article pertinent to this discussion:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.archdaily.com/207060/in-defense-of-an-architecture-education/
Having lived through the design and construction fiascos at UC that resulted in the DAAP addition (Eisenman) and Vance Center for Molecular Studies (Ghery), I can safely say that I and my fellow students who experienced the horror include a giant grain of salt when "iconic" [could be replaced with the word "egotistical"] designs are profferd as legitemate sources of design inspiration. Just because it's published & by a person with a recognizable name does not ipso-facto mean it's "good".
ReplyDelete