How to design according to a prof.

[solidred]

And with that, I think I can happily and peacefully retire to bed
If anyone wants a conversation about synthesizers and related musical trivia (eg sequencers: good thing or the death of jazz-era soul?), that's what I'll be doing tomorrow

[csintexas]

Yes this thread may have begun with a farce but the main intention was to stimulate a discussion on architectural education and or how we design and it did that.

For my part I always try to respond to previous posts but sometimes you go away and when you come back there is a whole page of discussion that has taken place.

I don't think you can teach creativity. By the time a mind is 18 or so years old that part has already formed. All you can do is allow someone to be creative or not. Well I don't expect 1st year students to do cost analysis or anything that realistic but I do think that is the proper time to begin talking about these things.

My first year design classes where all of the art project variety and I don't think they made me more creative. I agree that you want to teach kids to think and that is why I am criticizing these empty questions and suggesting something more meaningful.

[mx2]

My first reaction was to emphasize how this topic will fly over some heads but I commend your appetite for discussion and you are right, it does, it did spark a debate. However, again I will say that the issue of teaching students is not mired in teaching construction scheduling, cost analysis, specification writing or even detailing partition details but rather is depending on graduates to learn that during internship. Instead, design schools are focusing strictly on design. The decision making process is not something that new students quickly grasp, particularly those who have a predisposition towards expecting construction detailing to drive a design. While learning the various aspects of construction, students are introduced to the idea of concept design. It's an exercise of thinking about the parts to the whole centered around a single meaningful concept. The point I was making was that the students who attempt to apply construction as the basis for design are limiting the ability to conceptualize beynd mere construction. Why build anything more than a simple box? A designer must first learn to question the very essence of all things pertinent to the project, rather than apply what they are convinced are "real world" solutions. Afterall, these are not Schools of Construction. The most difficult thing any professor could possibly have is breaking down these preconceived notions and building back up a foundation for design that will last a career. It appears to me that you didn't like that notion and gave up before succumbing to the design process. And now you criticize it as a meaningless endeavor. Let me ask you this then: what would you propose be taught in all Architecture Design courses? Keep in mind there are 10 courses for the undergraduate. What would you propose they ought to teach in progression?

mx2.5

[csintexas]

I think it is a bit much trying to come up with an entire curriculum off the top of my head.

What I am suggesting is that you can begin straight away to talk about function (I know, I harp on that constantly). Anyway this is the way architecture is headed because of the whole green thing (unless it turns out to be a passing fad).

I would begin by studying light, wind, thermal mass, hot, cold, shade, etc.. How natural elements effect a house.

I would cancel bs like algebra and biology and make mathematics, science and everything else an integral part of architectural design.

I would make working on habitat for humanity type projects mandatory. I would bring in local architects and give them continuing education credits to participate. I would require the study of indigenous plant and animal life.

If I had my way there would only be one class called architecture and everything in relation to architecture would be taught there. You would learn to read and write by reading and writing about architecture and learn to think by thinking about architecture.

Actually I would really just scrap the entire current system because it is inadequate. I don't think that universities are the best way to teach. I would make education and betterment something you work on your whole life. I especially wouldn't give someone a masters degree when they haven't mastered anything but school.

Perhaps I am just being romantic but I have this notion that back in the Greek times they might have learned that way. I think school as we have today is fragmented and largely a meaningless exercise in passing classes. It produces mediocrity. I think an apprenticeship system combined with formal education implemented throughout a career would produce a much better educated architect.

And of coarse art is going to be a part of the education as well just not the overwhelming majority.

[lekizz]

From what I've read on DC, the routes to qualification in the US seem to vary from State to State. In the UK it is possible to follow a course of study while working in the field, but that happens at great personal expense to the student, who has to pay for their own consultants, tutors, study materials etc. The advantage of full time study is it allows you to condense your formal education into a shorter period and share resources such as libraries, professional staff, outside consultants, workshops and (fairly important) ideas and knowledge of your fellow students.

There is also the Architectural Technology education route in the UK (i'm sure you have something similar), which produces valuable Architectural Technicians, well versed in the day to day necessities of construction projects - detailing, production drawings, contracts etc.

I can quite understand that the formal education process doesn't suit everyone. But stripped of the "bs" you would be left with a sort of craftsman apprenticeship system. You are reducing architecture to the ....erm ...'nuts & bolts' of putting things together in a functional way.

I think the architectural education system will move rapidly to increase the emphasis on many of the environmental elements you suggest, Chris. In my college the change in emphasis has been particulalry evident over the last two years. Courses often include modules about basic structures and simple solutions that would be important to disaster zones or difficult environments. But architecture involves considerably more than designing houses. If you break down the subject into constituent parts it is still a great feat to cram the basics into a three year course!

[csintexas]

[ArchiMotion]

Whatever model we choose for architectural education, should it proceed from other architects or from designers with no architectural education or license? This is the big question.

If designers are allowed to create the new architectural education without themselves ever formally graduated from an accredited architectural school, or formally studying architecture with a degree and have never passed an examination such as the NCARB, then how can such people evaluate the quality of architectural training and licensing?

[djswan]

http://www.carpentersfellowship.co.uk/

http://www.tfguild.org/

There is always some others too, that I may not be a familiar with.

Enough said

Derek

[csintexas]

[mx2]

[Richard Haut]

well, I don't know about the whole Curriculum, but it might be an idea to get architectural students to each design a dwelling that they are then involved in constructing - and in which they have to live for a whole month.

then they can write a report on it.

[csintexas]

[mx2]

[ArchiMotion]

I am in complete agreement with Mx, on this topic and the other thread as well. Let it not be understood otherwise, even though some may think so. It is just a matter of giving credit where credit is due. In this case, mx deserves the credit for the excellent points he has drawn with regards to the architectural educational system.

As far as I see it, many of the objections being raised against current architectural training are being all addressed by mx, in the best and most professional manner possible.

[csintexas]

What I am suggesting is not teaching algebra per se but teaching math only as it relates to architecture. In other words learning the inverse of a function in itself is only an exercise in memorization. Unless someone really has an interest in math (like my dad who turned into an engineer) it will be forgotten real soon.

So the typical person takes algebra, analytical geometry, I think maybe one other coarse here at TAMU and then forgets all about it. While the real math that architects could use everyday is such a small part of that total math requirement that they never actually get proficient at it.

I do agree that during our development we need to train minds by repetitious exercise but by the time we get to college that development phase is over and it's time to stop doing sums and start with the actual application of math.

We are so specialized these days that we rely on math teachers to teach math but since they are teaching everyone math they can't address a specific field. What we end up with is poor math skills because we have learned a lot of very fancy math concepts instead of the math that we need.