22
Jan
2011
Major study – for those with a lot of patience
There will be a version of this available soon in a massively reduced format, but for those of you with a penchant for punishment, or perhaps just an unquenchable interest in my ability to drivel on for a hundred pages, here’s my Major study in all it’s pdf glory!
21
Jan
2011
Reading group
I’m starting teaching my first studio this semester, so this is probably a really bad time to admit that I don’t really know much about architecture. It was something that some of my tutors at uni were quite happy to admit and they weren’t at all hampered by it, so it never really worried me. That said, I’m lucky enough to work with Andrew Metcalf (who is BVN’s critic-in-residence) who is about to start running a reading group. This is going to be a small seminar group for 6 people; each week a person presents their text to the others.
- Harries, Karsten: “Is Stone Today ‘More Stone Than it Used to Be’?”
From Tuukkanen, Pirkko (ed) Matter and Mind in Architecture (The Alvar Aalto Foundation, 2000) - Atlee, James: “Towards Anarchitecture: Gordon Matta-Clark And Le Corbusier”
From Tate’s Online Research Journal, Spring 2007 (The Tate Gallery, 2007) - Negri, Antonio: “Metamorphosis”
From Radical Philosophy ( Issue 149, May-June 2008) <–this is my text - Wu, Tim: “The Master Switch” (introduction)
From Wu, Tim The Master Switch:The Rise and Fall of Information Empires (Alfred A. Knopf, 2010) - Paktau, John: “Material Differences”
From Tuukkanen, Pirkko (ed) Matter and Mind in Architecture (The Alvar Aalto Foundation, 2000) - Assefa,EM and Seamon, D: “Karsten Harries’ Natural Symbols as a Means for Interpreting Architecture: Inside and Outside in Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater and Alvar Aalto’s Villa Mairea”
From Heaven and Earth-Festschrift to Honor Karsten Harries (Cloud Cuckoo Land V.12-1, Aug 08)
For all my usual sceptisism, I’m actually very excited to learn a bit about architectural theory. My understanding of the field that I work in has grown pretty haphazardly so it’ll be interesting to see how it fits in with everyone else’s.
2
May
2010
Union Square
A while ago I put up a photo of the station entrances that I had a play with when I was working at Aedas. This is a picture I came across of one of the Union Square station entrance that I worked on too.
I really should go to Dubai and see what all the fuss is about.
24
Apr
2010
architects’ pay?
I’ve just posted this on one of the discussion pages of the Facebook group Architects against low pay.
It’ll probably get shot down as a load of neo-con rubbish, but this is one of the few topics that gets me really animated.
I think that it is fairly clear that anyone can design a building (here’s an example).
I think that a much more pertinent question would be ‘can anyone design a building well?’
This is a much more difficult issue. An absolute base level of competence is mandated by the building regulations, and then any value that a client derives from the designer of their building is a bonus.
I don’t think I could disagree more strongly with protection of the role of architects. Architects are currently (theoretically) well trained individuals, who should be able to deliver a service (designing a building) competently. When I wasn’t so bald I would get my hair cut at by hairdresser; during the process of cutting my hair we would often discuss the three years of training they had undergone to become a hairdresser. I’ve never asked to see a hairdresser’s certification, I have always been happy that their past record of cutting hair well is feeding them, and therefore they must be good enough. If I liked them I would go back again. If I was getting a particularly important haircut (maybe I’m going to be made prime minister) but I’ve never seen the work of this particular hairdresser I might ask to see some photos of previous work, or even talk to some previous clients.
To cut hair one needn’t be a part of any professional organisation. Membership of one might however add more credence to their skills, but there is no formal requirement.
If there were governmental hair cutting requirements, then if I got a non-compliant haircut, then I would have a way of seeking some recompense for my terrible bouffant. If the hairdresser was not a member of the professional organisation then in future I might tend towards using registered cutters.
The point that I’m inelegantly trying to make here is about choice and freedom. By mandating that only an architect is able to do certain things, you remove the choices of people who want to engage someone to do those things. What this means is the now there is no reason to choose an architect over a non architect as there aren’t any non architects. Therefore the name ‘architect’ no longer attracts a premium.
I’ve ranted at length about this before, and if pushed I’d be happy to again, but in a nutshell the argument goes:
By removing the legislation around who is allowed to design buildings, and increasing the requirement on the performance* then clients will naturally gravitate to whoever is BETTER at designing buildings.
If we continue to cultivate an ivory tower, then there is a good chance that the tower will stay where it is, and everyone else will have moved on.
*many metrics, cabe does quite a good job on the design quality side, but building regs need to be more stringent
6
Apr
2010
bpquiz just crept over one hundred
bpquiz, the data gathering website for my major study has just had its 100th response. There is another 3 weeks left of data gathering, so maybe the target of 200 isn’t so far off!
If you haven’t had a go: