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 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

The general gist of the paper is that the real world is too complex to model in all it’s infinite detail, and experimental bias will creep in, but if we are smart about it, and realise that it is happening then we can mitigate against it.

Don’t be put off by the bit with equations in the middle, that can be skipped, and the message still comes out clearly.

there is a preview after the break

If you are reading this on Facebook then that’s great, but if you want to make a comment then follow this link and make a comment at the source.

The 21st century is hailed by many as a ‘make or break’ time for humanity, the tipping point between a technological utopia and a crushing blow to our species’ capacity to flourish. While every effort must be made to steer a path towards a bright future, contingencies for both extremes, as well as the vast, but discontinuous, range of circumstances and possibilities between must be considered.
Only in a very perverse utopia, or particularly devastating catastrophe, does architecture cease to be pertinent (the importance of architects is less certain!).

The risk of global catastrophe, ranging from super volcanoes and runaway global warming to doomsday machines or bio-terrorism, is non trivial. The contingencies in place to contain or manage these events may (if successful) affect societies as much or more than the event itself. Conversely the potential for technology to enhance our lives beyond recognition is considerable. Indeed, it has already been realised. Genetic modification, cognitive enhancement and life extension are just a few of the possibilities.

With these great threats and opportunities come ethical questions about how, and whether, to manage the risks that the implementation of these opportunities (or whether to implement them at all!). While forecasting has its perils, as recent events in the financial sector have shown, it is foolhardy not to prepare to manage the outcomes of potential cataclysms. The continually diverging tree of all possible events makes the odds of a particular event, even in the relatively near future, vanishingly small. We need better tools. I intend learn how to develop a better understanding of the future, and the methods that can be used to improve predictions. Architecture is one of our most persistent projections into the future, there ought to be some consideration of what that future is going be like.

If getting past the next 90 years is really as fraught as is claimed (disasters, divergent societies, etc.) then we have a lot of work to do to get there, but it would make me feel better if I had a bit of an idea of what we’ll find when we do.

If you have any thoughts on things I ought to be looking at then let me know.

take a look at Nick Bostrom’s papers and see what it’s all about!

It’s be really interesting to see where an interest in the post human condition will take me if I apply it to some architectural design work… lets find out!

i find this idea fascinating, it’s the modern equivalent of asking how many loaves of bread something cost

Big Mac Index

Burgernomics is based on the theory of purchasing-power parity, the notion that a dollar should buy the same amount in all countries. Thus in the long run, the exchange rate between two countries should move towards the rate that equalises the prices of an identical basket of goods and services in each country. Our “basket” is a McDonald’s Big Mac, which is produced in about 120 countries.
The Big Mac PPP is the exchange rate that would mean hamburgers cost the same in America as abroad. Comparing actual exchange rates with PPPs indicates whether a currency is under- or overvalued.

via the economist

while i was looking for a picture, i discovered that in different countries, Big macs have different recipes and calorific values. A US ‘mac has 540 calories and an Australian one has 48. (wikipedia)