The Education of an Architect, or Lack Thereof
Last week through my discussion of the relationship between architecture and construction, several problems came to light. This week I would like to discuss the main problem that I observed with the modern day construction processes and project delivery systems and that is the architect’s lack of knowledge of the realities of construction. This gap in their education has led to the drastic reduction of the architect’s role in the construction process, which often leads to inferior work and loss of design intent.
Architects used to be majorly involved in the construction process after their designs were complete; they were responsible for imagining a structure, creating drawings to demonstrate the structure, supervising construction and controlling costs. This is the time when the architect was referred to as the “master-builder” when they connected the owner to the project every step of the way and had an intimate understanding of every aspect of the project. In those days, an architect’s education was much more holistic, encompassing high level design and engineering, trade work, and construction processes and management.
In 1971 The Cooper Union school of architecture had an exhibit at the MoMA, titled “The Education of an Architect: a point of view”.
The cover of the book published by the cooper union in conjunction with the MoMA exhibit. The work consists mainly of drawings and poetry that have seemingly nothing to do with architecture as the art of building but rather architecture as the ideas of design (Click on image to see contents of book).
This work presents a good example of the thinking at the time of the best way to educate an architect, a thinking that still persist to today. Essentially architects are to be educated as sculptors are, the only difference being our palate of materials, and the relative size of our works. Little attention is paid to the built work while the concept is placed in high regard. What I have found most revealing of this mindset in my own education is that many of the buildings we study in our courses on the history of architecture, were never constructed. This is because they were about an idea of architecture rather than a physical, built, experience of it. Additionally, they would have been impossible to build with the construction methods of the time.
Cenotaph for Newton by Etienne-Louis Boullee. From Arch Daily “Boullée’s approach to design signaled the schism of architecture as a pure art from the science of building.”
Today, it seems architects are being taught to only achieve an aesthetic quality and a philosophy of design and sometimes forget that owners want, a useable, efficient building. To achieve that result I believe that an architect must be educated (or educate him or herself) in the parts and assemblies of built work, and how these pieces are put together in the field. This lack of what I believe to be critical knowledge is causing construction prices to soar and quality of work to plummet as the architect is unable both to be a reliable intermediary between owner and contractor and to advocate for their designs. Today, in the architect’s absence during the construction process, and minimal field knowledge, architecture and construction both suffer.
Having the architect be present at the jobsite as an owner’s advocate would seem to be logical. They would be able to ensure greater fidelity to drawings and thus a higher quality, and change order requests from the contractor could be verified more easily, and approved faster, if necessary. However, architects are often lacking a knowledge in construction means and methods. So, simply worded, the solution to this problem would be to educate architects both in design and construction. This too again cycles back into the question: What should the architect’s role be in construction?
As this seems to be the critical question that I keep circling back to, over the next few weeks I will be investigating different ways in which the architect can be involved in the practice of construction, through two of the major project delivery systems, design-build and design-bid-build. I would like to discuss how the ways in which the architect is involved can influence quality and cost of a project.
Specifically, I want to discuss architect-led-design-build (ALDB) and the different forms that process could take. I would like to delve deeper into the practicalities of ALDB both from an economic standpoint and as it relates to quality and efficiency of work.
Finally, to further demonstrate my points I aim to find case studies of projects (either successful or unsuccessful) that have involved the architect in the ways I discuss. I also hope to interview both a professor and a student from both fields, design and construction, here at Virginia Tech, to get their opinions on how they view the other profession and what they think that architect’s role should be in the construction process, and how the education of an architect would need to change accordingly.
This is important to me because, over the years I have been developing an idea in my head about best practices for architecture and the type of firm I hope to own or work in one day. I believe that when the architect has a higher level of involvement, architecture is produced at a higher quality. This in turn creates a higher quality of life for those who live and work in those buildings. I am determined to find practical, pragmatic ways in which this can be achieved in the modern day design and construction processes.