Architectural Education - A New Paradigm

[MartyC]

Hello,

I think we have an interesting new paradigm developing here with architectural education.

In this part of Australia, architectural schools appear to be more focussed on commercial skills of graduates than hard-core architectural knowledge. Graduates can generally step into a job and readily function. In slight contrast is the new Zealand approach in the recent past (and possibly currently), where graduates had a vast core knowledge of design theory however, the development and practical production of construction documents and construction/material knowledge was a skill left to the intern period between graduation and registration. I am sure that variations on this theme exist globally.

Revit has introduced a situation where the traditional hierarchical approach to design within an office has become a bit redundant. The software allows the designer to significantly resolve the developed design through the conceptual design process (and a large chunk of the CD's) by default. Therefore the technician’s job becomes largely unnecessary. The result is that either significant design decision and development is either carried out by the technician (not particularly ideal where creativity is desired or accountability is essential), or the CD development preparation is carried out by the principal designer in the course of the design process. This is not in line with either pure architectural education or technical training.

I propose that due to the advent of Revit and its clearly identified development path, the requirements on, and focus of the educational institutions need to change and change quickly. And I think that the profession of architecture may need to develop and re-assert its place in the construction industry. It is Revit that I believe is forcing a critical mass in terms of 3D/BIM/Parametric approach to design by virtue of the fact that its power is undeniable, and together with earlier software products of similar vain that collectively now seem to dominate the process.

Architectural schools need to expand focus squarely on structures, materials and documentation methods in addition to very strong core architectural theory, to produce individual designers that have the ability to properly develop their work to a fuller extent by leveraging their ability through the use of Revit. Additionally it is important to not lose focus on the architectural quality through the speed advantages possible with new generation softwares.

Technically oriented education needs to develop a greater knowledge of architectural theory and appreciation in technicians to avoid poor decision making forced by potentially increased responsibility and minimal review.

Architects can become better at what they are academically trained to do with a wider and more cohesive skill base, together with technicians having an expanded understanding of design and greater ability to justify a para-professional status.

In a small practice such as mine, I am enjoying the ability to more fully resolve and develop my own work without passing it on to someone else to enhance (or stuff up!). I am also aware that a project given to someone else will require a high level of skill to develop it to the required standard. I suggest therefore, that for staff to be useful, they must have a high level of architectural understanding, knowledge and ability, as well as a thorough and complete knowledge of constructional methods, materials and theory. Without these things, the potential for the business possible with Revit is lost.

The bottom line, if you like, is that it is the educational institutions that need to develop in delivery of the core essentials of Architecture and Construction. The choice of software should be Revit, however, whatever is used, it doesn’t really matter, as when a graduate enters an office, the learning curve of Revit is a whole bunch less than the learning curve of the essential architectural skills. But Revit will definitely expose a deficiency in core knowledge and skills applicable and essential to the architectural professions.


CheersM

[PeterJ]

In this part of Australia, architectural schools appear to be more focussed on commercial skills of graduates than hard-core architectural knowledge. Graduates can generally step into a job and readily function. In slight contrast is the new Zealand approach in the recent past (and possibly currently), where graduates had a vast core knowledge of design theory however, the development and practical production of construction documents and construction/material knowledge was a skill left to the intern period between graduation and registration. I am sure that variations on this theme exist globally.

Certainly here in the UK it seems that the better schools are now basing their teaching on a much heavier adherence to theoretical matters and technical and material skills seems to take a slight back seat, though they are also taught at a more conceptual level. People who are well able to produce brick detailing are not the aim of the schools.

[MartyC]

Certainly here in the UK it seems that the better schools are now basing their teaching on a much heavier adherence to theoretical matters and technical and material skills seems to take a slight back seat, though they are also taught at a more conceptual level. People who are well able to produce brick detailing are not the aim of the schools.

Yes indeed, however, this is my point. Revit requires that an architect using the software knows how to construct, otherwise the output ends up being somewhat obscure and requires significant input from others to fix up or indeed start a project fresh following proper construction rules. If the brick detailing, or at least a sound knowledge of what a brick can do, is not known, how can one include this element in an evolving concept with confidence, in a software environment that is inclusive of elements rather than suggestions.

Are Architects active designers, or have we relegated ourselves to simply guiding the design process carried out by technicians, and administering contracts. If the architect is to retain some worth, and maintain value and relevance in the knowledge building process they have partaken in, then the software choices require the Architect to now know how to build. You cant fudge structure in Revit, or if one is working extra hard to fudge it, another profession would probably be more suitable.

Architectural training consisting of only core theory, history and conceptual thought must leave the graduate with limited commercial skill in a Revit environment other than the ability to run office machinery, run errands and learn construction and detail fully on the practice time.

I suggest the aim of architectural schools should be a more holistic approach to the subject of buildings to allow new practitioners to more effectively function in the emerging environment. This may suggest an opportunity for the return of the Architect as the artisan in the fullest sense.

This is where I believe Revit is developing a new paradigm. At the very least, the old process model in practice is becoming somewhat redundant. My future staffing plans as a result are a bit of a blank page.

CheersM

[hand471037]

Here's something I wrote in another thread about CAD vs. BIM training (as in what system should a College teach- a 2D CAD or a 3D BIM) that I feel is relevant to this thread too:



Part of the problem and confusion here as I see it is the fact that, as an Architect, my real job has little to do with drawing things yet that is how I spent the majority of time doing my job.

Let me explain: I feel that my job as an Architect boils down to Getting the Project Built and Making Things Work. It boils down to Time, Money, and Function. It boils down to What goes Where, When, and Why. And it has nothing to do with drawing except that drawing has been the primary means of communicating design intent with others. So how does a CAD system focused on Drawing do much to help me do my job, when my job is not about drawing? What *ONE* feature in any 2D CAD system out there help me Get Things Built? That helps me do my job?

Whereas a 3D intelligent system that draws things for me, coordnates information, and allows me to capture and communicate design intent in new, clearer, easyer ways, and gives me feedback on how the building is coming together has much higher value to me. For it takes care of that 'dirty' work of the drawing production so that I can focus on what my job really is: Providing Value to by my Clients by Getting the Building Built and Making Things Work. Revit is a great information mangement tool for a working professional in the Construction Industry, and has little to do with the concept of 'drawing' things 'cept that it does produce drawings as a simple means of communicating Design Intent.

It's kinda like obsessing over the choice of my Word Processor if I was a Lawyer, because of the fact that I spend a lot of time writting stuff- when my job as a Lawyer has very little to do with writting, it's just that writting is the primary means they use to communicate. Certainly I could, as a Lawyer, learn the most complex and highly refined system for writting complex documents- or I could use a tool that's easy to use and helps me quickly capture my intent to communicate to others. That's why you don't see Lawyers using professonal-level word processors (like the kind they use to put whole books together in publishing houses) you see them using Word or Word Perfect, because it Helps them do their jobs by making the writting process more easy and automatic.

So what you really should be asking is whether you want to equipt your students to be able to Get Things Built or whether you want to equipt them to simply be good at drawing things. Builders vs. Draftspeople.

I think schools should really be a balance. Equipt the students to be *Builders* but give the enough background and history to understand the whole picture of the culture, history, and what it really means to be an Architect. I've seen people that came from big-name Architecture schools here in the states that were worse than useless for they were all theory and couldn't even draw details for they had spent their school years pretty much as 'Artists' -not as Architects- because the programs they were in were way to top-heavy. But then on the other hand I've met people who got through Architecture School and didn't know what Ronchamp is, and when shown a picture, just thought it was something weird and new (!).