MartyC
2004-05-04, 06:44 AM
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
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