"What we currently build is a reflection of our worst values"- Oh so true. As an Architecture and Interior Design educator, I constantly challenge these young students to be more aware and cognoscente of their environment in the choices of materials and substantive design of their projects, as it is their future that they are responsible to and for. Wonderful interview.
Interesting on how the perception of the architect seems to be more focused on the social value of the project then the fundamental core of the craft! Let me make this perfectly clear here that I am not a Architect or engineer, but a 'lay person' who's perception is from the outside in! I was involved in the construction industry for almost 50 years, but mainly as a field worker of the industry, however I did spend around 20 of those years running or owning some of those companies! Most people now perceive architecture or architects as artists or social designers and not the end overseeing factor of the project! I see the architect as the end sign-off authority to all the trades providing the correct and right things to make the project work! Do I see the need for social values of a project being with the architect? I do, but only if it does not distract from the project being, all that it should be! I get the feeling, that one aspect of the project, lets say artistic or social value of the project as overridden the ethic value of the engineering side of the project! I sometimes get the opinion that these other issues, social or artistic, takes more precedent then does the engineering aspect! I think more ethics need to be provided to the overall project with respect too both sides of the coin and not overlook the core values of the craft!
Today's higher ed architecture institutions are deluded into thinking that they can solve social malaise w/ design alone. They are overburdened and non-productive for this reason, they have ignored craft.
It's interesting to read both of these comments, because I think they are true. But at the same time, we often see many people who think the architect's primary (or only) value is a technical one. Technical, meaning structural engineering (which architects don't actually do, typically, and permitting/approvals). This is of course, is frustrating for many architects. The technical construction knowledge of an architect is often not thought about as one of the values they offer. Which is weird. I do think that architects and architecture can and do have a huge impact on society and culture. I think that's a fact, regardless of how good or bad they are. It could also easily be argued that when the social impact of architecture is not enough of a focus, truly horrible buildings are produced, even if they are technically sound or well crafted.
@@secondstudiopod Thanks for the reply! My point was more to them having to wear multiple hats now! I understand about the rolls of architect versus structural engineer, but in old school days the architect was still the end overseer, the one who's name and stamp went on the drawings to confirm their compliance! My point is with today's standards, and people not taking responsibility the way it had been done in the past! Like building departments for city's or states demanding submittals, but not taking responsibility or liability for review of those documents being correct! Then it should fall back to the ones that took on the project! The ones that told the customer that they could design a building that would fit their needs and be compliant and safe!
@@frednewman2162 Great points. I agree w the city officials not taking responsibility. There are some cases where the architect is still the end overseeer. We see it more often the amongst the 'top' firms. But it's far less common. The architect's role has been diminsihing in my view, which is unfortunate. Toshiko Mori called our profession 'a fragile one' when she was on our show. And I think she was/is correct.
A conversation I've been waiting to hear happen, thank you
"What we currently build is a reflection of our worst values"- Oh so true. As an Architecture and Interior Design educator, I constantly challenge these young students to be more aware and cognoscente of their environment in the choices of materials and substantive design of their projects, as it is their future that they are responsible to and for.
Wonderful interview.
Interesting on how the perception of the architect seems to be more focused on the social value of the project then the fundamental core of the craft! Let me make this perfectly clear here that I am not a Architect or engineer, but a 'lay person' who's perception is from the outside in! I was involved in the construction industry for almost 50 years, but mainly as a field worker of the industry, however I did spend around 20 of those years running or owning some of those companies! Most people now perceive architecture or architects as artists or social designers and not the end overseeing factor of the project! I see the architect as the end sign-off authority to all the trades providing the correct and right things to make the project work! Do I see the need for social values of a project being with the architect? I do, but only if it does not distract from the project being, all that it should be! I get the feeling, that one aspect of the project, lets say artistic or social value of the project as overridden the ethic value of the engineering side of the project! I sometimes get the opinion that these other issues, social or artistic, takes more precedent then does the engineering aspect! I think more ethics need to be provided to the overall project with respect too both sides of the coin and not overlook the core values of the craft!
Today's higher ed architecture institutions are deluded into thinking that they can solve social malaise w/ design alone. They are overburdened and non-productive for this reason, they have ignored craft.
It's interesting to read both of these comments, because I think they are true. But at the same time, we often see many people who think the architect's primary (or only) value is a technical one. Technical, meaning structural engineering (which architects don't actually do, typically, and permitting/approvals). This is of course, is frustrating for many architects. The technical construction knowledge of an architect is often not thought about as one of the values they offer. Which is weird. I do think that architects and architecture can and do have a huge impact on society and culture. I think that's a fact, regardless of how good or bad they are. It could also easily be argued that when the social impact of architecture is not enough of a focus, truly horrible buildings are produced, even if they are technically sound or well crafted.
@@secondstudiopod Thanks for the reply! My point was more to them having to wear multiple hats now! I understand about the rolls of architect versus structural engineer, but in old school days the architect was still the end overseer, the one who's name and stamp went on the drawings to confirm their compliance! My point is with today's standards, and people not taking responsibility the way it had been done in the past! Like building departments for city's or states demanding submittals, but not taking responsibility or liability for review of those documents being correct! Then it should fall back to the ones that took on the project! The ones that told the customer that they could design a building that would fit their needs and be compliant and safe!
@@frednewman2162 Great points. I agree w the city officials not taking responsibility. There are some cases where the architect is still the end overseeer. We see it more often the amongst the 'top' firms. But it's far less common. The architect's role has been diminsihing in my view, which is unfortunate. Toshiko Mori called our profession 'a fragile one' when she was on our show. And I think she was/is correct.
@@nicolasfl1864 You have hit the nail on the head!!!