Thursday, February 16, 2006

Including Architecture in K-12 Education

Architecture literally surrounds us. It pervades every aspect of our lives. Therefore, including it in K-12 education should be straightforward. Below I’ve looked briefly at how architecture could be included in only three subject areas of traditional education, but I have little doubt that with more thought it could be included in nearly every subject. (I haven’t looked at solar orientation or sustainability, for instance, both of which could be covered in either Earth Science or Life Science.)

In English class when studying a story, students could be asked to draw a plan or section diagram, or build a model of a building important to the plot. (Jane Erye comes to mind.) They might be asked what kind of light the building allows in; what certain rooms feel like as opposed to others; what materials the floors, ceilings, and walls are; how tall or wide spaces are; and how all of this would affect the life or mood of the occupant. They could look at the deeper meaning this building has for the resident in the story. Then they could be asked to do the same in their own lives by picking a building important to them, performing the same analysis (drawing plans, sections, and building a model), and writing about the physical and ephemeral qualities that make it important to them. (Granted, most kids will likely write about their house, but an exercise like this would make them aware of their house as architecture.)

In math class, it is always better to apply concepts. When learning multiplication, students could learn about space as well, square feet being such an important concept in real estate and architecture. Understanding the difference between square feet and volume might help break the dependence on square feet as a resale indicator by putting the emphasis on the experience of the space instead of on the amount of flooring. This could be demonstrated in the classroom by taping outlines on the floor for representing the square footage, but adjusting the “ceiling” heights inside that space (someone could stand on a stool holding out a piece of cardboard while someone else stands in the space under it). The shape of the taped outline could be adjusted to achieve the same square footage, but an unusable space. Rearranging furniture within a usable space, based on their dimensions could also be a worthwhile exercise.

During geometry sections, though, is when buildings absolutely need to be studied. Proportions in relation to the human body and volume are essential. Students could learn about scale by building models with the same proportions but with larger dimensions and looking at the results of both when compared to a human figurine. Nearly every geometric exercise could be applied to a building in some way.

In Social Studies (that’s what they called it in my school district, think history/current events/cultural studies), any building that played an important role in the history of the United States is fair game. As are important historic figures who commissioned or designed buildings. When Thomas Jefferson is discussed, his architectural importance should not be ignored. He contributed greatly to the style of our national buildings by helping to start an American Classicism based on the ancient Greek temple. He also had a large effect on how the college campus developed based on his design for the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. Monticello, the home he designed and redesigned, is so important to our history and to his identity that it appears on the back of the nickel.

The development of building types directly reflects our economy. The skyscraper, as one example, developed in Chicago first before spreading to the rest of the world. Students could study the form and purpose of skyscrapers, the history and structure of Chicago, and then be asked why. What was it about Chicago that allowed this to happen, that impelled it to happen? Students could read The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair, not just as an anti-industrialization book, but also as a text illustrating the harm caused by not having architects and building codes to ensure the safety of the immigrant workers.

Why did suburbs develop? Why do we all want to live in freestanding, single-family homes? What are the positive aspects of living far from work and school? What are the negative aspects? Why do people get so upset about Wal-Mart? And the most important question that every child should be asked is, Why is the car so important and how does it affect the design of our buildings?

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Slippery Lecturer

Lawrence Scarpa, of Pugh + Scarpa Architecture (a typical, flash-heavy architect's site) in Santa Monica, CA, gave a lecture at NC State last night. His warm-up was to tell a Paul Rudolph anecdote from Scarpa’s days as a recent graduate working in Rudolph’s office in New York.

A Texan comes into Rudolph’s office.

Texan: I want a colonial mansion.
Rudolph: Okay.

Rudolph designs a “vintage Rudolph” building and presents it to the Texan.

Texan: Looks great. Let’s do it, but is it colonial?
Rudolph: Absolutely.

And so Scarpa reveals the origin of his squishy ethics. In his world, the client needs to be convinced in spite of their ignorance, so sometimes the client is told that everything is under control and moving smoothly when actually the project isn’t designed. And who, according to his own website, sends employees to “sign in for him” at continuing-education seminars (at which required continuing-education credit is earned) instead of attending them himself.* Why the charade? Why risk the humiliation and lack of trust if you are found out? And what was that Texan’s reaction when one of his more informed neighbors explained to him that he does not, in fact, have a colonial mansion?

By discussing and showing the work of sculptors and artists between slides of his projects, Scarpa is advocating building as an ongoing art project. He cited an “evolving” project, a funky platform structure for a film director that was built by a design team including the contractor as a member. It was built in only 12 weeks, from conceptual design to completion and was all fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants; drawings were done by hand with construction quickly following. “What we ended up with was better, I think, than if we had worked on it for years and told someone to build it exactly as drawn.” That is debatable. What they ended up with looks hastily assembled; a collage of metal panels, pipes, and concrete supports.

The scale of the projects he’s working on seems to affect his attitude towards the contractor. If it’s small, he and the contractor are equals with a common goal. If it’s large, “We treat the contractor like an assembler not like a builder.” Which is it? Is the contractor competent or not? How does the contractor feel about being treated as an assembler? “They were thrilled to work on something different than they normally do.” I’m sure they were.

As a founding member of LivablePlaces.org, Scarpa says, “We’re not active enough politically as architects.” The non-profit held a design competition for Santa Monica affordable housing without specifying a program. Naturally, the architecture-firm participants asked questions about the program, how many bedrooms per unit, etc. Scarpa saw this as a failing. “We’re so far removed from shaping our cities. We’ve become like the window dressers.”

When I asked how much contact he has had with the future residents of this affordable housing he said, “None.” He stressed that those involved in the project were creative people and knew the needs of the community.

“Wasn’t that the problem with the horrible housing projects of the ‘60s, that the architects came in and said ‘You should live this way’?” I asked. He responded in the negative. He said that those projects were federally-dictated where this one is local. I don’t see the difference between dictation originating locally or nationally, it’s still dictation. Perhaps, what he means is that this affordable housing isn’t for the poor. Olivecourt, the result of the design competition, has starting prices in the "low $300,000’s" which makes it like a speculative condominium project in most other urban centers.

If it were for the poor, the real poor, not involving the future residents of this project would appear to be only the latest paternalistic effort to elevate the poor through “good design.” It would be another way to get Channel 4 News to do a cheesy feature story on your organization, because, as Scarpa says in relation to sustainable design, “You don’t have to do much to look like a hero.”

*Click "Features". Click "A Day In The Life". Click just to the right of the number 9, for image one below. Then click the number 10 for image 2.

Thursday, February 09, 2006

The Process of Becoming an Architect

Before applying to architecture school, I found that the median salary for intern architects is $35,000 a year, so I knew the career was not lucrative, but, I thought, if I could design residences, the emotional benefit would be worth it.

School is a three-and-a-half year grind (if you’re getting a Masters with a different undergraduate degree). You don’t sleep the first two years. The third year, you sleep, but only if you’re burnt out enough to demand it for yourself.

After graduation, though, there is an internship period of not less than three years. You’re lucky if you’re working less than 50 hours a week, but at least you’re sleeping. This is when Intern Development Program (IDP) credit is earned through performing various tasks for a minimum number of hours while employed at a licensed architecture firm. This phase lasts, on average, five years because earning IDP must be balanced with doing the tasks the firm needs. For example, they may not need you to visit the construction site often, so it takes longer to earn that credit.

The tasks are often mind-numbing: drawing bathroom elevations, double-checking shop drawings - sent to your office by contractors showing column locations or other important details, tracking down door-handle information, calculating cost per square-foot, etc. Your firm is willing to put up with your ignorance and teach you the profession. School, you find, is irrelevant to 90% of what you do. If you hated school this might be positive, but if you loved the intellectual and formal challenges, this could be hell.

Interns make on average, $35,000 to $54,500 a year depending on their years of experience. If the firm is well-known, the interns will be paid minimum wage, $15,000 to $18,000, if they are paid; this is a system that allows the wealthy to employ the wealthy.

Once IDP credit is earned, you may take the numerous licensing exams, which either satisfy the state or national requirements. The nation exam, the Architect Registration Examination (ARE) has nine divisions with some daunting pass rates. Even taking special classes, it is unlikely that you will pass every division on the first try.

Once licensed you can demand a higher salary, but you’ll likely need to change firms. Your first firm would have hired a licensed architect instead of you if they had need for one or could have afforded it. As a project architect, that is, the one who signs their name to the drawings, you hold all of the responsibility should something go wrong. For this you need to have expensive insurance incase you’re sued, and you will be sued at some point.

After four years of undergraduate school, three-and-a-half years of graduate school, five years of internship, passing the exams, acquiring scary responsibility and the expense of insurance, and with four years of experience, you’re making a median income of $62,500 a year. For comparison: a structural engineer with a four-year undergraduate degree, a three-year internship, (I assume a license) six to eight years of experience, and expensive insurance has a median income of $95,000; a construction manager with a four-year degree and seven years experience (no licensing required) has a median income of $101,000. Architects aren’t highly valued, at least in terms of compensation.

There isn’t much benefit to becoming licensed, so many people trained as architects simply call themselves designers. They get a commission, design it, and, if it is a project that requires a licensed architect, partner with a licensed firm that produces all of the drawings and oversees construction. (Of course, some licensed firms only sign the drawings.) Some of these unlicensed firms, if only designing houses or apartment buildings smaller than a certain size-limit, never need to partner with anyone, as these projects do not require an architect.

With a profession that already has little societal value, it is harmful for school to neglect the reality of day-to-day firm life. It should accurately reflect the profession, not be so disjointed that it attracts students who would not otherwise want to practice. And somehow, the profession needs to increase its perceived value, because the process of becoming an architect is too difficult and the stress of being an architect is too high for the little benefit one receives.

Friday, February 03, 2006

Invisible, egomaniacal architects

There is a divide between how architects think about buildings and how occupants think about buildings. So what is the public's opinion, since we are so isolated from the real world, of architects and the architectural profession? They can't possibly think about us as much as we do. My guess is that people don't think about architects at all. Even so, what are common ideas about and stereotypes of architects? Is Howard Roark lurking out there, nameless?

Or maybe he isn'’t so nameless. One of last summer's Architectural Records described the Pritzker Prize winner for 2005 as "Architecture'’s Bad Boy,"” a man who refused to compromise his artistic vision, as if this were a good thing. Howard Roark is alive and well and working in LA. The problem with dear old Howard is that he will never have to live or work in one of his "“artistic visions" while potentially thousands of others will. What is the value of his vision once he's done with it? And why are we still promoting this attitude amongst architects? Hasn'’t it become apparent that it's destructive to the profession? That it loses us more commissions than it gains?

Where is architecture discussed? In K-12 education, medicine is discussed in health class, law in US History, and engineering in a math or physics class. I don'’t remember a single conversation about buildings in primary school. The only people who talk about architecture are architects and critics. And architects aren't seeking general public input on their process or ideas.