Let's Fix Construction
  • Blog
  • Why & Who?
  • Workshops
    • Upcoming Workshops
    • A & E Coordination
    • CDT Education Program
    • Let's Fix Construction
    • Social Media & AEC
    • Specifier/Product Rep
    • Specs 101
    • Young Professionals
    • Past Workshops
  • Contributors
  • Submit
  • Accolades
  • Donate
  • Contact

Revitalization + Reinvention

8/17/2016

4 Comments

 
Picture
Contributed by Randy Nishimura
​Is the architectural profession in need of revitalization or reinvention? In a provocative blog post (Please. Stop the Reinvention Talk), fellow blogger and specifications writer Liz O’Sullivan issued a rejoinder to management consultant James P. Cramer, and his article for DesignIntelligence entitled Competing for the Future. Having considered both perspectives, it’s my turn to comment.

Jim Cramer takes issue with architects who suffer from a lack of nerve and have given in to a cynical and dark pessimism about the future of professional practice. He questions why some architects dwell as much as they do upon inwardly focused priorities rather than exploring new models and entrepreneurial visions for the design professions and tomorrow’s A/E/C industry. It’s his belief that “the game has changed” and that innovation and change management need to be an integral part of the curricula in schools of architecture. He is an advocate for reinventing the profession.

Liz bristles at the notion that reinvention is necessary. Instead, she believes we must do a better job of meeting the needs that owners have now, that we used to meet, and no longer do. She points out that owners haven’t changed but architects have. We’ve unwittingly surrendered much of the design and construction landscape to others and in the process diminished our influence and relevance. Liz asserts owners will stop looking elsewhere for the services we used to provide if we simply reclaim our territory and prove our value once more. She believes in revitalization rather than reinvention.

This needn’t be an “either/or” dilemma. We should embrace all possibilities. We must address the complexities and yes, the contradictions, of current professional practice. We can revitalize and reinvent ourselves at the same time.

As I stated in my response to Liz’s earlier Take Back the Reins post and as Liz herself acknowledges, a crucial challenge confronting architecture is the exponential growth in its complexity and scope. This development prompts specialization and the balkanization of our profession because it is increasingly difficult for architects to acquire detailed expertise in all areas of focus. The problem is essentially a budgeting exercise: how do we allocate limited resources (time and money) in the development of future architects?

I argued we would be losers if we played a zero-sum game in which sacrificing design acumen is necessary to acquire essential technical know-how. Exercising my privilege as the author of that statement, I’ll now amend it by substituting “critical thinking” for “design acumen.”

We cannot afford to shortchange the teaching of critical thinking, analysis, and integrative problem solving in our schools of architecture. These are the core competencies that form the indispensible foundation of a skill set unique to architects. A classic schooling in architecture ingrains the ability to think broadly and critically. We need to view the world from the widest perspective possible, and apply critical thinking to every aspect of professional practice. To do otherwise is to abandon our duty as stewards of the built environment.

This duty is profound: Architecture is not an autonomous pursuit. Regardless of how much responsibility we have ceded to other entities, we have impactful roles to play when it comes to a wide spectrum of challenges faced by our society. We still exert influence today upon the creation of effective and grounded design solutions. We can expand this influence and revitalize our profession by once again assuming a broad leadership role on every design and construction project.

​Click Read More ------> 
Picture
Critical thinking—a willingness to consider and integrate alternative perspectives, imagine new possibilities, and foster criticality in others—is not the product of an overly focused, parochial education. And yet, that’s where some schools of architecture appear to be headed. Short-term exigency and bottom-line economics have contributed to an obsessive pursuit of lucrative research funding and a focus upon market-driven differentiation at colleges and universities across the country.

A case in point is my alma mater, the University of Oregon. The UO School of Architecture & Allied Arts is widely recognized as a preeminent institution when it comes to sustainable design. However, the school has so wholly embraced this reputation that it may become the proverbial tail wagging the dog. Sustainability is a crucial issue that should be at the forefront of our thinking; however, it should not crowd out other considerations fundamental to the education of future architects. An unintended consequence of Oregon’s emphasis upon sustainability and move away from design theory may ultimately be a generation of graduates who lack the ability to question assumptions and think critically. This would be unfortunate.

The same holds true if we believe enhancing the stature of our profession is simply a matter of restoring a respected measure of technical competence and responsibility. Don’t get me wrong: I definitely agree with Liz when it comes to the need to supplement the practical education of emerging professionals. I am a strong advocate for what the Construction Specifications Institute can do in this regard. Our profession should do more to popularize CSI’s certification programs. Doing so would raise the general fluency of young architects with construction terminology, practices, and documentation standards. My point is that architects are not merely technicians. We need to be as well-rounded as possible to be truly effective, the most so of all the players in the entire design and construction arena.

Restoration of our traditional role in the building design and construction processes is one side of the coin. It is revitalization. The other side is reinvention, but I regard reinvention in conceptually broader terms than Jim Cramer does. Imagination and entrepreneurial spirit are fantastic but they do not define who we are.

Fundamentally, architects are synthesizers, problem-solvers, orchestra conductors, and thinkers of the highest order. We can both reinvent ourselves and revitalize our profession by demonstrating to everyone the value of architects. We can do this by rising up to see the big picture. We can assume the mantle as critical thinkers about the built environment.

Reinvention? Revitalization? Or both? Read what Liz and Jim each say and come to your own conclusion.
4 Comments
Ujjval Vyas
8/22/2016 01:30:58 am

Randy,

Maybe you want to give us some examples of architects who are "thinkers of the highest order" so we can be sure we are talking about the same thing. God knows I haven't met any of these in a long time. I can probably count those who are even close to that on one hand. Poseurs, empty-headed folks with cultural swagger, deeply nice folks trying to serve the community without asking any tough questions of themselves or their profession, even the ever-present holier-than-thou world-savers I know. But "thinkers of the highest order," is hard to fathom. But maybe you are using this term and the others giving architects the mantle of demigods as purely rhetorical.

I am also befuddled by your notion that a classical architectural education is somehow about critical thinking. It couldn't be further from the truth. Such an inflationary and validating rhetoric has been around for a long time to make excuses for the parochial education offered by the studio system. The unique attributes of an architectural education is to believe in an identity that makes excuses for the lack of real knowledge into a virtue. Ignorance is a virtue, knowledge is a vice; thus the idea that knowing technical things don't provide the real magic powers in the profession, but rather the middle-school level of "research" in studio does. This is the key attribute of all designers: I don't need to actually know anything (except what is paraded by AIA "knowledge leaders," Fast Company, or some version of Vogue, Cosmo, or Vanity Fair with pictures of architecture) about the sciences, economics, geography, demographics, or much of anything else to design a city for 5 million people. And of course it is all too difficult anyway and far too complicated. Wonder what would have happened if the doctors, researchers and scientists who attacked the problem of AIDS thought the same way.

When a whole profession has capitulated to making excuses for a very low standard of intellectual rigor, we see not only the twilight creeping up, but also the hope for a new day. Critical thinking has a very odd quality. It is characterized by fear and trepidation since real critical thinking is about being forced to go where one must, not where one wants. Frankly, if critical thinking really were the key attribute valued in architecture and there were thinkers of the highest order, much of what we see everyday in both the practice and discourse of architecture would evaporate overnight. Critical thinking is very difficult, full of personal and professional skepticism, and rarely comports with what will make one feel good about oneself.

Recognizing the pathology of architectural practice and sociology is vital to any attempts to fix construction. Go big or go home is only an empty threat unless it challenges at a fundamental level. Liz O'Sullivan's clear call to arms for more knowledge cannot be met with a vaporous call to some higher order of thinking. It is instead a clear call to recognize that without basic knowledge and a growing commitment to constantly engaging and growing that knowledge, the profession fails in its duties to its clients and to itself.



Reply
Randy Nishimura link
8/22/2016 11:12:58 am

Ujjval: Without a doubt, your critiques of my blog posts are incredibly challenging and cause for reflection. In this instance, my rebuttal (as lacking in rigor as it may be) is founded upon my belief that architects can too easily sort themselves into confining silos of expertise and that doing so is detrimental to the profession as a whole.

AIDS researchers focus intently upon the challenge posed by that auto-immune disorder because they must--that is where their energy, resources, and focus must be applied; they are not general practitioners. And yet we need general practitioners to ensure a desirable level of public health.

In my mind, the same is true of architects: Certainly, a few in my profession need to be highly specialized experts in order to advance the building sciences, etc.; however, a much greater number should possess the general wisdom necessary to recognize and weave together the threads that connect architecture to so many aspects of human existence. This includes the ability to recognize the need to draw upon the expertise of others who are more knowledgeable about areas of necessary focus.

Yes, basic knowledge of design, of how construction works, and of the architect's duty to his/her clients and society are prerequisites. On the other hand, I do believe we are in need of "thinkers of the highest order." I'm not being entirely rhetorical when I say this. The truth may be that such individuals are exceedingly rare but we should not malign or tear them down when they do appear.

Most young people contemplating a career in architecture do so with the sincere aspiration to make a difference by contributing positively to the betterment of the built environment. Most quickly realize they will need to spend the rest of their lives learning how to become better architects. Some may ultimately choose to be specialists, pursuing careers or advanced degrees in building forensics, or community development, or facilities management, or construction law, or whatever. Many, many others will do like I have done and follow a more "conventional" career path as architects. The point is architecture's appeal has in part always been its stature as a calling, as a meaningful human endeavor that can reflect the best we can be. The professions of medicine and law are similar in this regard.

No architect I know believes knowledge "is a vice" as you assert. Nor would any architect suggest that fulfilling one's duty to the client and the public at large is anything less than paramount. The dilemma is that being an architect is ever more challenging and increasingly complex. It is indeed difficult and complicated. I don't have the answers but the fact we can recognize the need to have this discussion is a good thing. I see this same debate occurring more and more in the press and online--again, a good thing. Perhaps there will be an epiphany and we'll all one day clearly see the path forward.

Reply
Elias Saltz link
8/24/2016 05:53:00 pm

Randy, in the last paragraph you said, "Nor would any architect suggest that fulfilling one's duty to the client and the public at large is anything less than paramount"

Architects' perceived duties owed to the public at large are almost always in conflict to the duties owed to their clients, and they don't know how to separate them or prioritize them. Architects need to realize that their duties to society end on the last page of the IBC. Their duties to their clients are otherwise without competition.

Of course that isn't to say that architecture is without opportunity to do good design and to be environmentally forward-looking and aspirational in society-improving ways. It just takes a client who has the same big aspirations and an architect who has the right knowledge and skill to make those aspirations into reality.

Jeffrey Pilus link
8/30/2016 04:03:09 pm

I have been teaching graduate students in Architecture a one hour Contract Administration and a one hour Construction Specifications Class for fifteen years. They are both elective classes and the only class that they are required to take that even comes close to understanding the business of architecture is the practices class. I disagree that the education of young architects needs to be "supplemented". It needs to be a part of the curriculum. I am a big fan of Liz, however there are a couple of things I would like to say about her post.
•"Architects need to understand that part of their job is to interpret the code and incorporate the code requirements into the project documents". - this is about the only thing they have always been very capable at.
•"Architects need to understand what they are drawing, and need to have a good feeling for how the building and their details will actually be constructed." - very few have ever known this, and without employing integrated delivery systems we cant expect them to know anything based on their feelings. The side of your practice where understanding guides the imagination is based on judgement. Without that “determinant judgment” (the side of the house you see), your imagination (that which fills in the other side) is no better than simple, repetitive, overwhelming redundancy fed through a manifold of sensations. “Feelings” (are the equivalent of) responding without the guidance of concept. “Judgments” (are involved in) an appeal to reason.

•Architects need to understand that the specifications are contract documents, too, and are complementary to the drawings. - they have never accepted that until they have to go to court. They think the language of architecture is "visual".
•"Architects need to understand that they are responsible, (according to the code, and according to their owner-architect agreements) for coordinating the work of all the design disciplines." - The “standard of care” is the prevailing benchmark of professional practice. The Architect shall perform its services consistent with the professional skill and care ordinarily provided by architects practicing in the same or similar locality under the same or similar circumstances. The Architect shall perform its services as expeditiously as is consistent with such professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Project.The design professional’s standard of care is generally based on the performance of others characterized as the “reasonable”, “ordinary”, or “average” design professional, and not on internal or personal capabilities. BIM and IPD is going to change what is average in a hurry. Watch for the lawsuits for doing things "the old way".

•Architects need to get better at construction contract administration – they need to understand construction contracts and Division 01 of the specifications as well as the technical sections. - they never were any good at it, and most of them don't even know that they should be using the right term. I have some of them who refuse to even look at the Division 01 requirements.

I am afraid there is no path back, and if there was it would be absurd to try to take it.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    About

    Let's Fix Construction is an avenue to offer creative solutions, separate myths from facts and erase misconceptions about the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry.


    Check out Cherise's latest podcast
    Picture


    Get blog post notifications here

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    RSS Feed


    Archives

    March 2022
    May 2021
    May 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016

    Categories

    All
    Architecture
    Certification
    Collaboration
    Communication
    Concrete
    Construction
    Construction Administration
    Contract Documents
    CSI
    Education
    Estimators
    Fabrication
    Fix
    Manufacturing
    Misconception
    Myths & Facts
    Podcast
    Refresh
    Specifications
    Subcontractors
    Technology
    Training

    Tweets by FixConstruction
© COPYRIGHT 2021. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
  • Blog
  • Why & Who?
  • Workshops
    • Upcoming Workshops
    • A & E Coordination
    • CDT Education Program
    • Let's Fix Construction
    • Social Media & AEC
    • Specifier/Product Rep
    • Specs 101
    • Young Professionals
    • Past Workshops
  • Contributors
  • Submit
  • Accolades
  • Donate
  • Contact