3 ms·

(Building) Architecture may be an anomaly to Matt's belief that the new generation is better, but I've noticed a precipitous decline in ability of graduating ar

(Building) Architecture may be an anomaly to Matt's belief that the new generation is better, but I've noticed a precipitous decline in ability of graduating architecture students over the last decade. Its so bad now that I simply can't afford to hire anyone right out of school because the cost to my firm of both extensive training and loss from mistakes is so high. The problem I see is architecture schools focusing on trends in aesthetics such as deconstruction rather than teaching students how to actually build a building. This is probably different than CS schools in that the deconstruction philosophy necessitates divorcing building from reality, which hopefully there are no parallels for in CS programs.

bokonist 18y ago
Architecture has been in awful state for the past 80 years. Just compare buildings built in the 20th century to those in the 19th century. My girlfriend is getting her masters in architecture now and it's an awful waste of money. She's learned a lot about "aura" and generating weird building designs from algorithms, but precious little about how to create buildings people would enjoy living in. The schools should be shut down and boarded up before they do any more damage, and the architecture profession should return to an apprenticeship system.
- gibsonf1 18y ago
  The new trend in using algorithms to design buildings is a fancy way to divorce the building design from the problem at hand - a classic principle of deconstruction. As far as the state of architecture in general over the last 80(!) years, I disagree with you. The current philosophical trend is deconstruction which is making some architects adhering to that philosophy quite trendy and famous, but there are many other architects who could care less about the latest trend and pursue their own work with a different core philosophy (myself included).
  - bokonist 18y ago
    In most cities or college campuses the older buildings are all more beautiful than buildings built after 1940, at least to my eye. The worst are the brutalist and modernist buildings of the 50's and 60's.
    - gibsonf1 18y ago
      "Beautiful" is a concept completely lost in Architecture in trends dating back many decades. I am a big fan of the beautiful, as are some other architects, but the general trend has been to not even consider the idea for quite a while. The most trendy thing now is sustainable building - also having nothing to do with the beautiful and in many cases detrimental to the idea. Another way to look at this is as long as it's trendy to make art that ignores the beautiful, so too will architecture ignore the beautiful. It has to do with culture and philosophy, and fortunately there are still some people who desire beauty in their buildings and demand it from their architects, but not nearly enough.
      - bokonist 18y ago
        Indeed, sustainability is the new trend. However, recently I came across a random blog comment that noted that 19th century buildings were far more energy efficient: But look at lower Manhattan and all the traditional pre-war New York skyscrapers . . . in fact, look at any great pre-war building . . . they are all 10x more energy efficient than any modernist structure. They tended to have thick masonary walls and windows that opened. (That's why people had paperweights). They were also more slender and indented than the sheer glass slabs that the "less is more" crowd have forced on us. Traditionalists like Ernest Flagg and Sanford White were building for natural ventilation and energy conservation because there was no alternative. And they managed to solve this problem with soul-soaring art that was funtional and profitable. Thom Mayne is attempting to invent something that had already been perfected generations ago but discarded in the name of "progress." But isn't that so often the case. If he weren't so self-absorbed he might have learned something from his elders. Source: http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2007/03/san_francisco_d.html http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2007/03/san_francisco_d.h...
  - Retric 18y ago
    I think the overall "fail" rate of new buildings have gone up even as better tools have become available. Now we can debate what's a failing design, but when a building needs significant work within 20 years of being built I think is a strong indicator, and at every level this has been going up. I think the idea of deconstruction has promoted the idea that the architect is supposed to pick what a building looks like and as soon as people approve his design his job is basically over except for the building phase.
pchristensen 18y ago
My cousin studied architecture at Cooper Union from '97-'99 but left because he couldn't stand deconstructionism. That doesn't help train more competent architects, but maybe it's a signal that schools will see.
gruseom 18y ago
Wow, if what you're saying is true then the cultural rot made it into a field with practical, physical consequences. That surprises me. When I encountered deconstruction and such things, they were only thriving in environments like literary studies. On the other hand, architecture as a field (at least the elite stuff) seems to have been moving away from "reality" for such a long time that perhaps this is just going the whole hog.

bokonist 18y ago

Architecture has been in awful state for the past 80 years. Just compare buildings built in the 20th century to those in the 19th century. My girlfriend is getting her masters in architecture now and it's an awful waste of money. She's learned a lot about "aura" and generating weird building designs from algorithms, but precious little about how to create buildings people would enjoy living in. The schools should be shut down and boarded up before they do any more damage, and the architecture profession should return to an apprenticeship system.

gibsonf1 18y ago
The new trend in using algorithms to design buildings is a fancy way to divorce the building design from the problem at hand - a classic principle of deconstruction. As far as the state of architecture in general over the last 80(!) years, I disagree with you. The current philosophical trend is deconstruction which is making some architects adhering to that philosophy quite trendy and famous, but there are many other architects who could care less about the latest trend and pursue their own work with a different core philosophy (myself included).
- bokonist 18y ago
  In most cities or college campuses the older buildings are all more beautiful than buildings built after 1940, at least to my eye. The worst are the brutalist and modernist buildings of the 50's and 60's.
  - gibsonf1 18y ago
    "Beautiful" is a concept completely lost in Architecture in trends dating back many decades. I am a big fan of the beautiful, as are some other architects, but the general trend has been to not even consider the idea for quite a while. The most trendy thing now is sustainable building - also having nothing to do with the beautiful and in many cases detrimental to the idea. Another way to look at this is as long as it's trendy to make art that ignores the beautiful, so too will architecture ignore the beautiful. It has to do with culture and philosophy, and fortunately there are still some people who desire beauty in their buildings and demand it from their architects, but not nearly enough.
    - bokonist 18y ago
      Indeed, sustainability is the new trend. However, recently I came across a random blog comment that noted that 19th century buildings were far more energy efficient: But look at lower Manhattan and all the traditional pre-war New York skyscrapers . . . in fact, look at any great pre-war building . . . they are all 10x more energy efficient than any modernist structure. They tended to have thick masonary walls and windows that opened. (That's why people had paperweights). They were also more slender and indented than the sheer glass slabs that the "less is more" crowd have forced on us. Traditionalists like Ernest Flagg and Sanford White were building for natural ventilation and energy conservation because there was no alternative. And they managed to solve this problem with soul-soaring art that was funtional and profitable. Thom Mayne is attempting to invent something that had already been perfected generations ago but discarded in the name of "progress." But isn't that so often the case. If he weren't so self-absorbed he might have learned something from his elders. Source: http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2007/03/san_francisco_d.html http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2007/03/san_francisco_d.h...
- Retric 18y ago
  I think the overall "fail" rate of new buildings have gone up even as better tools have become available. Now we can debate what's a failing design, but when a building needs significant work within 20 years of being built I think is a strong indicator, and at every level this has been going up. I think the idea of deconstruction has promoted the idea that the architect is supposed to pick what a building looks like and as soon as people approve his design his job is basically over except for the building phase.

pchristensen 18y ago

My cousin studied architecture at Cooper Union from '97-'99 but left because he couldn't stand deconstructionism. That doesn't help train more competent architects, but maybe it's a signal that schools will see.

gruseom 18y ago

Wow, if what you're saying is true then the cultural rot made it into a field with practical, physical consequences. That surprises me. When I encountered deconstruction and such things, they were only thriving in environments like literary studies. On the other hand, architecture as a field (at least the elite stuff) seems to have been moving away from "reality" for such a long time that perhaps this is just going the whole hog.