My neck on the proverbial chopping block.

You see, up until about a month ago, I considered myself one of the lucky ones.  I was working in an office that had yet to be touched by the big, bad economy monster.  I wasn’t blind though, I could see what was happening out there and when the lay-offs started hitting closer to home, it wasn’t all that much of a surprise really.  Every time another friend was let go, I counted my lucky stars that I still had a job to return to.  None of this should be news to any of you.

Then it finally happened and it was my neck on the proverbial chopping block.  My turn to step up and take one for the team.  What I’ve witnessed in the time since then, has honestly and truly scared me beyond all belief.

After the initial numbness wore off, I made a trip to the local AIA chapter office to update my contact information.  I chatted with the helpful woman at the front desk and that’s when she said something to me that still shakes me to the core.  “Just be sure to stay in the industry, we’d hate to lose you.”  The way it was said, as if she’s seen an army of traitor architects abandon ship and head off for parts unknown.  The thought of leaving this profession had never crossed my mind until she said those words.  I mean, there was that one time in college but isn’t that something we all went through back then?  My point is, is that for the last 10+ years, architecture is all I’ve ever wanted to do.  In all honesty, I knew I wanted to be a part of this industry since my childhood.  I couldn’t imagine doing anything else.  “Just be sure to stay in the industry,” she said.  I laughed it off and tried to think nothing of it.

Fast forward a few weeks and I’m starting to realize just what she was talking about.  Between ARE study sessions I’ve been looking for work here and there, cold-calling some offices and replying to job postings that I’m only slightly qualified for.  When I can’t sleep at night I pull out my laptop and hunt the state job boards until the early hours of the morning.  Long story short, it’s pretty barren out there.  But none of this should be news to you.

At times, when I’m tired of having my nose buried in a Kaplan book, and too frustrated scanning a job board that I know isn’t going to look any different than it did yesterday, I get to thinking…What other “professions” are like ours?  How many out-of-work doctors or lawyers do you know right now?  Maybe that’s a bad example and I’m far from an expert on the subject, but I can’t imagine those very same individuals even considering leaving all of their schooling and hard-work behind.

What really gets me though, is that very little of this is happening because there’s a bunch of bad architects out there doing shoddy work.  I don’t want to venture too far out into the politics of this thing, but no matter which way you look at the economic downturn, none of this is our fault.  Our profession is at the mercy of the economy and there’s little we can do to protect ourselves from getting gobbled up.  Remember the horror stories from all the old-timers in your office, when they talked of the profession in the 80′s and 90′s?  Um, hello!!!  History is repeating itself and by the looks of it, there’s very little we as professionals have learned from the past.

Who is the steward for our profession?

This brings me to my final thought.  Just who is the steward for our profession?  Who is out there looking out for us, protecting us, lending a hand when we need it the most?  We don’t have a union that can help elect public officials and apply pressure where needed to further our cause.  We don’t have anyone marching on Capitol Mall with signs demanding change.  All we have is an ever-growing group of unemployed workers who are having to be reminded, “Just be sure to stay in the industry.”

(Stay tuned to sloArch.com for further editorials on this and other subjects of interest.  Do you have some thoughts to share?  Please leave a comment below!)

The new Rural Studio HQ. (Courtesy ffffound)

I don’t know about you, but now that I’ve been out of school a few years, I’m finding it increasingly more difficult to not get frustrated by endless stacks of RFI’s, tight budgets, or impossible project schedules.

Sure these things are accepted parts of our profession, but at what point do you draw the line?  When does the work we do cease being a shelter or a communal gathering place, and become a soulless shell of a building, waiting for yet another tenant move-in?  Is it wrong of me to think that ever since the move into the “real world” that architecture has slowly been less about true design and more about the ever-present bottom line?

It’s during troubled economic times like these that I think about a different kind of architecture.  You see, a few years back I was lucky enough to catch a talk sponsored by the local AIA chapter regarding a program out in the Alabama backwoods called the Rural Studio.  Samuel “Sambo” Mockbee founded the Rural Studio as a living lab of architecture and design for Auburn University.  2nd Year and thesis students have been providing their own labor and using donated materials for going on 17 years now as they design, then build structures for the people that need them the most.  Their client list is as far from a suit-wearing, real estate developer as one could get.  Many of these people don’t have even the most basic of utilities at their disposal.  For years now, the Rural Studio has been stepping to the plate and proving that there is a morality still alive and well in the work we do.

Samuel "Sambo" Mockbee (Courtesy Citizen Architect)

Sambo, a native son of Alabama, held the belief that architecture isn’t just about the all-white, multimillion dollar, designy pieces that land on the cover of Record or the in the New York Times.  Architecture for him was about making your own corner of the world better than how you found it.  That is something I think we should all remind ourselves from time to time.  Since the program got off the ground, more than 80 projects have been completed in this very neglected part of the American South.  Sambo and his students experienced the most pure form of design/build there ever was as they worked on small single family homes, community churches, and open air markets throughout the years.  Sadly, Sambo left us in 2001 after a long fight against leukemia.  His program still lives on, and students from Auburn University still venture into Hale County to take part in the Rural Studio.

Ever since I was first shown the incredible work of Sambo and his students I’ve secretly wanted to win the Mega-Millions and head off into the woods with them, doing work for a client base that truly appreciates the gift that architecture and design can provide.  In the meantime, I’ll just have to keep Sambo’s story fresh in the back of my head as a reminder that there is more to what we do than paperwork and timecards.

P.S.  The work of the Rural Studio has been the subject of a several documentaries, one of which is titled “Citizen Architect” and it’s PBS debut will be made on August 23rd.  See the links below for further information about “Citizen Architect” and other interesting Rural Studio information, podcasts, etc.

• “Citizen Architect” Website
• PBS Site for “Citizen Architect” with a brief interview of the film’s Director and Producer
• Speaking of Faith – Rural Studio: An Architecture of Decency Podcast
• Speaking of Faith Slideshow featuring many of the Rural Studio projects
• An Essay by Sambo Mockbee

One thing we have learned from doing theStudio is that there are many of us who share the same experiences.  In the hope that this might help more people, or at least cause you to think about your place in this profession, we are reposting my response here.  Names have been changed to protect the innocent.

Here’s to good people and good architecture!

I graduated from Washington State University in 2002 with an naab b.arch, and just left the profession all together. I was sick of being treated like shit. I contacted the NCARB coordinator here in Washington a month ago thinking I might stand to deal with this idiot occupation in a year or two if I had the strength. And they pointed me to the NCARB web site, God knows I was having a hell of a time finding it with google.

My question is, is this still an idiot occupation, where people are treated like shit and forced to make video games all day long, or has it actually changed any? Or would you recommend that I flush my degrees down the toilet where they belong?

-Frustrated

Here is my response:

Frustrated,

First off, thank you for contacting me. I’m not sure where or how your found my information, but I’m happy to be of service. Your email caught me off guard and I didn’t really know how to respond to it. Secondly, the questions you’re asking are important ones, and they’re questions that many professionals face from time to time throughout their career, be it architecture or not. However, It’s really up to you in the end if this whole architecture thing is something you want to stick with and navigate as your professional career path.

I understand your frustration, I hear where you’re coming from, but I’d caution you on throwing away a degree and a profession as a whole, solely based on what it sounds like to be some pretty negative past experiences. Your hostility towards the profession would certainly be reason enough to walk away entirely. Yet, I would also ask you what brought you to architecture to begin with? If you’re passion indeed lies somewhere within this profession, then you’d be doing yourself a great disservice if you walk away, disgruntled out of anger.

Honestly, this is a hard profession, it’s not easy, but then again it’s not supposed to be easy. The practice of Architecture is comparable to that of Law or Medicine, which are both equally rigorous and employ their moments of “being treated like shit.” But this is also a great profession, filled with integrity and purpose.

Ultimately, you are the master of your own destiny. If you truly believe that this is an “idiot occupation”, then by all means flush your education and walk away. Because truthfully, coming from me as someone who loves this profession and is sticking it out, I would personally prefer to be working alongside people that enjoy what they’re doing. I’m not saying it’s easy, or every architecture firm is awesome and inspiring, I’m not saying it’s sunshine and roses every day, but what occupation is? But maybe that’s fundamentally where you and I differ, because where you view this as an “idiot occupation” I see a professional career and an institution based in creativity, design, community, fellowship and professionalism.

Then again, maybe things are different up there in Washington! Just kidding Frustrated, I love Washington!! But all kidding aside, it sounds like you have some personal decisions to make, and I may or may not be able to help you with that.

All I can tell you is what I know in my short professional career after graduating from Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo here in California, and my own personal experience. I enjoy my job, and there are many days where I even love it. I work with amazing, talented, intelligent people that are willing to teach me what they know and listen to my questions and opinions. I chose to be active in professional organizations where I can meet other inspiring people, build my personal and professional network, and stay plugged into the building community. I genuinely and whole heartedly enjoy buildings, be that learning about them, observing them, studying them or being involved in their creation. I can tell you, without a doubt, that some of the best people I know and choose to surround myself with, are people from architecture and the practice of architecture. I have respect for this profession and seek out those people, firms, events and opportunities which further the positive advancement of architecture and all it entails. I also believe in this profession and the power that it can have when positive people choose to practice architecture with integrity as stewards of the public’s health, safety and general welfare.

So you tell me Frustrated, do YOU want to flush your degree down the toilet where you think it belongs? Do you want to be treated like shit? Do you want to be forced to make video games all day long? Do you want architecture to be an idiot occupation? I don’t want any of those things for myself or anyone else, do you? So, as a current employee and future architect, I chose to make sure that things don’t happen in my place of employment or with individuals that I manage or those that manage my own work.

Food for thought. Take it or leave it. Let me know what you think and how you feel. I’m happy to talk more with you if you’re interested. Or you can write me off as a crazed-architecture-type. If anything, you asked and I responded openly and honestly, so as a representative for a small portion of the profession I hope I helped you out in some way. If you’re interested in hearing about other opinions and great things happening in architecture, check out the weekly podcast that I co-host for more perspective, who knows maybe it’ll even bring you a few laughs:

Keep me posted.

Take care.

Haley

Pop Century Resort at Walt Disney World

For many years now when I see a building that attempts to be something its not, or is outlandishly playful or misshapen I call it “Disney Architecture”.  The term isn’t meant to be derogatory towards the architects Disney has employed over the years, including Michael Graves and Frank Gehry, but more a reflection on my own affinity for honest, practical design.

Disney has been a master of using design to create illusions, whether it is the forced perspective of main street and castles in it’s theme parks, or the amazing synthetic stone and wood that it creates its attractions with.

One of my favorite blogs, Imagineering Disney, recently posted an article that highlights the worst of the worst Disney architecture:  The Era of Big and Tacky.  Michael Graves’ Swan and Dolphin hotels have received some criticism, but it is a masterpiece compared to some of the weirdness Disney has built in recent years.

On my Google search last night the first link, as is typical with Google results, was a link to the Wikipedia entry on Architecture.  Next we had the Architectural Record, the AIA, Architecture Magazine, and About.com’s architecture page.   Not until the sixth link on the page did we start to see something that might jump out to a non architectural professional, GreatBuildings.com.  The only news item highlighted on the page was about computer programing architecture.

Architecture - Aug 5th Google Search

As I was watching So You Think You Can Dance, I next searched for the word “Dance”.  What a contrast!  There were ads for dance lessons and then the first links were for Wikipedia, the hit dance television show “So You Think You Can Dance”, Dance.net, image, video, and news results, and then a map to local dance studios.

Dance - Aug 5th Google Search

I then performed similar searches for “fashion”, “art”, and “music”.

Fashion - Google Search

Art - Google Search

Music - Google Search

These three searches returned consumer focused links and varying degrees of multimedia and news results.  Fashion was surprisingly lacking some of the multimedia, but the links were still consumer based and not industry organizations.

Also surprising were the number of results for each search:

• Music: 1.81 billion pages
• Art: 1.28 billion pages
• Fashion: 413 million pages
• Architecture: only 213 million pages!  11% of the pages that music returned.

In contrast to dance, fashion, art, and music, I found the Google results for Architecture so uninspiring because without digging deeper the first results were for stuffy industry organizations and magazines,  there were no news results about the exciting things happening in architecture, and there were NO pictures of amazing buildings.  A Google search for “Buildings” returns more multi-media, but the first link is for the USGBC; while it’s a great organization, their web page is… boring.

So what does this tell us?  To me it’s a perfect reflection of how the public perceives architecture.  While movies often glamorize the Architect as the artist working late into the night building models and drawing pretty pictures, most people think that Architects and architecture are out of reach and are only accessible to the rich and famous.  HGTV has brought interior and landscape design to the masses, but Architects are rarely featured.

So what’s the difference between dance, music and art and architecture?  Well, a lot of things, but these are things that I think we should work on:

• Most people think an Architect can’t help them, they can do it themselves.  Most people also think they can sing and dance, but they appreciate talent when they see it.  It’s much more difficult to identify a talented Architect.
• Architecture is looked at as being a profession for mathematicians and engineers, not artists.  Architecture in reality, is for artists, scientists, mathematicians and engineers.
• Architecture is only recognized when it is extravagant, expensive, or over the top.  Pop culture celebrates bad dancers and singers and amazing dancers and singers… and everyone in between.  Really well designed average cost buildings are rarely recognized.
• Architects are rarely associate with their work.  People have amazing abilities to recognize a song by name and artist but people rarely think about who designed their favorite buildings.  That awesome library downtown, that slick looking pedestrian bridge, who designed them?

So, why do I care what people think about architecture?  Well, that will have to be a topic for another day.

The 362,987 square foot building features an underground public parking lot, hundreds of computers, an auditorium, and “the book spiral” that allows visitors to traverse the entire book collection all on one continuous “floor” that spirals over 5 stories.  I found the entire structure to be amazing in both form and function.  Practical details like having floor air registers and waterless urinals are complimented by having text embossed flooring, and vertical circulation identified with a consistent bright yellow.

During my visits on June 27th and 28th I overheard an elderly woman comment that being in the building was giving her an anxiety attack.  I would agree that the building as a whole can seem a bit overwhelming, it is very different from the traditional library.  However, I found the building to be exciting and invigorating.  The building draws you to explore it and discover.  I think libraries as a whole can be very compartmentalized, but the spaces in Seattle Central Library were very connected not just horizontally but vertically as well.  I was also surprised by the numerous intimate areas that were created on balconies, and in glazed niches.  There were many places that I could see myself sitting for hours just reading.

Overall I found the building very impressive.

(Photo essay after the break)

His thesis is summarized on the last slide with the words:

Perhaps to everyone’s surprise, [green roofs] have turned into planning tools to help put buildings where no building has gone before, are radically changing the architectural form of buildings, the way architects present buildings and the respective roles of architects and landscape architects.

He then gives this dire warning:

Let’s just be vigilant to ensure that [green roofs] are not misused and brought into disrepute by using them as excuses to put buildings in places they shouldn’t be, just because they are green.

I don’t see the problem.  When can a green roof be misused?  Maybe if you populate it with killer bees, but in the words of Mr. Molina, “Green is good.”

I have long been fascinated by “green” roofs.  As a child, my sister and I would make forts and I would throw dirt and weeds on the roof.  I had plans for a vast subterranean playhouse with a dirt roof (at the time we lived in the desert and didn’t know what green was).  I loved how Tolkin’s hobbits created the shire; where thier homes were burrowed in the dirt.  I think I have subconsciously set that as an ideal for some time.

An Unexpected Morning Visit - Ted Nasmith

I have been a long time proponent of “green” Architecture, not because of an altruistic desire to save the planet, but because I believe that the principles of sustainable and “green” architecture make for buildings and environments that are more comfortable, practical, and usable.

A problem I see with a number of “green” proponents is that they feel that unless you are being “green” for the right reasons then you are doing something wrong.  Greenwashing is a term that is often used to describe this behavior.

An anonymous commentor on another TreeHunger article about green roofs highlights this point:

I’ve had a practical, enjoyable, productive roof garden for 5 yrs, made for the right reasons but I totally agree with your essential criticism.  Political correctness, naivete combined with raw greed is driving most of these developments with long term detriment for truly sustainable efforts

What is the “right reason” for having a green roof / roof garden?  If someone is doing something that is going to make a more energy efficient, usable building, whether the motivation is to make money or save the planet, isn’t it a good thing?  Or is the real complaint that planning commissions are being “tricked” into supporting projects just because they appear to be green?

I think the design community needs to support good design, risk taking, and building and construction practices that will enhance our communities.   Questioning peoples motives, judgment, or intelligence isn’t helpful.

Keep building those green roofs, live roofs, roof gardens, or whatever you feel like calling it.

Besides enjoying the stunning photographs, Matthew’s words made me think about a theme that has surfaced again and again among architectural thinkers:

Why do we frequently perceive the creations of the past to be superior to our own in the present?

Predjamski grad, Slovenia (photograph by JumpinJack)

I think there are many reasons why today’s architecture may be perceived as lesser then the past and I would like to explore a few of them.

1. We have placed limits on ourselves. The people of the past were able to carve out massive caves and place stone monuments all over islands because they wanted to and there was no one to stop them.  I find it ironic that the WebEcoist posted a piece on how man has desecrated natural caves.  Our modern environmental sensibilities would never allow a developer to carve up a natural cave.  If you want to do that sort of thing you better be prepared for decades of EIRs and legal battles.
2. The economics don’t allow for it. Ancient cultures often united for common architectural goal.  Stonehenge, the Egyptian Pyramids, and the great cities of ancient America come to mind.  If you can mobilize a society for one specific goal you can accomplish amazing things.  Today we don’t have the same collective will for great architecture, and when we do, as in the case of the the Freedom Tower in NY, we don’t have absolute leadership to organize and direct the work.  There have been a few exceptions that I can think of in recent times; the Mormon pioneers of the early 1800 worked collectively to erect their early temples, and the Hoover Dam on the Colorado River where massive government direction and resources allowed for this project to be completed.
3. Skilled labor is harder to find. I’m really not sure if this is entirely true  since I don’t have any statistics comparing the percentage of skilled labor anciently to today, but I think in general terms the quality of craftsmanship in modern construction is in decline.  In the United Sates we don’t have an apprentice system or any formal way for craftsmen to pass down there skills.  The majority of construction workers today tend to have general skill sets and not a mastery of any particular trade.

4. 

   Burj Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

   We look around today and see all of our current creations, the good, and the bad. We know from archaeological evidence that man has always built a lot.  The majority of ancient architecture was made of mud bricks or wood that has been washed away over time.  What remains are the monuments, the temples, the grand architectural statements.  I think that in a thousand years we will look back on today’s architecture with the same awe and reverence as we do to our predecessors of thousands of years ago.  All of the rubbish architecture will have been cleared away leaving only our grand statements, our monuments.  The people in the future will say, how did they build all of that without holographic modelers and construction robots?  We know from archaeological evidence that man has always built a lot.  The majority of ancient architecture was made of mud bricks or wood that has been washed away over time.  What remains are the monuments, the temples, the grand architectural statements.  I think that in a thousand years we will look back on today’s architecture with the same awe and reverence as we do to our predecessors of thousands of years ago.  All of the rubbish architecture will have been cleared away leaving only our grand statements, our monuments.  The people in the future will say, how did they build all of that without holographic modelers and construction robots?

Is the architecture of yesterday superior to our own by”leaps and bounds”?  In some ways I think so.  But I sure would like to see a medieval lord erect a 2,684 foot skyscraper.

The Gherkin, old vs. new

Yesterday’s British press was rife with stories about the Prince and his architecture views, it was as if he had committed a great sin against humanity just by threatening to again express his views on architecture.  Yet, for Architects, the Prince really has committed an unforgivable crime.  In 1984, he was invited to present the Royal Gold Medal for Architecture to the Indian architect Charles Correa, instead of giving a simple toast and presenting Correa with his medal he lambasted the state of current British architecture.  All of this occurred at the 150th anniversary of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA).  So, now with the news that the prince was again to speak at the RIBA, and the release to the media of portions of his speech, he has reignited the flames.  What the prince doesn’t realize is that Architects more than anything hate to be critiqued, especially by those not in the profession.  In Architecture “everyone is an expert”, and that’s one thing Architects can’t stand.

Is Prince Charles really a living Ellsworth Toohey?  Is his mission to stamp out the original, level the playing field, discourage innovation, risk taking and profit?  Does he believe in designing only for the public good and keeping the architecture profession in the glory days of porticoes and Georgian design?  His speeches, books, and Architecture Institute give that impression, but the results have been much different.

Since Charles’ speech 25 years ago Britain has become renowned for some of the most modern structures in the world and architects like Zaha Hadid, Norman Foster, Renzo Piano, Daniel Libeskind, and Frank Gehry have all left their mark on the British soil.  Iconic structures like the Gherkin, National Space Centre, Selfridges in Birmingham, the Lloyd’s Building,  and the Millenium Dome stand in resolute defiance to the Prince.

Selfridges in Birmingham

The actual speech made by the Prince last night didn’t live up to the hype.  There were no attacks on famous Architectural icons but rather he gave a conciliatory, softer toned encouragement to British architects to embrace harmony and nature instead of modernity and technology with a focus on the effects architecture has on climate change.  The result?  Most likely a truce for now.

What are we to make of a Prince who is, it seems, at war with Architectural modernity?  Architectural beauty, like all beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.  Everyone will have their own interpretation of what is good and bad, and no one can tell another person what they should like.  The Prince is no different, and as long as he is not imposing a strict architectural style on the nation I think he has all the right in the world to call Architects out on what he sees is poor work.  I find the planning commission member and the city staff planner a much scarier and bigger hindrance to architectural creativity then Prince Charles.  However, the character Ellsworth Toohey never made any policy, never signed any laws, yet through the power of public opinion he had great sway over the architectural designs of his day.  That is where I would issue a warning to the Prince.  You can have your opinions, but remember that they are yours and there is a good change you are wrong; then again, there is a good chance the rest of us are wrong as well.